Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

The statement "I am who I am" has religious significance

This is interesting, but this page is long enough and WP:NOTFORUM exists as policy. NW (Talk) 22:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am not advocating that this be included in the article (unless it becomes an issue). But....within The Bible, it borders on sacrilege for a person to use this term when referring to them self. It is reserved for God and God alone. See the article I Am that I Am. "In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH ("I AM HE WHO IS", "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM WHO I AM"), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery." Not sure where this will go...maybe nowhere. Buster Seven Talk 15:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Not sure what you mean. This is a commonly used phrase and has no religious meaning by default. Did he say so in a religious context?--TMCk (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC) What I mean is that if Trump had said this 2017 years ago, The Jewish elders may have demanded he be "stoned to death". The Bible (i.e. Torah), only truly has one thing that is really considered blasphemous and that is equating oneself with God, setting yourself up as God. "When Jesus described Himself as the “I AM”, in other words equating Himself with the God of the Old Testament that spoke to Moses, the Jews wanted to stone him because they believed it to be blasphemous. One of the reasons Jesus was crucified is because he basically proclaimed that He is God, that He is the “I AM”". I'm just sharing what came to my mind the second I heard Trump say, "I am what I am". I'm quite aware the phrase has lost its power over the past 200 decades. Wikipedia is a source of information. I'm just passing on some information to those that may not be aware. No. He did not say it in a religious content. But, some people (like me) may hear it in a religious content. Considering how careless he is with what he says, I'm sure Trump had no idea his word choice had many additional meanings. Buster Seven Talk 19:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Not worth mentioning. Yes, this is what God told Moses, but it's not an automatic connection to say that is the reference. It's especially not something that would jump to most people's minds in this secular age. He may just as well have been quoting Popeye. "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam; I'm Popeye, the Sailor Man!" In fact, he may have been more familiar with Popeye than with Moses. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC) I don't want to mention it in the article; just here on the talk page. Whenever I talk about Wikipedia in RL, I point out to my audience that a lot of important, useful and interesting information that, for whatever reason, didn't make it into the article can be found on EVERY articles talk page. I'm aware of Mr. Popeye. In fact I have his name tattooed on my right bicep. Mom, of course, is on the left. Buster Seven Talk 19:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

Those images featured on this Wiki article should be professional, relevant and connected to the related text i.e.some must be exchanged or just removed. Encyclopedic standards! RudiLefkowitz (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Which images at which locations are you referring to? User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This editor added a good image from the convention...but he placed it right after the Lead. I moved it a few days ago so it would be connected to the related text. A good case of not practicing what you preach. Buster Seven Talk 07:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump/Second Amendment comment

This clearly needs to be added to the article. Yesterday, Trump was discussing Hillary and the future Supreme Court picks and stated Hillary would take away the second amendment if she won. There would be nothing left to be done, unless Second Amendment supporters did something. [1], It seems to me he's subtly suggesting something, he subsequently denied it on Hannity here. It must be added. The question is how best to write it, source it, and position it in the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wall Street Journal NYTimes Los Angeles Times CNN

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

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

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

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

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

Spin-off article supported. Be sure to pay a visit to News Corpses comprehensive compilation of a 'Trump Bullshitopedia' before proceeding with this overwhelming endeavor. That site contains plenty of goodies to consider. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did provide an RS above.[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC). Hello?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's what Trump actually said...

Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick… (CROWD BOOING) If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. But — but I’ll tell you what. That will be a horrible day. If — if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now, we’re tied. You see what’s going on.[3]

It takes quite a bit of mind reading to get that he was encouraging 2nd Amendment folks to assassinate Hillary from that. At least some, if not most, mainstream media are attributing that interpretation to his critics.[4]CFredkin (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

I would add Dan Rather to the critic category. He was discredited as an unbiased journalist long ago.[5]CFredkin (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

By discredited, I mean that he was "eased out" of his job as anchor at CBS News after pushing a "fatally flawed" report on Bush.[6]CFredkin (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That, too, is not the meaning of "discredited". SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Proposed final draft - please comment in section below

At a campaign stop in Wilmington, North Carolina on August 9, Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton wants to “essentially abolish the Second Amendment.” He said if she appoints judges to the Supreme Court, there would be nothing that could be done, and added, “Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know.” Clinton Campaign spokesman Robby Mook released a statement that said, “. . .what Trump is saying is dangerous," and that a person seeking the presidency "should not suggest violence in any way." Trump’s comment sparked immediate condemnation from Democrats and gun control advocates who accused him of suggesting violence against Clinton or liberal jurists. Maine Senator Susan Collins, who is not voting for either candidate, said she did not believe Trump was inciting violence but said that Trump only had himself to blame for people assuming he was inciting violence because of his consistent ‘stream’ of inappropriate comments.

Politifact noted that some people saw it as a joke while others took it as a threat..The Trump campaign responded with a statement that attributed the comment to the great political power that Second Amendment people have. House Speaker Paul Ryan said Trump should clarify what seemed to him a joke gone wrong. Secret Service spokesperson Cathy Milhoan said in a statement that the U.S. Secret Service was aware of Trump's comments. Hillary Clinton responded to Trump's comments by saying, "words matter," and that Trump's comments were part of a long line of casual comments from Trump that had "crossed a line."

References
References

This is clearly just pro-Trump POV-pushing. There should be a section on Trump's pattern of advocacy of violence. Starting with his ""I love the old days—you know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks, ... I'd like to punch him in the face." statement and ending with this one. Also, please stop moving my edits to locations where I did not make them. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

comments/suggestion

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

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

Yes. I don't see why it shouldn't also be there, especially this. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@CFredkin:, My comment was directed at Gouncbeatduke. Who keeps moving his comment and disrupting the thread. Not you. Apologies if I placed it wrong. And I will rmv the Dan Rather bit as looking at it, he's not really at the top of the commentator class at the moment, like say Bill Kristol, etc. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The weight of RS reporting about this matter views Trumps words as a call to violence. I don't think we need so many x said this y said that z responded A bits and pieces here. We need a succinct summary. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point, Specifico. I agree. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Editor SW3's draft. As to Editor CFreds concern about relying on interpretations of political opponents, Elizabeth Warrens comment can be removed. I'm sure it will be easy to find a conservative republican that will admit the seriousness of Trumps suggestion. Has anyone at Fox-News had anything to say? Buster Seven Talk 18:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC) As requested, I still support the section Comment about Second Amendment and Hillary Clinton . Buster Seven Talk 14:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - if we note Trump's claim that Clinton wants to "essentially abolish the Second Amendment" (and I think we should, given that he's made this claim repeatedly) we must also note that this claim is false (see PolitiFact and the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org, which rate this claim as false and a distortion). I would drop Warren and Kristol, but keep Rather and Mook. Neutrality^talk 19:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about Hillary and the abolishing the 2nd comment. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Kristol is one of the conservatives. LIke the sine qua non of conservatives or something. So that side seems worth. Okay on no Elizabeth Warren and keep Mook, but I'm going to drop Rather because CFredkin is against that. Rather really isn't in the game anymore, so to speak, though I also did like his comment which is why I added it. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that he isn't in the game anymore an argument for including him? Neutrality^talk 19:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• The draft is a good start, but I'm inclined to agree with SPECIFICO. Perhaps the first three sentences of the draft could be followed with a summary of the reactions; something like "His comments were perceived by many as a veiled threat, but some the Trump campaign and some of his supporters said the remarks referred to the political power of second amendment people". I do think Dan Rather's commentary is worth mentioning, and possibly others like Joe Scarborough, which has been widely cited. Elizabeth Warren's comments probably do not belong. I agree with Neutrality that Trump lying about Clinton's position on the second amendment should be noted. - MrX 19:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of Joe Scarborough's comment this morning about the Rubicon. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Specifico too. I'm working on all these points and will put them here in a bit. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So let's see... we're planning to include commentary from Clinton's campaign, Dan Rather (who was basically fired for biased reporting about a GOP president), and Bill Kristol (who is rabidly anti-Trump). No bias there at all...CFredkin (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Not Dan Rather. If you want other commentators, please tell me. We don't have to have Bill Kristol, I just know they keep banging on about what a conservative he is. I saw his tweet and thought to use it. We don't have to, but we do need to add Hillary's response. Find other comments and I will add them here. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

How about Hannity. Is he conservative enough? Buster Seven Talk 20:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, yes. I totally forgot about him. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We ought to concentrate on undisputed historical facts, and drop all of this commentator-said-thus-and-such or at least cut it way back. Focus on what Trump has said, focus on what the Clinton people have said in response including this undisputed material. If accusations are included, include any denial by the Trump people. All of the third-party commentary (on all sides) is mostly disputed, less relevant, and less helpful. Readers deserve basic facts.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but it's a bit more helpful to also give me a link or two for what you'd like, rather than having me go Google it. This way you can sort which source seems to fit what you've got in mind. And I do appreciate the Youtube link. That was very helpful. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an official link instead of the unofficial YouTube link. The pertinent part starts at about 15:00, and a little later is the video of Trump making the 2d amendment remark. The interview is with a Clinton adviser and surrogate, which I think is more pertinent for our purposes than Dan Rather and Bill Kristol who are not with either candidate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I read Trump's quote and understood that he simply said pro-2nd amendment voters would stop her from getting elected, by not voting for her. This includes Democrats who support the right to bear arms. I do not believe Trump was saying anything else. I think the media is reading too much into this for the sake of click baits and increased ad revenues. Could Wikipedia please be more reasonable?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We are putting together an edit. Please feel free to contribute sources and rationale for inclusion and I will include them. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s: What matters is what the range of reliable sources report; your personal beliefs and understandings are irrelevant here. (This has, I believe, been explained to you before, repeatedly). Neutrality^talk 21:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Just trying to be reasonable here. I think we are getting lost in clickbait frenzy.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We should also mention that the U.S. Secret Service got involved. [7] [8] [9] Another historical first.- MrX 21:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Since we seem to have decided here that including Clinton's interpretations of Trump's comments is fair game. I wanted to give folks a heads up that I've proposed content be added to Clinton's Campaign article with Trump's response to Clinton's recent "short circuit" remark. Since I know some the of the editors here have also edited Hillary's Campaign article in the past, I know you'll want to rush over there and support my proposal. Right?CFredkin (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Just read the final draft. We would need to include two more responses from people saying he meant votes, nothing else. Also, isn't Trump under secret service protection as a presidential candidate? Ergo, are they not already aware of everything he says (if they're standing right beside him)? The last sentence could probably be removed. Just because the media is reading too much into this, doesn't mean Wikipedia has to. Let's try to be fair.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• No you do not. In fact no RS reports he meant votes. They all report that he and his surrogates tried to deny the threat by claiming that he meant votes while his language can only be parsed to refer to the contingency that Clinton is elected and empowered to nominate to the Court. WP policy says that we must reflect the weight of what RS say, not give "equal time" like a radio station.
• There is still too much detail and too much he said she said style content in the draft. How about "Trump suggested his gun rights activist supporters could prevent Clinton from nominating justices who they feel would weaken their rights. Politicians, the media and the Secret Service stated concern that this was a call to violence. Trump and his supporters denied this. Not necessarily these words, but that's about the right length and substance. SPECIFICO talk

User:SPECIFICO: This sounds very reasonable to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, more detailed sources are appearing, such as more recent CNN story. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7, CFredkin, Neutrality, Zigzig20s, MrX, SPECIFICO, Gouncbeatduke, and Anythingyouwant: Please comment on proposed final draft above. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. It gives way too much weight to the POV that people should have understood Trump's comments to be about the power of unification. The story here is that he made a very inappropriate comment that was widely perceived as a dog whistle that second amendment supporters might be able to take to use their guns to solve a political problem after the election. Giuliani and Collins comments do not belong.- MrX 22:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. The people who are interpreting Trump's comment to be a veiled assassination threat are his political opponents. Why should they be given more weight than folks are aren't his political opponents. Collins has stated that she's not planning to vote for either Trump or Hillary, so she could be the most credible of all.CFredkin (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not ridiculous. Joe Scarborough is not a political opponent. Jordan Fabian is not a political opponent> He says "Trump’s comments were widely condemned as reckless.". Thomas L. Friedman is not a political opponent. Ron Fournier is not a political opponent. Chris Shays is not a political opponent. - MrX 23:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is the ability of those that are claiming other than a threat of violence are some how held up as Trump mind-readers. The momentary Trump pause during the subject quote is interesting. Many of us might wonder what he was thinking at that moment . Truth is, only Trump knows...and he's not talking (or tweeting) Buster Seven Talk 23:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC) .

Okay, what about keeping Collins and then following with Hillary. I thought Hillary's follow that well. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, including statements from both Hillary and her campaign spokesperson is outrageously undue.CFredkin (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@CFredkin:, please re-read the entire WP:NPOV policy page. I think you are misunderstanding how we balance diverse points of view on WP. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please read Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Do you see any interpretations of her statements by Trump or his campaign included there? If you want to have any credibility asserting that it's appropriate here, then you can support this proposal. Otherwise the stance your taking here is hypocrtical, plain and simple.CFredkin (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we have both campaigns and both candidates. I deleted a comment from Bernice King. I mentioned the Democrats and gun control peeps and added the New York Times source. It looks more balanced to me now. Paul Ryan's comment seems weird but he's the Speaker so I felt I had to add him. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@CFredkin: The Hillary Clinton article is not the standard we use for editing on WP. There's a link that will tell you about this, but I forget it. Maybe some more experienced editor can refer you to the page that explains we don't point to some other article instead of policy and practice. I'll also caution you not to make personal remarks here. You know, DS and all that... SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I believe you're refering to the enlightening essay on Other stuff exists. @CFredkin: Be sure to read this essay carefully before pushing any more "But in the article on Clinton's campaign..." POV nonsense. Two wrongs don't make a right, basically. If you have any quarrel with the Clinton article, please raise the issue there and not here. Thank you very much. Gaeanautes (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Although I personally disagree with it, I think Collin's statement should be present. If there is any mention that this was a "joke", there should be a quote from someone talking about how inappropriate it is for a presidential candidate to "joke" about assassination. Objective3000 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find a rebuttal of Ryan's bad joke comment. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added it to the article here. It's not perfect, feel free to edit it. I've worked on it off and on all day and I'm burned out on it. I tried to make it as balanced as possible without going too long. Thanks everybody for the input. Remember what Lincoln said, "You can't please all the people all the time." SW3 5DL (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If we include any third party commentary, it should be from people who are objective. Perhaps Collins is in that category, but I would prefer people who are not politicians. I suggested Scarborough because he has supported Trump until recently.- MrX 23:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Scarborough has rather dramatically changed his language is interesting (and not surprising IMHO given circumstances). I'm not certain that it raises him to the level of an objective source. I'm not sure what is an objective source at this point. What we need is more than one RS that fits this into the overall tenor of the campaign. People like David Gergen come to mind as an RS for something like this. (I don't know if he has commented -- just throwing out a name.) Objective3000 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't need unbiased sources. We don't know what's in their minds. We need the near-unanimous opinion of sources who are not Trump or his employees. In addition to the statement today by Joe Scarborough, his show also contained statements by Republican Michael Steele, who had steadfastly refused to reject Trump, and apolitical commentators Mark Halperin, Mike Barnacle, and Jon Meacham. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't normally watch -- but happened to see the show this morning, and I agree that the sentiments were unanimous and forcefully behind the concept that Trump's words were way out of line, and clearly not simply an appeal for votes. Objective3000 (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Gergen would be an objective commentator. I believe he appeared on a CNN panel sometime in the past roughly 24 hours.- MrX 01:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that television can ever be objective. We should stick to mainstream newspapers.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

David Gergen is a former aide to Bill Clinton. His objectivity may be in question. Buster Seven Talk 06:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

He also served under Nixon, Ford and Reagan and remains a Republican. Objective3000 (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like he is a good choice then. Buster Seven Talk 13:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No. We review sources, evaluate them and then reflect the consensus. We don't pick a commentator first and then look up whether he's spoken on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 13:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, like Gergen. Objective3000 (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Gergen's comments were cited by Der Spiegel, but I couldn't find them anywhere else. In lieu of that, I included a highly-cited comment from Thomas Friedman. Are there any objections on the basis of objectivity or journalistic skill of this source?- MrX 15:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw that but he says, "This is exactly what got Yitzak Rabin assassinated." And my first thought was, "But Donald Trump didn't comment on Yitzhak Rabin back then so how does that fit? Why can't we use Der Spiegel? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3 makes a good point. Why not use RS's outside the U.S.? It would seem that they are far removed from the American political/media wrestling match and provide a less strident analysis. Buster Seven Talk 16:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: and @Buster7: I didn't mean that we can't use Der Spiegel—in fact it's a great source. What I meant was that since other publication have not cited Gergen's comments, they may fail WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 18:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The existing content is more than adequate to address this issue. Adding more 3rd party commentary would definitely violate WP:UNDUE.CFredkin (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The "existing content" was inserted before actual consensus was reached here on talk page. My improvements [10] more accurately reflects sources and NPOV. CFredkin, please don't make blanket reverts without discussion "just because you can". I believe you've been warned about that several times already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with MrX above that the proposed phrasing bends over way too much to whitewash or justify Trump's comments. It does not represent how the quote is/was portrayed in reliable sources (whether some editors consider these sources "biased" or whatever is entirely beside the point) which is that it was indeed an encouragement to violence, although worded in a way which would give Trump deniability when confronted, else that it was just a brainless thing to say, but still a threat to violence.

The purpose of the text should not be to make excuses for Trump. Just describe what he said and what sources said about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And just to be clear - if the commentators are sufficiently notable (like for example ex CIA head, secret service spokesman, prominent journalists, senators etc) then yes, we most definitely DO need to cover the reaction. As long as they're discussed in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And one more thing - the standard for inclusion here is NOT "objectivity" of the commentator (it's not up to us to make those judgement calls, that's what NPOV means), it's "notability". If Ghengis Khan or Nicolo Machiavelli or Adolf Hitler rose from the grave and said "Man, that Trump he really said something bad", we would put that in. Not because Ghengis Khan, Machiavelli or Hitler are "objective" but because they're notable (also, because them rising from the dead would probably be sort of a big deal) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Yes, wouldn't it be something to have these three characters mentioned by you raise from the grave to comment on Trump's presidential campaign...? However, I think Roman Emperor Nero, Mongol conqueror Timur as well as French revolutionary Maximilien Robespierre should also be allowed to have a say, he-he (chuckle). Gaeanautes (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Always was more of a Saint-Just kind of guy myself, but yes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of 2008 Hillary remark to 2016 Trump remark

I have removed the addition of material to the "Second Amendment people" that says that "Reaction to this incident in 2016 included discussion about Clinton herself allegedly having faced a similar controversy in 2008."

I do not think this is a significant component of the reaction to this event. This may have been raised once by a talking head on a Bloomberg TV show (not even cable news...), but I have not seen the 2008 comments by Clinton reported as being "similar" to the 2016 Trump comments in the mainstream media — probably because the comments are not similar at all. This appears to me to be a cherry-picked clip that just muddies the waters.

And, in any case, if we were to mention the 2008 remark (which we should not), we cannot omit context, e.g.: "Her team quickly explained that Clinton meant to note simply that this was not the first primary campaign to stretch into the summer, not to suggest that Obama might be assassinated. She publicly apologized to the Kennedy family." Trump, of course, has not apologized. Neutrality^talk 15:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Neutrality^talk 15:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton said in 2008 that she would remain in the primary fight because stuff can happen late in the primary season such as a candidate being killed. That's not similar? I guess there were differences, such as Clinton not being a billionaire. Sheesh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think they are similar, and except for a few rather marginal commentators on the right, the comparison has not really caught on. In any case, what relevance does it have? Neutrality^talk 15:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It is self-evident in my opinion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant added a sentence comparing this incident with Hillary in 2008 - although the discussion above, when Anything raised this issue, did not support including it, so this was done without consensus. I see that User:Neutrality beat me to removing it. While I agree with Neutrality's reasoning, my main reason for removing it would have been lack of Reliable Sources. The source listed was a Bloomberg Politics video, with the comment "See video starting at 15:00". When suggesting it above, Anythingyouwant offered a youtube video of a Clinton surrogate denying it. These "find the place in the video" links are not how we do Reliable Sourcing. If there isn't actual, mainstream, published commentary about this comparison, it does not belong here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. For that matter, I have been surprised that no one has connected this comment to Sharron Angle and her repeated calls for "Second Amendment solutions" and "Second Amendment remedies".[11] But current sources haven't brought it up as far as I can see, so we don't include it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, my recollection was that I mentioned the video and was pretty much ignored. If someone replied with an objection, then I apologize for overlooking or forgetting it. I'm certainly not going to edit-war about it. However, may I add that audio-video reliable sources are 100% as valid as text reliable sources? Where do you get the idea they're not?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that audiovisual sources can be as valuable as textual sources. And I don't fault AYW for being bold. But Melanie and MrX are right that this talking point is marginal, not mainstream; the proper weight to accord to it is zero.

@MelanieN:: FYI, the Sharron Angle comparison is in the NYT article. I wouldn't include that, either. Neutrality^talk 16:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not very briefly include both? Mark Halperin is a very distinguished mainstream journalist, and the NYT is not exactly fiction either. I see a non-sequitur here: this stuff hasn't got a lot of coverage and so we should give it zero; in reply, I note that there are no competing views here in that no reliable sources have disputed that the 2008 HRC comment and the Angle comment are relevant, and moreover the reliable source coverage is not zero. It's small but non-zero, so we could very briefly say "The comment by Trump has recently been compared to comments in year X by Sharon Angle and year Y by Hillary Clinton". Us failing to do that misleads readers into thinking Trump has done something completely new.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

One reason, besides the others I already mentioned, is that it's argumentative. Such an analysis might be appropriate for the O'Reilly Factor, but not for an encyclopedia article. It sets up an false equivalence. Trump has done something completely new. Never before has any other presidential candidate ever publicly hinted that second amendment people might be able to do something if Clinton gets to pick her judges. - MrX 17:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The Sharon Angle comment came immediately to my mind. But, I don't think it should be included unless several dispassionate RS make the comparison. The 2008 Hillary comment is completely off-topic. She was giving a reason for staying in a race and citing an historical event to make her point. Objective3000 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• As discussed yesterday, I firmly believe the 2008 comment from Clinton should remain out of the article. It's an inapt comparison, off-topic, and a fringe talking point from Trump surrogates. For the same reason, we should omit President Obama's remarks about bringing a knife to a gunfight.- MrX 15:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI:The first I heard of anyone comparing this incident with Hillary in 2008 was during Rush Limbaugh's radio show yesterday. Then it showed up here. Buster Seven Talk 16:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Linbaugh has also said Obama is the President of the United States, and yet Wikipedia somehow manages to say the same.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

In a difficult complex article already under Discretionary Sanctions, there should not be any hint of snark on the talk page. I'm going to request closer Admin monitoring of this page. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant: I'm going to request that you closely read Matthew 7:6. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"Temporary" ban

AFAICT the word "temporary" when referring to the ban on Muslims does not appear in the actual source [12]. Now, it's true that Trump has said the ban would be in place "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" but it's a pretty clear cut case of OR to turn that into the word "temporary".

For example, if I say "I'm gonna keep smacking you on the head until you perform to my satisfaction by jumping twenty feet into the air" is that "temporary" or "permanent"? The phrase "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" is so ambiguous and open to interpretation that it could mean anything. And it's not our job to interpret Trump's words. Hence, I removed the word "temporary".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added a couple sources to support "temporary".

References

Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that first one sort of makes the same point I did - "without defining a timeframe".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are additional sources: [13],[14].CFredkin (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The ban has pretty much always been described as "temporary," and IMO the word should be restored. It's not necessary to define a time frame; "temporary until some criterion is met" is perfectly valid. "Temporary" is usually included because it clarifies that he did not declare "we should never let Muslims into this country again", in other words, he did not call for a permanent ban. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The "/r/The_Donald subreddit" thread

states:

On July 25, it was announced that Trump would host an AMA on the subreddit during the 2016 Democratic National Convention on July 27.

followed by 4 references. Announcing the announcement seems a waste of space and are 4 references really needed to confirm one announcement. Yesterday the article had 599 references. I would like to remove this sentence and meld it into comments about the event when it happened two days later. Buster Seven Talk 14:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Since it has already happened, the announcement is not worthy of inclusion. The fact that it has occurred is not contentious, so I'm sure one source citation would suffice.- MrX 19:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Order of material in Controversies section

Why are the subsections in reverse chronological order? Shouldn't they be in chronological order, where applicable? Nightscream (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing endorsements

I deleted some extended content about three white supremacists who endorsed Trump's candidacy.[15] Please forgive me if this has been discussed and reached consensus… but my read on encyclopedic standards of POV, weight, notability, and WP:COATRACK are that the simple fact that a controversial person has expressed approval of something, even if sourced, is not enough to warrant its inclusion in the article about the thing. Hypothetically, suppose that terrorists enjoy Coke more than Pepsi. It's interesting, it's salacious, it makes good news copy, but it really has nothing to do with the subject of Coke or Pepsi. In this case, unless the Trump campaign is somehow connected to the endorsements, encouraged them, accepted them, etc. (as in the case of David Duke, where Trump's slow and tepid response was indeed an issue for his campaign), then merely listing controversial people who have endorsed trump is not suitably relevant content for the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. I did rearrange the sentences a little so they would be in chronological order. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements

You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Primaries number of votes

The main Wikipedia Page for Trump is protected, as is the talk page, and I don't know enough about editing or making requests to figure out how to make a request for that page, so I'm hoping this will work. The Presidential Campaign, 2016 section on the main page about Trump, under the Primaries section, says "With nearly 14 million votes, Trump broke the all-time record for winning the most primary votes in the history of the Republican Party." The source for this is https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/08/donald-trump-got-the-most-votes-in-gop-primary-history-a-historic-number-of-people-voted-against-him-too/ which also says: "But Trump also had more votes against him. The giant field of Republican candidates meant that votes in the early primaries were split widely, making it hard for anyone to cobble together a majority. It also appears to have meant that more people came out to vote. So it's not a surprise that Trump also set a record for the most votes cast against the top vote-getter -- or that he won a lower percentage of votes (the pie charts) than anyone since Reagan in 1968." I think it is misleading to state only the part about the most number of votes for and not the part about the most number of votes against. If I hadn't hovered over the source part I would have finished the article assuming that he somehow was the most popular republican nominee in history, but since that sounded fishy to me I wanted to check the source on it and found the second half of the statistic.

Also there is a typo under the section 'Involvement in Politics 1988-2015' 5th paragraph, it says he stated that Obama's grandma 'witnesses' his birth in Kenya but it should be witnessed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.141.177.137 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

C-class, really?

OK, I know this is like a stupid thing to talk about, but HOW is this article C-class. It is huge (unintended reference). To be honest, it's probably going to keep on growing and is a very hot topic. Like, I've seen good articles with half the words that this article has (looking at you, Kesha). So like whatever WikiProjects that preside over this article, can we bump this up to B, at least. With the amount of neutrality in this article (no idea how that was achieved), it pretty much passes all the criteria. This is probably stupid to talk about. Esmost ^πк 01:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

While I'm not necessarily opposing the article's promotion to B class, the size of the article is hardly the largest factor. There's FAs a quarter of the size of this article, and that's okay. Graham (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but the fact that this article is written with such neutrality is impressive, considering it's been vandalised a lot recently. Esmost ^πк 01:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with R/The Donald

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.

---

As some people pointed out at the AfD, while the article may pass WP:GNG, it does not necessarily warrant its own article per WP:NOPAGE. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would have supported deletion, but I see it has already been to AfD with a "no consensus" result. So I support making it a redirect to this article (which already has a section on this topic). --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded. TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded. Buster Seven Talk 20:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yep. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge WP:OSE states that When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The R/The Donald is similar in nature to Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash. Both articles have survived AfD discussions. If the Sanders discussion group is not merged into its presidential campaign article, to preserve consistency, neither should the Trump discussion group be merged into its presidential campaign article. SSTflyer 05:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @SSTflyer: You seem to have completely ignored WP:NOPAGE. That article is a lot more detailed than this one. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know whether a major expansion is possible – if that happens, I wouldn't be opposed to having a separate article. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect that one (R/The_Donald) to this one. No reason that should have its own page. It's just a non-encyclopedic vanity page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge I think you're a bit obsessed with this article, first you tried to remove it, now you are trying to merge it with another one. It's almost like you're trying to censor some kind of information? There have been articles, and there are still articles regarding huge subreddit hubs, this one is the most active of all of them, and is the number one site for discussion of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. I feel as if it is big enough and notable enough to warrant its own article. Kabahaly (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Kabahaly: Woah, assuming bad faith much? And it shouldn't come a surprise that the article was nominated for a merger given that the closer of the AfD specifically stated in his or her closing decision, "Although delete and merge together have a slight edge over keep, we don't have consensus here. Merger discussions can continue on the talk page." I would encourage you to strike your personal attacks against Nyuszika7H. Graham (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• This seems very reasonable. There's not much information contained at the subreddit's page, and what little there is would be more informative tied into information here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge and redirect per WP:NOPAGE. Graham (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge not appropriate for the larger article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect - It's short, ephemeral, thinly sourced, and already covered in this article.- MrX 21:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. More relevant to Reddit than to this article, so it would be better to merge into that one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support - The subreddit has gathered multiple AMAs over the past. Unless more information is given in the article, the article should be merged. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 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.

"Political positions" section

I don't understand why we don't summarize his most important political positions here, instead simply citing the "political positions" article. The Donald Trump article has extensive coverage of his political positions. This is the campaign article, it seems to me it would be even more important to include here. IMO we shouldn't just banish all discussion of the subject to another article. Another oddity: there is extensive discussion of a couple of his political positions in the "early campaign" section. Would people be in agreement with expanding the "political positions" section to summarize major positions? --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the paragraph that's currently included in the Political Positions section could probably be improved. However, the article is tagged for being too long currently. I'm not sure it makes sense to try to represent his major policy positions here in duplication of content in the Political Positions article.CFredkin (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The article has been tagged since [this diff]. Since then 13000 bytes have been added which is an increase of about 5%. Attempts are constantly being made to remove unnecessary or outdated material and abbreviate input where possible. At the current rate it will increase by about 25% to 30% up to mid-November. But I think it is reasonable to predict that a 50% increase in length is not out of the question. While we all need to be brief and concise when inputting, I don't see that any of us will stop adding necessary info. One solution would be cutting the article in half by creating something like Donald Trump presidential '''primary''' campaign, 2016 and rename this article Donald Trump presidential '''general''' campaign, 2016. That would give us plenty of room for the next 2 1/2 months of the campaign. Buster Seven Talk 06:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I would be be in agreement with expanding the "political positions" section to summarize major positions. Buster Seven Talk 13:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hispanic advisory council

User:Volunteer Marek: This edit restored content which states that a member of Trump's Hispanic advisory council "said he will no longer support Trump". I don't believe this is supported by the source. Please post the text from the source which supports the statement here.CFredkin (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"“The ‘National Hispanic Advisory Council’ seems to be simply for optics and I do not have the time or energy for a scam. (...) “I will pray over the next couple of days but it is difficult to [imagine] how I can continue to associate with the Trump campaign,” he added. “I owe my national audience an explanation."

Anyway, I changed the text so there's no ambiguity, but outright removal, as you tried to do is obviously a no-no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In regard to this [16] - I think it's a bit stronger than just "reconsidering their support". The guy called Trump's efforts at outreach a "scam". This is in both sources (and honestly I don't think Politico is much stronger than Vox). So I'm fine with the "reconsidering their support" part, as long as the "scam" part is also in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I added the second source, from which comes the wording that "several" surrogates are "reconsidering" their support. Although the one guy did say "scam", he has not decided whether to withdraw from the advisory board, and his quote is not more notable than many others we are leaving out. There may be further developments, or additional resignations; let's save room for them. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek: The above edit also added a "many" and removed an "all". You didn't mention them in the edit summary of your revert. Do you have an objection to my restoring them? Thx.CFredkin (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: -- "appealing to racists"

RE: this edit. I'm going to AGF and suppose that you have not read the cited sources. They make clear that the previous wording before you changed it, may not be perfect but is clearly what's expressed in the sources, e.g. the first one that discusses "racialized hate speech" addressed to prospective supporters. That is "Appeal" meaning to address, solicit, court etc. Please undo your edit, which entirely changes and misrepresents the meaning of the cited sources. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I will insert "solicit" so that the sentence clearly says what you want it to say, rather than being vague.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

"Vague" is the new "misleading", eh? Thin ice. I actually prefer Anything's corrected version to MrX's. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The text is in violation of WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR. We should not say things such as "Various mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans," since it "creat[es] an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." And determining the extent of those opinions is a matter of judgement that should be sourced rather than be based on our evaluation of every opinion expressed about Trump. Trump's has received sufficient media coverage that we can write an informative article about him and still follow policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion about that. Certainly a declamatory statement in the lede would need very strong support in the article. But just as to the statements within the cited sources, it's very clear to me that the new words are obfuscating what those sources say. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO here, and I've gone back to the stable version until we can talk over the change here. "Appeal to (an impulse/ideology/emotion)..." in the sense used in the sources and in this article is different from "appeals to (a group)." The former phrase means "he has played to X impulse"; the latter phrase means "he is attractive to X group." The senses are related, but not quite the same. See Merriam-Webster. Neutrality^talk 18:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

When we say...Various mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing to racism we start to flirt with having to prove Trump's intent which can easily be deflected by calling his appeal a misinterpretation of his sarcasm or humor. But there any many reliable sources to prove Various mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as an appealing candidate to racists. TFD makes a good point that "we can write an informative article about him and still follow policy and guidelines". Sources abound. Buster Seven Talk 19:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, those particular sources, all 8+ are saying the former, not the latter. It's their opinion, not mind-reading, and it's stated as such. The statement Anything inserted is attributing an emotional attraction to the population of racists, which aside from being a misrepresentation of the sources, also seems at least as tenuous. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Various means "more than one." Some means "an undeterined number." One could say that various Democrats text pictures of their genitals and some Republicans molest young boys, but it would be misleading even if accurate to put that into those parties' articles. TFD (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements by white nationalists and white supremacists

This section mentions that he is endorsed by White Nationalist's and supremacists in the title and the first sentence. Then there's alot of content about the David Duke endorsement but no one else. This seems like a good time to ask "who?" Who are the others? The title mentions them. The first sentence mentions they exist. Then that's it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the first source. Unlike Duke, they are relatively unknown. As long as the source says there is more than one we can say that without necessarily listing them. TFD (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Stormer, Richard B. Spencer, Jared Taylor, Michael Hill (activist), American Freedom Party, and Traditionalist Youth Network these being the relatively unknown.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Black Community

Trump recently began talking to Black America. His rhetoric was/is strong and forceful; talking about crime, poverty, unemployment, inferior education, safety, etc. He was criticized for talking to white audiences about Black neighborhoods. He has made a concerted effort to reach out to black voters but there is no mention of it in the article. Trump has visited black neighborhoods and gone inside black churches but there is no mention in the article. Are we going to stop making entries because some editors claim the article is already to long? The debate is days away. Are we going to ignore that event because the article is too long? Buster Seven Talk 12:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

May not be a bad time to consider consolidating material into a race relations section as a summary, and spin off extended content into a fork. This seems a fairly standard response to the issue of omitting otherwise WP:DUE content based mainly on article length constraints. TimothyJosephWood 12:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

USA Freedom Kids

Not sure if the USA Freedom Kids should be mentioned in this article or not, but all are invited to help expand the article about this dancing girl group, who are known for performing at a Trump rally earlier this year. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Mention could be made in the "Contractors that didn't get paid" thread. Buster Seven Talk 07:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Commander-In-Chief Forum

The first Commander-In-Chief Forum was held last night and from all sides it was a success as to its intended purpose. There is a brief mention of its preparation at Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America but there is certainly enough to create an article separate from the IAVA. I mention it here in advance of any editing here in the hope that a wider-scoped article can be produced, on its own, and we can forego the problem of length here: a few sentences here with a link to the new article. I guess what I'm trying to create is dealing with the "IAVA/Commander-in-Chief thread is too long" conversation before we even have it. There will be 4 debates. We can do the same with those. The point I have tried to make a few times in threads above is that so much of the article deals with all the highs and lows of the primary. Now that the general election is in full swing, what is happening is much more important and should be discussed and incorporated into the article. I feel stuff is being left out on the curb because the garage is full.Buster Seven Talk 20:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"from all sides it was a success as to its intended purpose"? I don't know that Matt Lauer agrees with that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The intended purpose of the forum was for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to answer questions from the moderator and veterans focusing on national security, military affairs, and veterans issues. A live audience of veterans and service members were provided the opportunity to raise issues of importance to their community and to initiate subsequent conversations and inclusion in the marketplace of ideas. To that end they achieved their purpose. I have begun a sandbox to create an article. I could use a hand. Buster Seven Talk 03:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Sub-thread added under Military thread. Buster Seven Talk 17:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Vicente Fox

Of possible interest to editors of the article in regard to Mexicans, the visit to Mexico, and the wall, etc. [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) Writegeist (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful.--Malerooster (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It might be worth a brief mention. Which part did you have in mind? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any place for this - or for the kind of language Writegeist is using here. This is a talk page, not a soapbox. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek, any or all of it would probably improve the article, coming as it does from the former leader of a country whose significance in Trump’s campaigning might not be altogether lost on the article’s more informed editors. That said, I have no dog in the fight for the White House so I don’t care if none of it is included. It’s up to editors who give more of a fuck than I do, and who are more willing than I am to engage in the dismal partisan squabbling that characterizes political talk pages during elections. I just thought it was an interesting commentary. Take it or leave it :) User:MelanieN, if you bother to read the article you'll see the "language" in the post that troubles you is Vicente Fox's, not mine. Writegeist (talk)

MelanieN, the source is The Guardian which is definitely reputable, and its written by a prominent figure. And yes, these seem to be Fox's words, not Writegeist. I think the part that could be used in the article is one of the summing up paragraphs towards the end: "And yet he has stooped even lower, using the needs of his followers to validate himself with a speech full of intolerance, racism and fear. There is no way a nation could grow and prosper with no hope, values or responsibilities. History has proved that “leaderships” based on fear and ignorance are doomed to failure.". Properly attributed of course.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that the fact they are comments of a former president of Mexico are adequate to establish significance. We would need to show that they had received widespread coverage. We should consider however putting in Fox's earlier comment that Mexico is not paying for that "damn wall," which was widely reported at the time. And of course the current president's comments are significant. TFD (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Good points as usual from TFD. Just to be clear, my "whose significance" refers to the country's significance in the campaign, not that of the country's former leader. Writegeist (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Writegeist, I was well aware that you were quoting Vicente Fox. I DID look at the link after all. Looking at my comment, I should have made that clearer. My comment toward you was inspired by the glee with which you were repeating all the juicy stuff; that was your doing, not Fox's. And I do agree with removing it; it didn't belong on a Wikipedia talk page no matter who said it. Anyhow, this kind of stuff is nothing new for Fox. He was the one who said, back in February, that Mexico is not going to pay for Trump's "fucking wall". We didn't put that into Wikipedia either. Many foreign leaders have made comments about Trump; I don't think we have included any of them here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You cannot possibly know what I was experiencing when I posted. Your “glee” snipe has no foundation in fact. (If you really must know, it saddens me—which could hardly be further from your “glee”—to see a presidential nominee debase the rhetoric of political campaigning to such an abysmal new low and make America an even greater object of widespread revulsion than hitherto.) The topics touched on in the Guardian article are of Vicente Fox’s choosing, not mine. I merely listed them (to indicate the article's breadth). As for your comment that you “agree with removing” them, I can’t begin to tell you how much of a fuck I don’t give about your agreement or otherwise in the instance.

Your “this . . . is nothing new for Fox” is a weird little straw man, as neither I nor anyone else here made any claim of novelty; and anyway, as surely you know, novelty is not a criterion here.

I note you don’t regard the Pope, an Argentinian who leads, oh, about 1.3 billion people, and whose comments about Trump are included in the article, as either foreign or a leader.

It would be just great if you would consider the Fox piece in terms of Wikipedia policies, or otherwise leave it to other editors to do so. Writegeist (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then let's look at the coverage of Fox's quote. In addition to the Guardian it has also been mentioned by Politico and RCP. Anywhere else? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Mexico trip

Trump brings it up the Mexican trip himself at the Commander-in-Chief Forum:“We’ve been badly hurt and if you look at the aftermath today, the people who arranged the trip in Mexico have been forced out of government. That’s how well we did, and that’s how well we have to do.” It seems like there are landmarks as the campaign marches toward conclusion...I think the Mexico trip is one of those landmarks. Buster Seven Talk 15:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I see there is mention of the trip in the "Political Positions" thread. I may add the firing of the Mexican official this afternoon. Buster Seven Talk 15:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"shot out of the water"

"And by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures that our people -- that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water," Trump said at a rally in Pensacola Florida on Friday. 

That's a pretty strong statement that displays whatever it displays. The statement is, at the very least, unusual in its power for a POTUS candidate. I'm not sure what thread it should go in. "Military" would seem like a choice. Buster Seven Talk 15:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought that was a pretty amazing statement - we should start a war because they made insulting gestures - but I'm not sure it got enough coverage to be included. It was reported at the time [18] , but even that coverage sometimes got prettied up by saying "if they harrasss American ships"[19] or "approach American ships inappropriately".[20] That's not actually what he said but it sounds a little more rational rather than being about offensive gestures. And there hasn't been any followup coverage that I have seen, just a one-day story and the press moves on to other things. Apparently just one of those things that he gets away with saying. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. As frightening as the concept is that someone would start a war over getting the finger; this will likely quickly fade away. Objective3000 (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you both kidding? A candidate for the US presidency is willing to start WWIII over a hand gesture and says so in front of his constituency and anyone listening and its not worth mentioning in an article about his campaign. So much crap of little important or any sense of long-range importance fills this article ...and this shouldn't be even mentioned? Just because the press isn't doing their job and is lazy doesn't mean we should shirk our responsibility to our future readers....the ones 10 yeas from now that may not know that 60 days before the election Trump said something HISTORICALLY outrageous. I'll stay with this in the hopes that I can provide the references that are necessary to include this unbelievably "machismo" comment by someone that wants to be called President Trump. Buster Seven Talk 07:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"That displays whatever it displays?" We need reliable secondary sources in order to include it because that is the only way we will know what it displays. Clinton said, "If I'm the president, we will attack Iran." I would oppose putting that soundbite into her article without reliable secondary sources explaining what she meant. TFD (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll start with this offering. I'm sure others will surface. How can the Press ignore such a clear statement of how this candidate will handle the most important decision a president has to make. Plus it shows he is not aware of the limitations placed on the presidents ability to blow stuff "out of the water" These wern't rubber duckies in his tub that he could shoot with his squirt gun. Only Congress can declare War. Even the AUMF doesn't give Trump the mandate to act with force if someone gives our troops the finger. Buster Seven Talk 20:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

O'Donnell is a partisan source so not helpful; we need coverage from neutral Reliable Sources. Of course that is exactly what his column is about: the fact that the media ignores (reports once but no followup) this kind of inflammatory, oh-my-god-I-can't-believe-he-just-said-that comment when it comes from Trump. They have just had an overload of inflammatory comments from him. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As you point out, O'Donnell complains that the media has ignored the comments, which is true and which is why weight says we should ignore them too. O'Donnell and other partisan commentators try to put narratives into the spotlight, hoping that they will become newsworthy. If the story did become a news item, then we would see how Trump and his surrogates reacted, how experts interpreted the comments and how they compare to what Clinton has said and done. TFD (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about lead picture at Donald Trump

You are invited to participate in an ongoing talk-page discussion about the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)