Talk:Protests against Donald Trump/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

POV

Highly POV article in desperate need of balance. Entirely missing the perspective characterizing the scuffles as caused by Sanders supporters and other groups determined not to let Trump speak. See, for example,[1], [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add material from reliable sources regarding efforts to sabotage, provoke, hinder, contradict, and resist Trump. Social media seems to play a major role; over 10,000 people were on one Facebook group regarding the rally in Chicago. Plans to rush the stage during Trump's speech were considered. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And more that can be added [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: I believe I addressed some of the POV. What are your thoughts? DaltonCastle (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Since I am a little concerned about all the almost-blatantly anti-Trump bias going around on these articles, I would support the inclusion of incidents caused by protestors into this page, since it currently only mentions anything caused by Trump supporters. But I don't really want to get dragged further into these pages. I just have been concerned about the looming Coatracking. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

POV "Protesters" section

This section lacks coverage of avowed intentions to shut Trump rallies down, shout loudly enough to drown Trump out, intentions to rush stage and actual incidents of rushing stage, tearing up of trump signs. Like mush of article, it portrays the protestors as saintly. But there is video of a lot of aggressive stuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. But as much as I think the page should have it, I can't imagine it will be let onto the page, given the peculiar sudden interest on Trump articles. I think the best we can do is just pull the POV content from the page and leave it as such. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks okay right now. Not as good as it should be, but I did add a sentence saying that protesters have tried to rush the stage. (Didn't add too many details b/c it should be covered under the "Incidents" section) I also added a little about a protester being paid to protest. JaydonBrooks (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

POV "Events" section

Events that need inclusion to achieve POV include attempts to rush the stage, incidents of physical aggression by anti-Trump attendees, and the closing down of entire rallies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, only one rally was closed down, and a person rushed the stage on only one (other) rally. - MrX 12:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As per my comment above, there have been other instances, but I'd be in favor of making minimal changes to reflect this. In contrast, I'd rather we remove the POV content instead. I believe I addressed most of it but its not perfect. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that at this point, it looks fine. There was some new information back in late March, describing how the protesters threw rocks at rally attendees. Also, the article talks about an attempt to rush the stage, and last but not least, the article talks about closing down the entire Chicago rally.

JaydonBrooks (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

General comments

I removed the {{POV}} tag from 2 sections, since it applies already to the article as a whole. epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely in need of improvement. Darmokand (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Chicago rally protest being presented as a widespread phenomenon

I removed this section because it is specific to the protests at the Chicago rally, yet was presented in the article as a vast organized movement. - MrX 11:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This section was restored by E.M.Gregory, without further discussion or consensus. I'm on record as opposing it, but I changed the heading to reflect that the section is only about Chicago (per WP:V) and added a WP:UNDUE tag as the section gives undue prominence to a single event, and is written to imply that there is widespread planning, which is not supported by sources.- MrX 12:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Entire section was blanked by editor who wrote: "This entire section is about the Chicago protests only." an untrue description, since Most of the brief section details a protest that took place at a rally back in January. I restored the section and came here to talkE.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

More to the point is the fact that a great deal has been published about the planning of the anti-Trump protests. It needs coverage here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• [[user: MrX|, please read the page , or section, before changing heading. This section was NEVER mainly about the Chicago rpotest, nor should it be. Please reveryt your alteration to subhead.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll change it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't change it unless you also remove all of the generalizations that backed by sources that only cover the Chicago protests. Please read WP:SYNTH. You can not extrapolate information like that. It is against policy. - MrX 13:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Correction. I see that the section has been significantly copy edits, so I'm fine with restoring the heading and removing the WP:UNDUE tag, which I have done. Thanks!- MrX 13:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The pre-emptory removal of material that he doesn't like by user: MrX has occurred on other articles. It would be much better to improve or perhaps retitle such a section rather than to engage in such disruptive behavior. I cannot blame User:E.M.Gregory for reverting the removal. Perhaps a discussion before removal and removal only after consensus would serve us all better. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I was justified removing it because the section subject and the content were not verifiable in the sources. It sound like you would have taken a different approach and that's fine. By the way, I never said I didn't like the material. I'm strongly in favor of presenting the aspect of organized protesters in this article.- MrX 16:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Keeping up

I notice no additions about the Manhattan or Arizona protests on Saturday. Maybe there is little interest in this. I'll probably wait until some source publishes a summary of recent activity. It's in the news though, daily. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the whole point of this article being kept is that this level of coverage needs to be added: CNN, ABC, CBS, Time, ... – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

I am not denying the reliability of the particular sources. I am questioning how they are being used. If that helps explain these removals. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Questions

• I was flagged to revisit this page on the matter of achieving NPOV. Questions I thought someone might have sources (RS) to answer these questions.

1.) Has any Trump supporter thrown a punch at a protestor who is not already under detention by security?

2.) Has any protestor thrown a punch at a Trump supporter?

3.) Documented shoving matches without punches being thrown? (I know that groups of protestors have shoved and been shoved by police, at Columbus Circle and elsewhere, My Question is whether there have been protestors vs. supporters shoving matches?

4.) Any actual group melees with punches thrown protestors vs. supporters?

5.) Any documented cases of supporters tearing signs from hands of protestors?

6.) Rocks were thrown by protestors in Tucson. Anything else been thrown at people?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this content you're trying to add to the article? The article seems to do a fair job of documenting what did happen. The best approach is to read the most reliable sources providing the most coverage, and extract the main points. Editing shouldn't be a scavenger hunt.- MrX 12:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly. I'm trying to make sure the article is balanced by checking actual documented events. Not just vaguely asserting "violence."E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

COATRACK

This article is almost entirely about Trump's supporters, not about the protests. Until the is fixed, this article is in violation of WP:COATRACK. No one has really taken up the gauntlet on this front. Would like to see someone do this. If no one does the page is going to likely experience some changes that most don't like, being as how I am no expert in 2016 elections. My goal is to first attain, and then maintain, neutrality. The page is not so, as it stands, having a bias at all. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a valid point. Editing now to remove non-protest related material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I take that back, I looked, but all of the entries now in article seem to be about anti-Trump protests.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Some stuff is a bit out of place here. It's quite a stretch to say that editorial positions at CNN, Fox News and Red State make them part of a "civil conflict". '''tAD''' (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ed Berliner, Glenn Beck etc. should be in there. They never encouraged the riots/protests. Being opposed to Trump doesn't mean you supported the riots. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

In other words, oppositon to Trump should be separated from protest demonstrations in which people "speak" by holding placards and chanting? But, then, would it follow that peaceful demonstrations should be separated from the oned where protestors get aggressive, shout in the faces of attendees, shove, throw punches, throw rocks? Where are the lines? I'm not trying to be difficult, just sincerely trying to figure out how to organize the types of opposition to Trump.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is about specifically the "Protests", NOT the Trump campaign in general, so unless the groups are specifically involved or have encouraged the protests, they should be removed. The includes Cruz, Bush, Kasich, Fiorina, etc. We can keep the "Stop Trump Movement" with some commentators but not the candidates. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What is going on here? I'm adding relatively neutral additions and expanding the infobox, and people are going back and forth between reverting previous edits. Is it easier to just delete the infobox? I'm speaking to DaltonCastle. MrVenaCava (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrVenaCava: ah I knew this would come up. I want to be clear: I had no problems with your changes. But the editor who made changes before you added contentious material/images that needed to be reverted. The only way to do so was to override your edits (or go in manually but I did not know the previous image file location), and so I apologize. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand and no worries. You could have also retrieved the previous image by going into the archived history of this article, in case you encounter something similar in the future.MrVenaCava (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright I'm going to do what I did before again. All unreferenced info will be removed, or if it has a poor reference it will be removed. Mangokeylime (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that MOST unreferenced info should be removed, the idea that info that has a poor reference should be removed is clearly flawed. First of all, how should we define "poor reference?" Most of the time, the definition of poor reference is left to interpretation, and that leads to one person changing the article based on their opinion. That is a clear problem. This means that there will be more mistakes, and this person might have a dissenting opinion from the rest of the people, but the article will still be changed based on the dissenting opinion. EVEN IF THE DISSENTING OPINION ISN'T RIGHT. This can lead to a bad article. There's too much to risk by deleting info "if it has a poor reference." I propose having a group of people look over the info along with the source after one person "reports" that info section/area as having a poor reference. The group, after careful deliberation, will decide whether it's poorly referenced, and if it should be deleted. JaydonBrooks (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sensationalism

Let's try to keep the sensational language in check and remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There's a rule which prohibits what you deem to be sensational language? I've been unable to find that rule. You also mention, encyclopedic and by definition an encyclopedia is "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject" (Merriam-Webster). So on both areas I disagree with you in this instance. By providing more details my edits have enhanced this article and treated the subject more comprehensively. I also have a problem with you removing my citations of reputable articles. It's one thing to change what I added to be what you consider to be less "sensational" it's a completely different thing to remove valid citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RumorQuake (talk • contribs) 12:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:WORDS. The language introduced created a non-NPOV tone that sounded like a talking points memo from the Trump campaign and the sort of lurid language normally associated with the tabloid press. If you want to reintroduce your references w/o the tabloid press language, I have no objection. This article used to have a very perceptible anti-Trump bias and various editors worked hard to remove that. We are not going to start going in the other direction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the Trump campaign and you are flatly wrong about your opinion on tone. The fact is that my wording was no different than the wording of this article about the protests by NBC which clearly is a partial news organization - http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/protesters-assault-trump-supporters-eggs-bottles-punches-after-rally-n585096. Examples of the wording in the article include, "Donald Trump supporters were mobbed and assaulted by protesters on Thursday night after the candidate's campaign rally in California" and "Some Trump supporters were punched. One woman wearing a "Trump" jersey was cornered, spat on, and pelted with eggs and water bottles". In addition you continue to revert the fact that Emmett Rensin incited violence. That is a fact it is not something that is alleged. His tweets inciting violence are public and as I've noted and cited in the article, Vox.com released a statement on his suspension starting just that. So do tell, what wording that I used was tabloid press language and different than the wording used by NBC? And why do you continue to revert facts about Emmett Rensin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RumorQuake (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Since we clearly disagree and there don't appear to be any other editors chiming in, I suggest you request a WP:THIRDOPINION. I am not inclined to make a Federal Case out of this and will defer to their judgement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RumorQuake (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that police reports are now beginning to surface. They were reported today at this site https://www.scribd.com/doc/315203009/SJPD-reports-Donald-Trump-rally and the wording in the reports are at least as "sensational" as the wording if not more so. Again I strongly disagree with you. For example one undercover officer states, "It became inherently dangerous for anyone wearing a t-shirt or hat in support for Trump. I observed Trump-supporters be spit on, objects being thrown at them, punched, kicked, and even robbed of their personal belongings. In these instances I observed victims running for their lives because protesters began adopting a mob mentality and attacking people. I was unable to make contact with any of these victims due to by undercover capacity and for my own safety as well." I fail to see the difference between my wording and that officer's wording. Clearly a police officer is not a tabloid writer. I understand and appreciate your desire to keep a neutral point of view. In this case I think the circumstances, the nature of the violence and attacks, were such that a neutral point of view sounds sensational when in reality it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.102.195 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion

Some observations:

• In the allegedly sensationalist version, there's a phrase "pand aolice officer wabeing saulted" that makes no sense at all.
• Just because a reliable source uses certain language doesn't automatically mean the language is neutral. As Wikipedia editors, we should studiously avoid stating the editorial views of sources as fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Flat-out using the adjective "violent" to describe protests in the first sentence is an example of that. There is no need for the adjective. (As a general principle, omitting adjectives almost always improves neutrality, because adjectives are qualifiers and usually subjective.) The later sentence about "reports of violence" serves the purpose well enough while remaining factual.
• If sensationalist language must be included, it should be OK to do so as long as it's clearly attributed. In such cases, either a quotation could be provided, or a paraphrased attribution like "CNN reported that.... ".

That said, there are things I like about both versions. I like the fact that the allegedly less neutral version includes additional reliable sources, which I'd like to see retained. I don't have a real problem with the examples of violence given, I just have a problem with starting out the paragraph with the adjective "violent". Let the sources speak for themselves, we absolutely shouldn't dictate to the reader what to think. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I also have some concerns about the use of the term "savagely." Beyond which I would echo that I am not opposed to adding reliable sources, provided that it is not with any intent to introduce language which might be seen by some as lending to a bias in our coverage one way or another. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what I said about adjectives would also apply to adverbs, like "savagely". It would be appropriate to use in a quotation perhaps, but not in the article prose, as it is dictating an opinion to the reader rather than letting the reader form an opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"Their" vs "they're"

User:Oshwah, It is very clear that Trump said "their rapists" (as in [they're bringing] their rapists). If he meant otherwise he would have contradicted himself by saying "they're rapists and some, I assume, are good people". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiah Rawluk (talk • contribs) 03:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

James O'Keefe

James O'Keefe is reliably unreliable. We will not be including his mashup videos here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the material repeatedly added by Ag97 violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. For example, "revealed that the Chicago protests were done by paid instigators working for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign." grossly overstates what the CNN source says, and omits the scathing criticism of the credibility of the producer of the video. Also, for future reference, Washington Times is a poor source, and Breitbart is a wholly unusable source.- MrX 16:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to word what I wrote in a different way, but refusing to mention that the video exists is wrong. The video revealed serious wrongdoing, and led to a high-ranking official, Bob Creamer, resigning. That this video exists is highly relevant to this article. There there is video evidence connecting the Clinton campaign to the violence. It is a fact that this video exists, it is a fact that serious allegations have been made against the Clinton campaign for inciting violence, including by Trump himself during yesterday's debate, and it is a fact that people in the Democrat party lost their jobs over this. This is very noteworthy content that belongs in the article. Refusing to mention it and pretending that this video doesn't exist is wrong. You are suggesting that this article should be censored, and that information supporting Trump and going against Clinton should be removed. You are reverting my relevant edits based on your personal political beliefs and your personal opinion of O'Keefe, which is wrong and violates Wikipedia policy. Ag97 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If you would approach it from the perspective of first finding 2-3 solid reputable sources, and then summarizing those source, we wouldn't be here. Instead, it looks like you started with the conclusion that the Clinton campaign was behind the entirety of the protests, which is not factual. It's very easy to write this content correctly, since most news articles have leads. The CNN one says:

"A Democratic operative whose organization was helping Hillary Clinton's campaign announced Tuesday that he would be "stepping back" from the campaign after an edited video suggested that he and other staffers hired people to attend Donald Trump's campaign rallies and incite violence."
— CNN

A paraphrase of that paragraph would be appropriate content for this article, provided that you can find a couple more corroborating sources. Also, please don't create a new section unless you can find many sources to justify that much material, and never misrepresent the content with a non-neutral section heading like "Agitators Sent by Hillary Clinton Campaign".- MrX 16:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, we can't take an O'Keefe release at face value. I do acknowledge that this is becoming a story, getting picked up by multiple outlets, but let's see what NPR actually says...

"The videos are edited, and O'Keefe and Project Veritas have a history of selectively — and at times misleadingly — editing their videos. While they have previously posted raw footage, they have not done so with these latest stings."
— NPR

We should not be jumping to the conclusion that this footage is legitimate. His videos have been debunked before. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to say, "An O'Keefe video accuses the Hillary Clinton Campaign of hiring people to attend Donald Trump's campaign rallies and start violence. Many people do not believe O'Keefe's videos are reliable, and according to NPR, O'Keefe videos are misleadingly edited." (And then sourcing.) JaydonBrooks (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Authoritarian populism

Complaining about negative point of view for a subject who uses a salute similar to the Nazi salute and quotes Mussolini is absurd. When and if Trump gets wise there will be ample positive information to show his essential goodness. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder I strongly suggest rephrasing or withdrawing ] your comment. BLP applies to talk pages, not only to articles.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia users should know that Bauder's assertion re: "Nazi salutes" is untrue (although the assertion circulates) [4]. For the curious, Trump's Mussolini quote was: “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.” E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump is not a mass murderer, so far. So, serious comparisons to Hitler are inappropriate. However, his role in mobilizing reactionary populist forces in much the same manner as Hitler or Mussolini is also not in serious question. Time will tell, or God willing, We will never go there. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but that argument is absurd: there was a time when neither Hitler nor Mussolini were mass murderers. Then they were. Comparisons to other demagogues in the early years of power seem entirely reasonable. Necessary, in fact.31.49.140.58 (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not the responsibility of wikipedia contributors to dictate to readers how they should view a public figure. klubalj (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

While most of the POV problems have been addressed, I would invite all editors to review policies like WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

And these comparisons of Trump to Hitler are getting old. Just because you don't like someone's politics or style does not mean their Wikipedia page should be used as an attack page. Think of how many people would love to vandalize the articles for Bush, Obama, Clinton, Reagan...Anyone! But these pages are protected from this kind of behavior, as should this page. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibility of renaming or splitting article

This is no longer about protests against a presidential campaign, this is protests against a future presidency. I was wondering if we could rename the article to something more fitting, or splitting the post-election results into its own article. Parsley Man (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. We could rename this article to something like "Protests of the Donald Trump presidency and presidential campaign, 2016" but that's a really long title, and kind of lumps two things together. It might be better if you split them into two different articles. JaydonBrooks (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There must be a new article. We cannot allow the pettiness to stop! 107.0.155.16 (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: We may be able to make an article titled Anti-Trump protests then have Protests of the Donald Trump presidency and presidential campaign, 2016 as an article part of the Anti-Trump protests. Might be able to make separate articles for timelines if this becomes prolonged protests as well, who knows...--ZiaLater (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with split - This is a different subject, an adjunct to the election protests. Earlier one editor removed the extensive list of protest locations on November 9. I did consolidate the list to columns, but removing that list of cities diminishes the scope of these protests to a single line of text. As I suggested, this is only day 1, day 2 looks like it will continue and thus the significance of the subject is enough to carry on its own potentially for another four to eight years. Lets look at the Occupy protests. There were so many locations to "log" we had to go to an additional article. List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States and California got a separate article List of Occupy movement protest locations in California. Trackinfo (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose new article There is no reason to reinvent the wheel here. I have renamed it given the inaccuracy of the previous title. Problem solved. We have an article that deals with anti-Trump protests. Why do we need another one? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with split - This seems only logical as there is very likely to be a lot of material added in the coming days. In fact there is enough material from these two days alone to be enough for a split. Distrait cognizance (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with split - These protests are much bigger than the ones from during his campaign, and they look like they're only going to get worse from here. There are so many aspects to this -- the big city protests, the college protests, the online petitions, the Electoral College debate, the celebrity support, etc. It's also a historic occasion as there's never been a protest like this following the election of an American president. --GeicoHen (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I am still not seeing any reason for two articles that deal with the same subject- protests against Donald Trump. If more material needs to be added then add it here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with split - As the one to first bring up the topic, and per Trackinfo. Parsley Man (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with split - The protests happening now are caused not by Trump's candidacy and statements, as the previous ones were, but by his election as president. They are also much bigger and unfolding much faster than those protests. Finally, as far as I'm aware, such a reaction is a historical first for the U.S., at least post-Civil War. Dreadwyrm (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Although those statements are the reasons they don't want him as president. GeicoHen (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• Do not split – Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. This whole article might benefit from encyclopedic summarization, not wanton expansion. (And to people crying POV, please ponder whether a short sentence or a long rant makes a more efficient point to readers…) — JFG ^talk 21:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a short, simple, explanatory sentence. Parsley Man (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Punctuation

It's a minor point, but in the sentence, concerning how Rudy Giuliani ' called protestors: “a bunch of spoiled cry-babies" ' , there shouldn't be a colon following "protestors". I think I already corrected that, but someone might have reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably a miss, try correcting it again. A lot of editing happening right now. Distrait cognizance (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Images

The images in the infobox were changed. Personally I think the ones that were removed here were probably better than what was added as a replacement. I don't think that increasing the size of the images to make them massively large is a good idea. The edit made here definitely makes them too big; I suggest a reduction in image size. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

For some reason they leave an enormous empty area around them. The image itself is far from huge, but the padding in the infobox is. Distrait cognizance (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I really think they need to be reduced in size at least a little. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Necessity of list of cities where protests took place

Are those lists in this section really necessary? It would be much easier to say the protests took place in a variety of cities and schools across the country and point out the most notable protests, such as the Chicago one. Parsley Man (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I alert took the issue to talk above. Stop blanking the section until you form a consensus to censor that content. Trackinfo (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The section is currently far from problematic, it may be advisable to move it to a new page if it expands significantly. Distrait cognizance (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly is the talk page discussion? Because this is the only section dedicated to it from what I can see. Parsley Man (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

See "Possibility of renaming or splitting article" above. Section was not blanked, my computer pulled up a cached version where it had been removed. My point above is this is too big of a story, happening in too many places to be reduced to a single sentence. All of what I have added and much of the other content added by other editors is sourced material from major news media. Trackinfo (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

But are we really going to list every major city where protests occur with every day that passes by? That's going to get redundant, not to mention unnecessarily beefy over time. Parsley Man (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at the way we covered the Occupy protests as a guide. When things expanded to the point of redundancy, we put in date ranges. Tables were used for better display of repetitive information. Some of the major protests or unique stylings merited an entire new article. Wikipedia has ways of dealing with both redundancy and wider expansion. Trackinfo (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess that can work, but I still disagree with the necessity of the lists. Parsley Man (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump's "unfair" comment

We don't know if Trump found the protests or the "incitement by the media" (or both combined) unfair, so it's best to quote the entire statement to avoid ambiguity. Without any further clarification, to write it such that Trump found the protests unfair, or the "incitement by the media" unfair, would constitute original research and is best avoided. Original status here --219.74.85.176 (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly can that statement in question be found in the article? Parsley Man (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump's statement: "Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!"? It's in the USA Today article and the title quoted as a reference (reference #238), which links back to the original tweet. The qualification is that there was "incitement" (whether true or not, it's not up to us to decide, we just write it as it is, right?). Missing out the "incitement" bit turns it into an unqualified generalisation calling all protests unfair. (i.e. it's not "all protests are unfair", but "professional protests which were caused by incitement are unfair") --219.74.85.176 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Add various leftists as part of the Anti-Trump section

We have alot of Left and Far-Left taking part. (RevCom, Socialist Alternative, PSL, Anarchists etc.) 24.191.232.122 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean in the infobox? That could get pretty lengthy... Parsley Man (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Could just be something like "Various Left and Far Left" and maybe specifically mention Socialist Alternative? They are one of the central groups organizing atm. 22:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)22:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.232.122 (talk)

Another video to migrate here

NYC Trump Tower footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSxzm7hfWlU Victor Grigas (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Relevancy of assassination threats

I'm seeing a slight disagreement about the inclusion of this edit. Both sides have put up convincing arguments for inclusion or non-inclusion in their edit summaries, so just in case this flares up again, I'm putting up this talk page discussion. Thoughts? Parsley Man (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion, yes, but probably only a short line, with maybe just two to three sources would be enough. It's relevant enough to be included just like other articles like the Gamergate controversy include threats, but there's no point giving it undue weight, since the opinion to assassinate is in all likelihood just a minority opinion. --219.74.85.176 (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been widely reported and needs to be mentioned but agree we should not overdo it. IMO the current coverage is about right. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If it were to be included, its not enough to be in the lede since it seems sensational.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

That I could agree with. It doesn't seem lede-worthy at the moment. Parsley Man (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so while this discussion was ongoing and while we appear to have reached a consensus, did someone just make the personal decision to bypass this entire discussion and remove it from the entire article instead of relocating it...? --219.74.85.176 (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It does look that way. It was redacted from the lead here but I am not seeing it added anywhere in the article. I am not sure exactly where it should go or what the wording should be, but there have been threats and they have been reported by multiple RS sources. So this needs to be in the article somewhere, maybe under the security section? In any event this needs to be fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The "Security" section does sound like an appropriate place for such information. Parsley Man (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added a short sub-section under "Security" which I think deals with the matter succinctly in a factually neutral manner and without any unnecessary hype. Let me know if there is any heartburn over it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands of protesters

There were multiple reliable sources that have stated that hundreds of thousands of protesters demonstrated against Trump.

Here are some:

• The West Australian [1] - "As hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets protesting against Mr Trump’s election"
• Vice News [2] - "Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets in a wave of protests across the country to assert that Trump is "not their president'."
• Vanity Fair [3] - On November 9, "hundreds of thousands of people blanketed cities across America to protest president-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday" (hundreds of thousands, plural = +100,000).

The larger number of protesters that demonstrated after Trump being elected should be included in the infobox. Just thought I would clarify this.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

User:ZiaLater - 'hundreds of thousands' does not seem sufficiently supported, maybe after an inauguration protest but not now. The most common phrasing seems to be 'thousands', speaking of a single day or single event, but I see 'tens of thousands' said at some substantial sources and left and right media. I will change it to "tens of thousands" as having more substantial sources such as [AP re day 4, ABC news, Washington Times, Breitbart, Time, USA Today, The Week (UK), Daily Mail (UK), MSN.

is this the first time?

Is this the first time in American history a president elect was protested (to this degree)? Whether yes or no it should be in the article intro. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Unless this assertion is supported by multiple verifiable and reliable sources, no, it should not be anywhere in the article in the first place. And if it passes the above tests, it should still not be in the lede unless it is a widely-held view. Neither should editors do any original research to determine if this assertion is true, say, via the synthesis of sources. --219.74.85.176 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagree - way later that I see this, but I agree it seems WP:OR rather than 'just follow the cites' and conveying the significant parts of what's out there. I'll add though that it really isn't the first time -- there's always someone protesting anything, e.g. the whole 1960s, and every inauguration since Nixon, it's just that what say Obama got was not as notable. And this is also not the worst if you go back far enough -- there's Abraham Lincoln where out of 30 states 7 (eventually 11) went for secession from the union after election of 1860. Markbassett (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2016

Please at University of California, Merced to post election protest list for November 9th. Here is a local news article for reference. http://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/politics-government/election/article113612878.html Thank you.

Mwild22 (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

DoneTrackinfo (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

San Antonio, TX November 12, 2016

http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Anti-Trump-protesters-march-downtown-for-second-10610951.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkbezoanna (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Assassination threats

I see here that someone removed mention of the fact that people were calling for Trump to be assassinated from the lead. Why was this information removed? It seems like a great example of something the lead should mention. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The mention of these threats was moved to the security section of the article. Refer to here for the rationale behind the move. The threats are sensational, but in all likelihood aren't widely-held views, so to put these threats in the lede would be granting them undue weight. --219.74.85.176 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. All high ranking public officials get a certain number of threats. Obama shattered records for threats on his life, but it's not covered in the lead on his article. In fact I'm not sure they are mentioned at all. As one of our former presidents once observed, threats are like "Hail to the Chief," they come with the office. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree, Ad Orientem. The relevant issue is not whether advocating the murder of Donald Trump is a mainstream view among people protesting against him, but whether the assassination threats have received enough attention to be worth mentioning in the lead. In my view they have. The fact that all Presidents may get threats is neither here nor there. The threats against Trump are on a level far above the threats made against any other President or President-elect; there's no comparison. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have RS sources that explicitly say that the threats against Trump greatly exceed those made against previous presidents and presidents elect? I can recall reading in mainstream press reports that the threats against Obama shattered all records. I haven't seen that yet about Trump, but maybe I just missed it. If that is being reported in multiple RS sources I might support putting it into the lead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I need them. Let's remember that the article we're discussing is not Donald Trump's biography. Mentioning assassination threats in the lead there wouldn't be appropriate, but it is appropriate here. WP:LEAD is the relevant guideline: the lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". People openly calling for the man who will be America's next President to be murdered is one of the most important points of the article: its statement that "During the campaign and subsequent to his election, Trump received a number of threats against his life" is followed by no less than eight citations. The discussion of the assassination threats is relatively brief, true, but there seems little question that material exists that could be used to expand that discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. A couple of comments above you premised your argument for putting this in the lead on the threats being "on a level far above the threats made against any other President or President-elect; there's no comparison." On that basis I might agree with mentioning this in the lead. Otherwise I am opposed. The lead is not a place where we put in every fact about the person. I do agree that the threats are relevant and there is ample RS coverage to warrant mentioning them in the article. But unless there is evidence, supported by RS sources, that the number of threats is much higher than normal, then I would oppose putting it in the lead per WP:UNDUE. If there is enough material to expand the discussion of the threats without running afoul of UNDUE then this can be done in the body of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Minor incidents

A lot of protests listed here are minor incidents and don't really need to be recorded.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we come up with a quota? Trackinfo (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No, just don't give undue weight to trivial events.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Every item I have posted has a source. Most of the sources I use are mainstream local media; mostly newspapers, radio and TV stations; feet on the ground in a particular area. There is at least one other editor who is sanitizing the article of any mentions that do not have a source. If it is large enough to get coverage in professional media, that follows WP:RS. Trackinfo (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I would have to agree. This is starting to become an unnecessarily long list and it would now work better if we just summarize the events. Parsley Man (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I tend agree with Jack Upland and Parsley Man whose point I think is fair. When adding material to this article we need to keep our eye on UNDUE, NPOV, RECENTISM and INDISCRIMINATE. Every gathering of people with signs who shout bad things about Trump does not need to be mentioned in here. The article runs the risk of becoming unwieldy as well as taking on the appearance of being an anti-Trump WP:COATRACK. I would refrain from adding any specific protests that have not received significant national news coverage. For the others it is sufficient to say that there were numerous other smaller protests. On an upside I notice that there has already been some trimming which I think is a net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Images and videos

The article is much too video-heavy right now, in my opinion, and there seem to be galleries tossed into a couple different parts of the page. Ideally, the media would be (a) high resolution, (b) illustrate the context, (c) illustrate the location, (d) don't look the same, (e) don't require playing to extract meaning (although it's sensible to include some video, images typically do better to serve basic illustration purposes). I started removing/adding things but quickly started to feel like I may have a COI, having taken many of the images [for the New York events anyway]. This is a tricky question, since events are still unfolding, but does anyone want to propose guidelines for images/video such that this doesn't become a gallery? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I know we (the Wikimedia movement) are working to encourage image and video uploading, but I agree that this article is currently a bit video-heavy. I imagine much of the footage is similar in nature, so just a couple videos should get the point across, and the rest can live in Commons. Rhododendrites, I wouldn't worry about COI, but I'm glad you started a discussion. I hope other editors will agree and consider whittling down the media displayed in the article. That being said, I am thrilled so see so many photos and videos being taken and I hope the various Commons categories will continue to fill with free media. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Galleries in articles aren't typically ideal, but perhaps a way to provide some balance would be to use images only throughout the article, with a video gallery at the end? Might be tacky, but I've not seen that approach before. I like the idea of people not having to go to Commons to look for video, and yet minimizing the amount of valuable real estate they occupy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

Jkbezoanna (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

November 11, 2016 Protest San Antonio, Texas http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Trump-protesters-take-over-downtown-San-Antonio-10609912.php

DoneTrackinfo (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Fort Worth, Texas

Hello.

Can we please add Fort Worth, Texas to the list? Here are some possible sources to start with:

• http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/article114318333.html
• http://www.wfaa.com/news/dallas-and-fort-worth-streets-filled-with-anti-trump-protestors-for-the-third-day/351248717

We may wish to list it as "Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas".

Thanks,
71.91.123.119 (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Done Dallas was already listed, I added Fort Worth. Trackinfo (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

Jkbezoanna (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

November 12, 2016 San Antonio, Tx

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Anti-Trump-protesters-march-downtown-for-second-10610951.php

Done Trackinfo (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Berkeley, California had protests on November 9 as well. Currently just listed for the 10th. http://www.berkeleyside.com/2016/11/09/photo-slideshow-berkeley-high-not-our-president-protest/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:501:88D1:A948:C476:1E7E:6FF2 (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Already DoneTrackinfo (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Folks, a note about local sources. With amount of superficial coverage by the major media, your local sources are effectively getting masked, buried under a pile of wire service repetition. So only you know what is going on in your home area. Since the page is protected, please continue to do as these users have done, let us know what is happening near you. Please provide sources. Post it here, eventually I will get to it, or send it to me on my talk page.Trackinfo (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

It is important to include a more accurate quote of Trump's tweets.

Adamcitation (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Have there been any protests against Clinton? There's no article for Protests against Hillary Clinton, certainly there are some people who have done that. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 17:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there have been protests against Hillary. There's just not an article about it because (most likely) there's not a lot of information/press coverage of it, and the protests are probably few and far between. Feel free to create the Protests against Hillary Clinton article, although it will take a lot of digging through news sources, and a lot of diligent work. JaydonBrooks (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Huge difference and comparison. Haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkbezoanna (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You're kinda right, Google only returns 25m results for "hillary clinton protests", as opposed to 75m for "donald trump protests". ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 18:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete All Material Supported only by Mainline Media for NPOV

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.

---

No national mainline media source (newspaper or broadcast TV) should be used as a reliable source for this article, as it is common knowledge that these liberal, pro-democrat, proHillary outlets have been agents of propaganda in this election process instead of objective journalists. They have been advocates dedicated to advancing democrat causes & demonizing/defeating Trump. Thus such statements as "peaceful protest" supported by such an outlet should be deleted. When a bussed in mob without parade permit marches in the streets or blocks traffic, such an activity is not peaceful protest. (PeacePeace (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

Yeah...nope. Parsley Man (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Try again later. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:54, 13 November 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.

International protests

There have been protests in New Zealand (For example, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11746979) and elsewhere.114.134.4.163 (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

(2A02:8109:8AC0:692E:39C2:9A23:1AFC:DDAC (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC))The page does not include the large anti-Trump protest in Berlin in front of the Brandenburg Gate, German: http://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article208707051/Anti-Trump-Kundgebung-am-Brandenburger-Tor.html English: http://thetab.com/us/illinois/2016/11/12/anti-trump-protest-berlin-2096.

Trump's comments about Electoral College deleted

Parsley Man deleted the following section about Trump's comments about the Electoral College system and an image box by Trump with a quote on the grounds it was "Irrelevant to the article", so I had wondered what other editors thought as I would like to reach consensus on this issue. As one of the key complaints of protestors is that Trump is not the legitimate president because he did not win the popular vote I believe the quote is relevant to this article, as it reveals that he tacitly considers his election to be illegitimate (as do protestors) based on his comment about Barack Obama not being legitimately elected when he mistakenly thought Obama had not won the popular vote in the 2012 election. CodeBadger (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump supports protest march on Washington

"The Electoral College is a disaster for democracy… We should march on Washington and stop this travesty.” - Donald Trump (2012)<source>

Donald Trump said the Electoral College system was a “disaster for democracy” and called for a protest march on Washington to “stop this travesty” when he mistakenly thought that Barack Obama had lost the popular vote when elected President in 2012.<source>

<source>Bredemeier, Ken. "How Did Trump Win Election While Losing Popular Vote?. Voice of America, 11 November 2016. http://www.voanews.com/a/how-didi-trump-win-election-while-losing-popular-vote/3591226.html Retrieved 2016-11-13

For this article, I also find it irrelevant. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you see the message I left on your talk page? Parsley Man (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Parsley Man is correct. This is an article about protests against Donald Trump. It is not about his specific political positions except insofar as there is a direct RS cited connection to the ongoing protests. The deleted section looks like an effort to insert material that might reasonably raise suspicion of political bias. This article deals with a very hot button topic. We need to tread carefully here keeping a very close eye on NPOV at all times. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I just checked my Talk page and Parsley Man asserts that the edit is "completely irrelevant" as it relates to Trump's 2012 comments about the 2012 election. This is manifestly false as Trump's comments reveal that he supports a key complaint of protestors that a president-elect who fails to gain the popular vote has not been legitimately elected and that protestors should march on Washington, D.C., to demand change if this occurs. Thus are relevant to this article. You might not like Trump's comments but that does not mean they should be suppressed. CodeBadger (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with liking Trump or not. I hate it when people make that statement. That comment was made in 2012 four years ago. It has nothing to do with protestors against Trump or the most recent election. It doesn't belong here. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL, things can change in four years. Parsley Man (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@CodeBadger- If I had doubts earlier, they are rapidly dissipating. This is starting to look very POV. You need to check your WP:AGENDA at the door when you are editing on articles like this. If you want to engage in political commentary there are plenty of internet forums where that is welcome. This is not one of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I'll try to keep a neutral POV. Much appreciated. CodeBadger (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Toronto Protests Crowd Size

The wiki page says "a thousand people gathered in Nathan Phillips Square" in Toronto but some of the articles are saying it was 100-200. I think the former was an estimate. Can we get a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.98.63 (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Update on Protests

Can you update the post-election protest section? There is relevant information, such as that some have become violent (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/11/71_people_arrested_during_satu.html) Thanks, EDH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephraimhelfgot (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There used to be a separate article about post-election protests against Donald Trump, but it was recently merged back into this article. Jarble (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

The protesters appeared not to accept the calls of Secretary Clinton and President Obama to accept the election results. On November 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton stated “Donald Trump is going to be our president,” and told her supporters that “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-concession-speech-2016-donald-trump/ She told her supporters that they must accept that Mr. Trump would be president.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/donald-trump-won-now-what.html?_r=0

On November 9, 2016, President Obama also urged citizens to accept the election results and reminded the country that we “are all on the same team” and characterized politics as an “intramural scrimmage.” President Obama called on Americans to move forward with the presumption of good faith in fellow citizens. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/donald-trump-won-now-what.html?_r=0

Despite these calls for unity, the protests continued and some elements of the protests escalated to violence against police and vandalism against property in some cities. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/us/protests-elections-trump/index.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/11/violence-erupts-in-portland-riot-as-anti-trump-protests-continue-in-cities-across-the-nation/

2601:140:8300:79B6:5AB0:35FF:FE6B:EBD3 (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Seems pretty clear what the OP is requesting. Exact prose is suggested and multiple citations are provided; we just have to decide whether the proposed text is worth including and where to include it. I'm not making that decision, but reverting the request to unanswered until someone feeling competent about this article addresses the request fully. — JFG ^talk 07:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I just didn't understand what the IP wanted to be added. More specifically, where. Like the reactions, security, lead? I didn't know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Pppery 13:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

Hello, I am a student in the Bellevue School District. I would like to edit this page, as Odle Middle School experienced the anti-Trump school walkouts. I would like to add this to the wikipedia page.

PaulJWR (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This needs to be split into Protests and Riots

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.

---

I have a sneaking suspicion the Riot page will be a lot larger. 2A02:8084:4E40:E380:FD43:9411:E884:F4EA (talk) 19:58, 15 November 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

November 15th Penn State University

104.38.28.164 (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

November 15th Penn State University

So I'm unsure exactly what is wanted in terms of an edit request. I will just say that I went to a protest at Penn State today, so it should be added to the list of protests. I'm sure there are other protests missing as well.

104.38.28.164 (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Done When you get a notice like this, from an inexperienced editor, you could actually try to do a google search first. You might find a source, as I did in just a few seconds. You might find that IP users do have something positive to contribute, even though they might not know how. Trackinfo (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN. It is a user's responsibility to provide sources not mine, per the message. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

As an experienced editor, you have a choice. You can help the novice user by improving wikipedia, or you can choose not to help. If you are not going to be helpful, then shutting their request down makes it that much more difficult for them to obtain the help or remedy they seek, because you are saying their request has been answered. You deliberately did not lift a finger to search as is your right. Reporting the problem solved turns into unhelpful or better phrased, obstruction. The novice IP made the edit twice and you did it twice. You can do better. Trackinfo (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Uhhh...Callmemirela is helping, by advising them to provide reliable sources the next time they try again. Please assume good faith, you are starting to sound disruptive. Parsley Man (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I did make a choice. I made the choice of advising them about reliable sources. No matter how old an IP or user is, it is their responsibility to add sources not mine per WP:BURDEN. It is not my responsibility to run after users and fix their edits. It's their responsibility to conform with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If that's not how you feel it should be, then please do not tell editors how you think it should be. "You can do better." It is an editor's responbility to provide sources for whatever content is being added or updated regardless of experience. That's Wikipedia policy: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Again, one needs to provide reliable sources when making an edit request. It has nothing to do with "lifting a finger". Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Trackinfo, I noticed that you approved an edit request. Unlike this one, the IP user went through the trouble of posting his or her sources. That's what we were talking about. Parsley Man (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No contradiction here. I took the source provided. I am a firm believer in googling sources, you might have noticed I'm pulling in a lot of sources. That is the technique. Given a clue, you can refine your search, an advisable technique every wikipedia editor should learn. I've had many battles where editors are removing existing content. We also have WP:BEFORE. While this is in anticipation of adding content as opposed to removing content, I still think it should apply. It should apply in any case on wikipedia. Become informed on your subject before you edit, meaning choosing to display or not display content to the world.Trackinfo (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm really not fond of this self-righteous attitude. Please cut it out before I report you to WP:ANI. Parsley Man (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not a telethon. We do not want protesters writing in telling us what demonstrations they went to, what signs they held, what chants they chanted, what effigies they knitted.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

San Diego anti-Trump protestors walk onto highway at night, one gets hit by car

http://www.cw6sandiego.com/local-protests-election-results/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZeJLm-xnw

71.182.236.23 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

DoneTrackinfo (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

'GEEZ' sign

Is this notable? I added the photo to the Nov. 12 protest but it was removed, just curious what other people think.

"NOT USUALLY A SIGN GUY BUT GEEZ" a protest sign in New York city which became an internet meme

Victor Grigas (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

References

There doesn't seem to be any special reason to include it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any special reason to exclude it either. Actually it would be a welcome addition compared to excessive videos which all look the same. — JFG ^talk 07:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

But what is the notability here? Sign itself doesn't admit much. Parsley Man (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The sign might be popular, but it says nothing about the issues that motivate the protesters. If we are writing an article in a global encyclopedia that presumably someone is going to read in a few years, we want illustrations that convey to the uninformed what the protests were about. That sign could be used in any number of demonstrations.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't have said that any better. The sign is so vague, and I wouldn't be surprised if it appeared in a pro-Trump rally. Parsley Man (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Protests in Berlin, Germany

On Saturday, the 12th of Nov.: German source (including a link to youtube), video source, at 3 different places in Berlin (also infront of the embassy), if you want to find more sources, search for the quarters Neukölln (Herrmannplatz) or Mitte (Brandenburger Tor)

DoneTrackinfo (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Also for Sunday, the 13th demonstrations were announced. This sources states that there were already some signs against the outcome of the election on the 9th in Berlin, but none until the saturday. -- 141.30.80.89 (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll include when a source confirms there was an actual protest.Trackinfo (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposing article split

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.

---

I propose that this article be split on Election Day. With protests on or after Election Day on Protests against Donald Trump presidential candidacy, and anti-Trump protests that took place before the Election on a separate page Post-election protests against Donald Trump. Reasons are 1.) that this page is too long, and 2.) protests against a candidate are differ fundamentally form protests against a President-elect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree - The only reason this article is too long is because certain users believe an unnecessarily lengthy bullet-list of all cities and schools where protests occurred is absolutely essential in informing the Average Joe. We are nearly getting at 500 citations, but unsurprisingly, about 350 of them were dedicated to the aforementioned list. When the article was briefly split into two before being merged back again, it had only 150 citations to its name, with the remaining 350 or so citations going to that other article. And I can tell that if it remained split, the list would keep on expanding and expanding and the number of citations in the second article would be ridiculous. I highly suggest completely removing these bullet-lists instead, out of concerns for WP:DUE, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Parsley Man (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• This is being discussed above. We do not need another discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 18 November 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.

National or international protests?

The infobox and lead focus the protests in the US but we mention protests in Canada and New Zealand. At this point, we should come to a conclusion that these protests are not only in the US. It seems rather unbalanced that it's national protests then protests elsewhere show. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

November 27: A coalition protest & boycott occurred in front of St. Matthews Mall in Louisville, KY. Hundreds of drivers-by honked horns and waived in support. Emprwikiup (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

Please add Minneapolis to the list of cities that have held protests against the election of Donald Trump as the president elect of the US. 207.225.131.140 (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

November 21, 2016: Interfaith Paths to Peace, Louisville, KY, representing Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha'is, Native American spirituality, and others held a prayer service, candlelight vigil, peace-pipe ceremony, and vegetarian meal at the Crestwood Baptist Church. Representatives of each faith tradition spoke out about threats to peace, civil rights, and the environment posed by the newly elected regime. An estimated 240 people from all faiths attended, from across Kentucky, and as far away as Arkansas and Michigan. Emprwikiup (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide reliable sources and explain what you'd like to be changed. Also, please doublecheck that you are on the right talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

November 9, 2016: Peaceful Gathering of Lexington, KY held a candlelight vigil protest gathering in the Martin Luther King Neighborhood's Dunlap Park to discuss reactions to the election and begin to formulate future actions, including supporting immigrant communities & connecting with the Black Lives Matter and DAPL movements. Approximately 30 people participated. Emprwikiup (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Please see above, your previous request. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Trump Baby Balloon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Impeachment March (34874639643).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Baby Trump ballon at First Avenue in Minneapolis, Minnesota (48880044831).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

2025-2029

Well, get ready for EVEN MORE protests. And/or even worse, a Second American Civil War. 112.204.94.141 (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)