Wikipedia

Talk:Protests against Donald Trump/Archive 2

< Talk:Protests against Donald Trump
Latest comment: 7 years ago by PeacePeace in topic Needs to Distinguish Riots from Lawful Protests
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Nominated for ITN

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

-Ad Orientem (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Should we split this article?

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion

I propose that we split this article into 2. Dividing it on Election Day. The anti-Trump portests during the election campaign are a coherent topic. The post-election protests appear to me to also be a coherent, but a distinct topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

That discussion was started above. I agree. Trackinfo (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. There is no consensus for splitting the article. The article is bulky because it indiscriminately lists every protest — and there is no consensus in favour of that approach.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Given the newest developments, including the unwarranted creation of a new article before consensus could even be reached, I have started a merger discussion on that article's talk page. Here. Parsley Man (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Article has been merged back until consensus will be reached. Continue discussing. Parsley Man (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I would respectfully suggest that there is in fact consensus against splitting the article and in favor of trimming the existing one. And yes I think the new one should be redirected to here as it was created against that consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The new article has already been redirected here and will remain that way until a consensus for approval is clear. Parsley Man (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
There's still the concern of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and possibly even WP:COATRACK. Parsley Man (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I would argue that at least some of the events are getting substantial coverage -- not enough to justify a stand-alone article for any one of them (that I've seen), but there's been enough coverage of several of them, as well as coverage of the phenomenon of protests against Donald Trump in general. So I think that to argue against a split one would have to say that not only that a long list doesn't belong in the article about the protests, but also that such a list would a list not pass WP:LISTN/WP:GNG. While I agree that this should be pruned by way of higher standards set for inclusion, I don't think that would cut it down to the point that a separate list would be unjustified IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
"I would argue that at least some of the events are getting substantial coverage -- not enough to justify a stand-alone article for any one of them (that I've seen), but there's been enough coverage of several of them, as well as coverage of the phenomenon of protests against Donald Trump in general." Yes, that's true, and we could possibly mention them, but preferably not in the form of a list. And I will point you to the 2016 Portland, Oregon riots as an example of a standalone article for these protests (even though it's actually a riot that broke out from a protest). Parsley Man (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
For me, until lasting significance is shown, I'd prefer to see the Oregon article folded into this/these. But that's a separate thread... :) Regardless, based on the comments I'm seeing, there's a basic disagreement about what and how much to include. Given we're talking about ongoing events, my thinking is that there is also a practical benefit to separating the list from the article, to separate relevant discussions (e.g. focus on what's most important for the prose article, and focus on a clear inclusion criteria for the list -- without everything happening at once on the same page). So I think it makes sense to split from a normal editing standpoint and from a manageability standpoint. But to be clear, I don't think a pre-/post-election split is the best way to go at this point, so I oppose (weakly) this proposal but support the one I suggested below. Ultimately, if there's not lasting significance or if there's eventually consensus to significantly prune the list, it can always be merged back or nominated for deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

We need to set some standards for inclusion here and start trimming repetitive entries

Latest comment: 8 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

Per this discussion above I think it's time to get a handle on this article. I suggest we establish some minimal criteria for listing protests. First we don't post every minor protest that garners purely local coverage. To be listed a protest should have significant non-local news coverage. That means more than just a line or two in the national press/media. Most of the big cities and larger college campuses will have no trouble meeting that criteria. I also would not include protests with patently small turnouts unless there is some other obvious reason for inclusion (such as violence or other unusual factors). Also we are posting lists of protests for each day since Trump won. This is going to get ridiculous quickly. Especially since these lists are 80% or more repetitive of the previous days' lists. So rather than having separate and largely repetitive lists for each day why not just have a single list under the heading of post Trump Victory and note that many of the protests occurred over multiple days/nights? I make these proposals with an eye to UNDUE, RECENTISM and INDISCRIMINATE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the exclusion of local sources. I've been looking at these sources extensively as I have made an extensive number of these inclusions. The national stories only list and from those lists only pare down to a few that can fit into the one sentence. I have gone out of my way to find the local sources as feet on the ground at the demonstrations giving us, directing our knowledgeable readers to far superior information than the over simplified national news stories. We are doing far better coverage of this developing phenomenon because we can be inclusionary, while the national media have to cater to a click based audience that has the attention span of a gnat. As we are approaching 200 entries in almost every state, we are showing the scope of these protests. As was discussed above, taking an example of how wikipedia documented the Occupy protests, we have the potential to break this article up into time based slices, and create tables showing extended, repetitive protest locations like NYC, LA, Portland with start and end dates. Those larger centers of activity might justify an individual article, as was already done with Portland. The key thing here is this is documentation of something that will become a part of history. Arbitrarily purging information now will reduce the ability of our successors to research what happened later. Trackinfo (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
But do we really need to model this after the Occupy protests? In fact, is showing the scope of these protests really necessary? Do we really need to create sub-articles, if necessary, to prove said scope? I feel like you're trying to make this bigger than it should be for whatever reason. High-tier American media sources such as CNN are already doing a good job of saying how nationwide the protests are during their coverage. And given the political rhetoric that was spun off from the 2016 election, I'm confident the general public, which you claim has the attention span of a gnat, has a good idea how big these protests really are. Also, with your reasoning, how come it's not being applied to something like the Black Lives Matter protests, which have gone on nationwide for two years and have covered a lot of police officer-involved shootings (many of which don't even have Wikipedia articles yet). I can assume the answer to that is simple: a potential list and timeline, even in sub-articles, would've been ridiculously lengthy and unwieldy. Parsley Man (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I was only adding the major protests that has over hundreds of people attending, not the minor ones. I was trying my best to contribute this article. TTCTransportationFan4644 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

TTCTransportationFan4644 Thank you for your help and your contributions to the article are appreciated. But a protest involving "hundreds" of people is pretty run of the mill in this country. We need to set a bar somewhere which while acknowledging that there have been widespread protests, does not require us to list each and every one of them. We need to be a bit more discerning over what actually gets listed in the article or it will quickly get too big and repetitive. Again I want to thank you for your help here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, we have two mentions of a protest in Australia that attracted 80 people! I don't think the use of the "incomplete list" template is appropriate because this is not an almanac-style list like the list of state birds. I think we should write about the protests rather than list them. And I agree that a day by day listing is pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I think we should write about the protests rather than list them. Hear, hear! Strong support to prune most lists and videos, and write a few sentences instead. To those who would complain about minimizing the events, I say that the article would actually be more impactful without the repetitive bloat that most readers skip… — JFG talk 01:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't have said that any better. :) Parsley Man (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I am in full agreement that additional prose is needed, not in ignoring the volume of protests but with hundreds of thousands of individual messages being expressed, certainly a lot more can be said about them. There are already articles in the press grading the creativity of the signage. There are many great quotes in virtually every source I have already listed. That will expand this article immensely. Currently we are just mentioning a city name and getting criticized by a few for being too lengthy. Even when I tried yesterday to categorize a phenomenon of high school students walking out en masse in several cities, that was pruned out. Every day, every location has a different flavor that could and should be expanded upon greatly.Trackinfo (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
As if listing every city where a protest has occurred was enough for you. Now you want to include quotes in this article, potentially turning it into a WP:QUOTEFARM? Yeah, no thanks. And if we start an RfC on the whole issue, I'm sure it'll turn up a lot of people who would be supportive of heavily trimming this down. Also, I don't know when the scenario of high-school students walking out on their classes in several classes was "pruned out", but that is definitely noteworthy to mention. But NOT in a list.
"Every day, every location has a different flavor that could and should be expanded upon greatly." Uhhhhh...what?... Parsley Man (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I think there is a general consensus here that we need to be more discriminating in what we are including in the article. And with much respect, I must strongly disagree that we should cover every protest location etc. That clearly is contrary to both the letter and spirit of UNDUE and INDISCRIMINATE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
There is? I have not seen such an official consensus. I've only seen only one, maybe two people in support of it. Parsley Man (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I will have to agree. This is becoming unnecessarily lengthy, and we really don't need to mention every single protest that happens countrywide and worldwide every single day. I highly, HIGHLY suggest mentioning the protests that have occurred in major cities (i.e. New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago) ever since Trump won the election. That means the protests had to have been consistently going on daily since the election results. And I suggest doing all that in at least a couple of sentences. Also, if some major incident happened in a protest in a lesser-known city, such as, say, Portland, Oregon (and I cite the riots that sprung up from the initial protest), then we could mention that in a sentence or two as well. But other than that, this list is in desperate need of a purging and I think it's needed one for a couple of days now, as evidence by my first discussion on the issue. With that in mind, I'm going to ping Trackinfo and see what he thinks, since he seems to have advocated for inclusion of this kind of list and has contributed highly to it ever since it all started. Parsley Man (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with limiting the number of protests. If all we are doing is putting a city name with an article link, that's hardly taking up too much space. After all, this is an Encyclopedia, and we should seek to be encyclopedic. And what makes a protest in New York with hundreds of people more noteworthy than a protest in a small town with dozens of people? The small town protest might involve a bigger percentage of the area's population, and actually signifies how wide spread the protests are. Limiting the protests to only 'big city' protests minimizes how wide spread these protests are. JeffConn (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not encyclopedic to list every protest against Donald Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. While I really appreciate the work that Trackinfo has put into the article, we still need to be mindful of the guidelines and policies I cited in my opening statement on this thread. If we can get a handle on what to include, and trim the trivial stuff and repetitive entries I think that will be 90% of the battle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest that we limit it to protests from the beginning of his presidential campaign to the present. Anything before that should only be part of a background section. Charles Essie (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

We are ALMOST at 500 citations. This is getting ridiculous. Parsley Man (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

separate list from article rather than pre-election from post-election

Latest comment: 8 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

Looks like a few people have suggested splitting the article at the election, but no consensus has emerged supporting that.

What about instead, we just say that this article is an article about the protests, and the list (that which does not have the WP:WEIGHT to remain in the article prose) spins out to List of protests against Donald Trump (or something along those lines)? Seems like a basic matter of a list overtaking an article and therefore meriting spinning out on that basis alone. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

  • We already have a list. And it takes up a significant portion of this article, leaving little room for coverage on more important things. Like the background and causes of the protests, the participants, the counter-protests, media coverage, public opinion, international reactions, ect. This is why we need to split it into a separate page. Charles Essie (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jack Upland and Parsley Man: It don't know how easily you'll be able to reduce the list here. It seems to me if you want it gone the best way forward would be to support this split then nominate the separate list for deletion. Of course, if it's kept, that will establish consensus for its existence (though not necessarily for the inclusion criteria, of course, which definitely needs to be figured out). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm indifferent to whether the proposal which started this particular section takes the form of a list or a timeline. Realistically, it would just be a matter of naming the page and slight stylistic differences, I think. An RfC is, at this point, premature, because there does not seem to be any clear plan for "keep and trim" along the lines of specific inclusion criteria. Proposing "the choices" with one's own version thereof will just lead to a messy RfC, since people's opinions will differ. In other words: what are the choices? "Trim" (or "cut down", "come up with an inclusion criteria", etc.) is too vague. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I spelled it out clearly in another talk page discussion: no bulleted list, and simply mention that protests have occurred all over cities and schools in the U.S., listing only the very major cities (i.e. New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago) as examples, since protests have occurred there ever since the election. Any other events involving the protests, such as the 2016 Portland, Oregon riots, can also be mentioned. Parsley Man (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • That isn't clear, though. What "other events" are like Portland? And why major cities? If there's one source about a protest in Phoenix that would outweigh a dozen for Richmond? (hypotheticals). The size of the city shouldn't matter -- the source coverage is the only thing that matters, so any inclusion criteria would need to be in terms of breadth, depth, duration, and geography of the sources. It's about assessing WP:WEIGHT rather than the OR of "what looks important" (which I'm not saying you're advocating). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • We don't even have to split it. We can do what Parsley Man advised, but in a timeline form, removing any indiscriminate examples. Sure, it might take some time, but we could get it done.JaydonBrooks (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Protest headers and sub headers

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Protests have a few key points

  • Background
  • The Issue/Objective
  • Arrests
  • Casualties/Tactics
  • Domestic responses
  • International reactions
  • Characteristics
  • Causes
  • Results/Consequences


I would like to have a header for each section with accurate information but I don't have it all yet so I added Trumps response and the protests objectives. I think these are topics that should be added to and will improve the quality of the article immensely. I took part from elsewhere in the article that contained the information and added to the article with 3 new sources and an event not posted below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.180.11 (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think we have a disruptive editor who's trying to force this edit, even though it's mostly relying on Twitter and some of it is already written further down in the article. I urged him twice now to discuss it on the talk page but it appears he's disregarding me. I'm not going to drag myself into an edit-war myself so I need someone else to take care of it ASAP. Parsley Man (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. Parsley Man (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

False news reports about the protests

Latest comment: 8 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion

I just wrote this section in the lead, and was about to add this reference from the Washington Post and when I refreshed the page, it had been reverted:

There have been several false news reports about protesters being paid as much as $3,500 to take part in protests[1][2], protesters blocking ambulances which result in deaths[3], and five city blocks of busses[4][5] parked in Chicago as evidence of Astroturfing.

I think that the notion that the protests might have been manufactured is something that needs to be addressed as unsubstantiated clearly in the article. I'm curious what others think.

Victor Grigas (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "No, someone wasn't paid $3,500 to protest Donald Trump". @politifact. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
  2. ^ Dewey, Caitlin (2016-11-17). "Facebook fake-news writer: 'I think Donald Trump is in the White House because of me'". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
  3. ^ Zarronandia, Jeff. "Anti-Trump Protesters Block Ambulance; Father of 4-Year-Old Girl Dies?". snopes. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
  4. ^ Zero Hedge (2016-11-13), Trump Protest Busses, retrieved 2016-11-18
  5. ^ "Blocks Of Anti-Trump Protest Buses Caught On Tape | Zero Hedge". www.zerohedge.com. 2016-11-13. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
I have to agree with Victorgrigas here, I'm not quite sure why this edit was made, perhaps Parsley Man could explain here and discuss? Maybe all involved could tweak the wording or talk about the sources used? Sagecandor (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS, not lede-worthy, unreliable sources, you name it. Parsley Man (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I added the reference to the very bottom in the 'reactions' section so it's not in the lede, removed the examples of fake news as unreliable sources (now its washington post, politifact), and I disagree about this section being in conflict with WP:NOTNEWS, there is no original reporting, the enduring notability of these reports inform a larger issue about fake news which these protests are related to, it is not a diary or a who's who. Victor Grigas (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Parsely Man's views. The sources you have indicated are not factual news reports. They are primary opinion sources in that they are not reporting as an independent or third-party source, but are carrying out their own original research by stringing together multiple points. This means that the articles are inherently biased towards a certain point - that the protests are necessarily fake. Many of these sources you have indicated are opinion pieces in newspaper columns or blogs, do not represent their publishing organization's official point of view and have not gone through proper editing (e.g. as with newspaper articles) or peer review (e.g. as with scientific journals) processes and would be considered as unreliable.
If you do want to include this, it has to be in the form of a quote (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...") to attribute the statement to the writer, to make it clear that it is an opinion as opposed to a fact, as per Wikipedia's policy on newspaper blogs. And as with all opinions, due weight should be provided to multiple views to maintain neutrality. And this should never be in the lede because it is not a basic fact as stated in Wikipedia's policy for the lead section. --219.74.85.176 (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Let me give an example: Let's say sources A, B and D are scientific journals, having gone through proper peer review processes, while source C is a blog. If source A states that helium II is a liquid and source B states that beakers can hold some liquids, the only thing which can be written on Wikipedia is that "helium II is a liquid (ref: source A) and that beakers can hold some liquids (ref: source B)". To state that "beakers can hold helium II because it is a liquid (ref: sources A, B)" would be synthesizing sources A and B and is not necessarily true (e.g. beakers can't hold superfluids like helium II). Even if source C comes in to provide this opinion, it is unreliable as it has not gone through proper editing or peer review processes and if included, should be in the form of quotes (e.g. "Source C states..."). Only if source D (which has been peer reviewed and thus is reliable) states it, should it be included as a fact. --219.74.85.176 (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I took a look at that chunk that was removed and it could actually use some improving and tweaking. I'd say the two best sources in there were the Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com and the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Washington Post. Sagecandor (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, Snopes is definitely not a credible source and undoubtedly contains more opinion than fact. But even with the WaPo and PolitiFact, there are still further, equally credible sources to the contrary claiming that these ARE really manufactured protests - including an interview on CBS of a protester who admitted to being paid to protest. It's definitely not yet settled that these are "false" news reports. 169.231.44.116 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
If they did say they were paid (why? that makes no sense whether they're pro- or anti-Trump or don't care and want money) they could be lying. If fake protesters even exist are likely such a small percentage as to be not worthy of mention. And who would pay anyone $3500 to protest something so unpopular? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with the WaPo and PolitiFact sources listed as credible sources for this point in this specific case, because as mentioned above, those articles quoted are opinion pieces, not factual news reports, and are columns with informal writing styles and tones which are unlikely to have gone through the proper editorial processes before publishing. That is, investigative journalism was carried out on a personal basis and this original research makes the articles primary sources, not the independent or third-party sources which would be so much more reliable. The reason why independent or third-party sources are preferred is because they are likely to have less of a vested interest in the topic, and also because this serves as an additional round of fact-checking on the primary source (usually via the amalgamation of multiple primary sources). We need a factual news report, reporting on this original research, instead using the original research itself as a source, which is happening here. Also, proper care must be taken to ensure that proper weight is given to this "false news" section and not make it sound more widespread than it actually is (e.g. definitely not lede-worthy). --219.74.85.176 (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Source for that CBS interview, please? Sagecandor (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Sagecandor - just noting I've edited out the Politifact cite as it was only reporting what the washington post interview said -- and we have the Post cited. Also I shifted the $3,500 remark to that line, since the Post cite is the one about $3,500. Markbassett (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Markbassett:Maybe we could include both sources, as a way to have dual confirmation and verification. Sagecandor (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Sagecandor: - No, the Politifact 'no somebody wasn't paid $3500' is explicitly quoting out of the Washington Post cite, and says "PolitiFact was unable to reach Horner independently." So it's not an additional source of different data or any form of confirmation, it's just an indirect cite to the Post that would be duplicative. Markbassett (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
They've got their own independent analysis, including of the fraudulent website the claims first appeared, ABCnews.com.co, and it's by the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting winning source PolitiFact. PolitiFact includes information that they debunked other fraudulent news stories by same source and same author multiple times. I think we should include the source for PolitiFact. Sagecandor (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Sagecandor - for WP:WHYCITE we want a cite to provide WP:V of the line. But the rest just is WP:OFFTOPIC waste -- that they won a 2008 award for making this Web Journalism (2 elections ago) or that they mention they've debunked him three other times isn't about the $3500 story or Donald Trump protests for pay. The essay WP:CITECLUTTER seems relevant for keeping it down to the cite that matters. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Not off topic. If it is offtopic then the entire subsection should be removed. The Pulitzer Prize winning site PolitiFact.com is a reliable source. They came to their own independent conclusion "the article is 100 percent fabricated, as its author acknowledges. We rate it Pants on Fire." The fact that FOX News fell for it and never issued a correction about their mistake makes FOX News an unreliable source for this info, and certainly a less reliable source than the Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact.com. Sagecandor (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Good copy edits done by Parsley Man and by McGeddon, thank you both. Sagecandor (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, looking at it again, these appear to be unrelated stories - the Fox News one is about an ad offering protestors "$15 an hour for up to four hours", and Politifact talks about a story where someone claims to have been paid $3,500 to attend a single protest, and this doesn't mention Fox News. This doesn't show that Fox News have been tricked by the $3,500 fake news story. --McGeddon (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Good point, McGeddon, fixed to make it more clear in the article text, better now? Sagecandor (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought I'd already clarified it, but sure. --McGeddon (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Both good changes, McGeddon, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

New edits by IP

Latest comment: 8 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion

Could please take it here? You are refusing to do so as I have said a bunch of times. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the IP's apparent inability to grasp talk page discussions, I have taken it to WP:AN3RR. Comment if you will. Not sure if I should take you there as well, since it seems like you also violated WP:3RR, but I'm very unsure about reporting both parties to the same thread and I was a third party. Parsley Man (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You two are as biased as the electoral college! He 3RR'ed first — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.194.13 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm a she. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, madam. Doesn't anyone think the article lead should attempt to explain WHY people are protesting? Someone else have a crack at it if you have a better explanation, but you cannot in good faith leave this article's readers to jsut GUESS why people are protesting, if they only read the lead. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Now reported on WP:AVI. Parsley Man (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Good. I'll report you, as well, Parsley boy, for making false ANI reports. Enjoy. You know what vandalism is, and "edits I disagree with" aren't it. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not old enough to be called madam. Please don't say that again. As for your edits, you are repeatedly restoring content after being told to take it to the talk page. It was not neutral, it didn't belong here and should gain consensus first. You only responded here after restoring the content again. It's still non-neutral and certain content don't belong on this article, but if I were to revert, you'd restore it, call us out with false accusations (I am anti-Trump) and respond to the talk page after restoring. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
why don't we stop bickering over the consensus procedres and address the substantive points I've made: The previous lead version of the article included no explanation of WHY people were protesting, other than an insinuation about the electoral college, which is hardly the only reason, and included no info on upcoming "massive' inauguration day protest, million woman march, and general strike. You want to neutralize the language I've included, then fine, but the article will be a sad farce if you remove it entirely. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is all about consensus. You don't own Wikipedia. We make decisions as a whole, not alone. Also, it doesn't matter if the article looks like "a sad farce", it's called policies and guidelines, which I strongly suggest you read carefully. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I never said I did; I merely asked that you provide REASONS for your views, not merely a show of hands. So you're not going to engage in any kind of substantive argument as to why the article shouldn't explain the reasons for protest? In any event, I told you, by all means edit what I've added if you find it wanting, but I don't see how an Protests against Donald Trump can omit the fairly essential qestion of just what it is that people are protesting to begin with? I suggest you read the policies as well, which require as their highest principle that all important information be placed in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.194.13 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you did say that by writing "Why don't we stop bickering over consensus procedures [...]." I have already told you why it shouldn't be included. It's not neutral, it doesn't belong here and it's already explained. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstood what I had to say, then. The content of my question was, 'Why don't we argue about what should be in the article?" (substance) rather than "What are the proper procedures for arguing?' (empty formalism) As to your substantive point, where exactly is it "already explained' in the lead? Your lead, or the previous lead, makes it sound as if the only reason people are protesting is the electoral/popular split. On the contrary, people were already protesting as of the next day. At that point, Clinton had no popular vote lead, or a very small one. If you read articles about the protests, only a subset claim the electoral college as THE reason for the protest. At least as many are protesting due to Trump's nativist rhetoric, boasts of sexual assault, conflicts of interest + tax evasion, etc. As I repeatedly requested, please rephrase neutrally if you'd like, or replace with something better. But without SOME replacement explanation, this article has a major lacuna. Why ARE people protesting? 63.143.194.13 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
You deny ownership of anything, yet you claim that the article will suffer if your content is entirely removed. I highly suggest you read and review WP:OWNERSHIP. Parsley Man (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Oy vey ist mir. I have repeatedly said "Please edit that content if you like." All I asked is that you not wholesale revert the entire thing, or to at least provide a justification for why the protests article has no need to explain WHY people are protesting. I still don't think I've heard an answer. You say it's less than neutral? Than edit it to be more than neutral. Let the great collaboration begin!63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Very ironic that you want to colleborate after edit warring your way through. That's disruptive and uncollaborative. This could have all been avoided if you took it to talk page like I said. But you ignored that and just restored unsourced, non-neutral content. It's all about users fixing other edits. It's a user's responsibility who adds the content to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's not up to us to run after your editing and fix everything. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I added sources. If you think my phrasing is not neutral, it would take not much time to fix it. Have you tried that? The substantive point remains. Where is the explanation of WHY people are protesting? We should give readers a clue, rather than a vague insinuation that it only has to do with the electoral college, when at least as many, if not more, protesters seem to citing that nativist and anti-woman rhetoric.
Thing is, the content you are posting is either WP:POV, not lede-worthy and possibly could just be mentioned further down in the article body, or supported by unreliable sources. Wikipedia editors also have a right to completely remove certain content that they feel does not meet certain content guidelines. If you have a problem with that, that is why you should go to the talk page immediately, not revert over and over until you violate WP:3RR. I agree with Callmemirela that it's very ironic you're collaborating now of all times, when you're stuck in a deep hole. Parsley Man (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm in a hole? Cool. Thing is, the content I am posting IS lede-worthy, since the lede ought to explain WHY there are protests. Who, what, why, when, where, how are needed in lede. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The specifics can be transferred to an "Objectives" section or something like that. The lede doesn't need to have that kind of extensive detail. Other IP users wanted an objectives section? Guess now's the perfect time for it! But even with that aside, there are still some unreliable sources supporting your material. Parsley Man (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I also don't see why the Jill Stein recount effort and accusations of election irregularities are irrelevant here. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a lot of doubts that the Jill Stein recount effort counts as a protest. Like I said in my edit summary, it's more suited to the United States presidential election, 2016 article or at least another article closely related to it. But not here. In regards to the election irregularity accusations, it could go either way, depending on what comes out of it, but for now, it just sounds like hearsay. Parsley Man (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough63.143.194.13 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I do sort of see 63.143.194.13's rationale; I agree that it's worth to include a paragraph in the lead that attempts to explain the reasons as to why these protests are happening (whether it's opposition against Trump's attitude or his political positions or whatever). However, I also agree with the registered editors that statements should be of a neutral POV and backed up by credible sources - "Trump is believed[by whom?] to be the first presidential candidate in history to openly boast about grabbing women by the vagina without first securing their consent". Maybe try undergoing a collaborative effort to write a paragraph detailing the reasons for protesting within the article's talk page, and then allowing for peer review and consensus before incorporating it into the article? Just my two cents. 96.48.240.253 (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Now that the IPs and socks were blocked for sockpuppetry, I suggest that anyone who has issues of the removal of content or want to improve the lead, please discuss here. Any suggestions are highly appreciated, but please gain consensus first. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines for inclusion

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Now that a fairly broad consensus has been established in favor of shortening the lists of the post-election protests, what are the guidelines for inclusion? While we don't want tiny protests mentioned (100 people in a small town in rural Kansas), we don't want important ones left out. JaydonBrooks (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

We probably should wait until the RfC is officially closed. More decisive votes could come in in the future. Parsley Man (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
When do we officially close it? Granted it's only been a couple of days, but the vote is already 8-2 in favor of removal/trimming, on top of days and weeks of prior discussion where this consensus has been made clear before in non-vote forms. It's fairly unlikely that consensus will suddenly shift now, but we should set some sort of cap for when the RfC officially ends. 169.231.145.204 (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
When an admin decides it's time. And I'm saying this as a precaution. More users than just those frequenting this article are able to see the RfC (since there's a record of RfCs listed according to category) and therefore participate in it; a sudden shift of the consensus is certainly a possibility. I don't think we can afford to believe the tide has already turned in our favor just yet. Parsley Man (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we should not close this precipitously. But if the voting remains this lopsided after a couple more days then there is no reason to drag this out. When consensus is obvious and overwhelming, anyone can close an RfC, in some cases even involved editors. If consensus is in doubt then an Admin should close it after 30 days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Neither extreme position can stand per basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines (removing everything or keeping everything -- not that that's being proposed here). Every list needs an explicit inclusion criteria, whether or not it's stand-alone (WP:LISTN, WP:NOT, WP:SAL) and including examples is just part of normal article writing. I still think that would be most straightforward after spinning off the list, but no matter, the conversation can take place irrespective of the RfC. The default for inclusion as part of the article is, of course, WP:WEIGHT, more or less. The number of people attending a protest doesn't matter except insofar as it's connected to the amount of coverage it received. You'll have to accept that when you talk in terms of sources rather than OR (simply deciding that a big protest is more significant), you're going to let through more examples than you probably want. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
So you're telling me a protest attended by about 100 people is notable? Pfft, yeah right. Parsley Man (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I would say that 100 people protesting Trump in a small rural Kansas town is more notable than 1000 people protesting Trump in a city like San Francisco (where I live) or New York. But it's a matter of what reliable sources report on, not our opinions on the subject. Funcrunch (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
But would a reliable source report on a protest in a small rural Kansas town that was attended by 100 people? Unless some high-profile incident happened there, I highly doubt it. Parsley Man (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
So you're telling me... Obviously I told you nothing of the sort. A 100-person protest can be notable, yes. So can a 100,000-person protest, but the number of people is, for the purpose of inclusion, irrelevant. All that matters is how much coverage it has received. Yes, a 100,000-person protest is more likely to get press than a 100-person protest, hence it's more likely we'd include the larger events, but we're not the one making that decision based on size -- we're looking at who says things are important and going by that. Lots of big stories about a tiny protest means we would include it over a 100,000-person protest that gets mention only in a local blog. Extreme examples to illustrate a point. Number of people cannot be part of the inclusion criteria. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I stand by my original suggestion somewhere in one of the many threads above this one. Protests should be directly referenced only if they have received significant coverage from multiple non-local RS sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. We need to be guided by the sources, not make arbitrary judgements.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The lead currently begins with the words, "In 2015 and 2016, protests against Donald Trump, or anti-Trump protests, have taken place throughout the United States in the wake of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and his later victory in the U.S. presidential election". That doesn't make sense as written. Protests in 2015 cannot take place "in the wake of" Trump's victory in the 2016 Presidential election, which is what that wording implies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It's time to close it

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Now looking at the RFC a few days later, it hasn't changed very much. RFC: 10 to 2 in favor of shortening or removing the lists. That appears to be the consensus. JaydonBrooks (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned a few sections up, there's no way to reconcile including or excluding all examples from the list, so the outcome of the RfC isn't really so consequential (i.e. unless we're going to throw out basic editing norms, the list(s) must be shortened and shouldn't just be removed wholesale). I cannot imagine this is controversial. The two conversations to have are about splits and inclusion criteria. The reason I was hoping for a split first, is because as is with the case with many separate articles and lists, both have their own inclusion criteria for talking about examples. The list would still have to be reduced regardless, but it's a different conversation to say "what do we include in the list" and "what do we include in the prose/article". That said, there hasn't seemed to be any strong consensus for a split, so let's talk inclusion. Let's start out assuming there will, in fact, be one or more shorter lists in this article, rather then strictly prose, and we can reassess a split afterwards. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I highly agree. It's time to close the RfC and remove this list, once and for all, before we get to 600 citations for this article. And yes, Rhododendrites, this list actually IS pretty controversial. I would say that this list does not deserve its own article and never should have one. I really, really, REALLY recommend you to read WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTNEWS. Then you'll see why so many people are opposed to it. Parsley Man (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
... I didn't say "the list is not controversial". What's not controversial is that we cannot get rid of all examples, and cannot keep all of the examples. Pruning is inevitable. The extent of that pruning is what will be determined by the inclusion criteria (i.e. assessment of weight). The RfC says "the daily lists of all locations". But obviously that doesn't mean removing the whole timeline section, which includes prose and bulletpoint lists, nor does it mean that everything currently formatted with bulletpoints should be removed without being folded into the prose. It doesn't even mean that the article should not have any carefully selected list of events. As what would be "removed" is unclear, any claim that there is consensus for removing x or y is problematic. What there is consensus for, and what is uncontroversial per standard editing norms, is including examples based on clear inclusion criteria (not everything; not nothing). I just said that while I support a split, there hasn't seemed to be strong consensus for a split, so let's talk about inclusion... so let's talk about standards for inclusion. Another way to ask that might be to ask those in a hurry to act on the RfC: what would that look like? What specifically are you looking to do? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not wish to talk about inclusion, because I have already stated the obvious. Protests that occurred in major cities daily ever since the election results are certainly notable. Parsley Man (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Is this page not becoming part of the protest itself? Like all kind of insignificant things are in it, because people want to show themselves they protested against Trump or are against Trump and then putting it here on this list? One could call it virtue signaling even, if you look at it the most negatively.AntonHogervorst (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment There has been little activity in the RfC for a while now. And the voting is so lopsided that I think it comes pretty close to justifying a SNOW close. Yes, it's time to close this and begin fixing the article. As it stands the article looks like an anti-Trump WP:COATRACK. Absent some dramatic shift in the next 24hrs, and assuming someone else doesn't do so first, I will close it tomorrow. And before anyone throws INVOLVED at me, yes, involved editors can close RfCs if the consensus is so overwhelming that it is non-controversial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines for Inclusion 2

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe that the general guideline should be that any event that hasn't gotten one or more reliable non-local sources shouldn't be included. That makes it so that the 10 people protesting in a tiny town in Kansas won't get undue coverage in this article. Any thoughts or modifications on this guideline? JaydonBrooks (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems like you're looking to set a baseline, which is a good idea. I would modify it to include something like "non-trivial".
There are many sources which might be about a protest in New York and add "and there were protests in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Boise, too." By "non-trivial" I mean that it doesn't have to be the subject of the story (it could be a couple sentences, say) but being in a list like that, or having one photo in a magazine slideshow, etc. doesn't contribute to that "one or more reliable non-local sources". I think it would make sense to talk about being more restrictive later, but this seems sensible for a baseline to get something done. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Add a section on planned protests?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a planned protest for January 20th (Inauguration Day) The protest is known as DisruptJ20 http://www.disruptj20.org/ http://www.answercoalition.org/protest_on_inauguration_day 24.191.232.122 (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for future events. Parsley Man (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Why are partisan articles such as this fine for an encyclopedia? It is impossible for this to be an objective article. It reeks of sore losers and antidemocratic anti-Trump people with totalitarian personalities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.122.118 (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Therefore apply this to the article {{Proposed deletion/dated |concern = NPOV |timestamp = 20161130002501 |help = }} Oh wait, you can't, this article has been taken hostage by some admins, now it isn't an article anyone can edit. Surprising, isn't it?

Please assume good faith; I have my doubts everyone here is anti-Trump. I myself am a neutral independent. But no matter how it's being spun, the protests are a very notable thing and therefore deserving of an article on Wikipedia. What exactly seems "anti-Trump" to you about this article? And who is this admin you're speaking of? You're going to have to be more specific about your concerns and not just come across as ranting. Parsley Man (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Those who semi-protected the article
Highlighting and giving invaluable and disproportionate publicity to a very small bunch of hateful extremists, that's being objective? And is anyone thinking that an article commenting on protests against something is going to speak favorably of the object of those protests? Sure
And this article was nominated for deletion and survived...--Jack Upland (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
That does only mean that fascists and antidemocratic people who refuse to accept the results of a democratic election are a majority here. It is no indication about the worth of the article. Such things and the "voting" or the "democratic", "free" decisiond taken here at Wikipedia tell something about the whims and paranoias of admins and editors, but nothing about the articles and their worth.
The protests are being covered widely by WP:RS. It's an ongoing event worldwide that's just going to continue and continue. Wikipedia isn't just going to ignore that. Parsley Man (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lists of all locations where post-election protests occurred be shortened or removed?

Latest comment: 7 years ago54 comments19 people in discussion
This RfC was closed because consensus was reached to shorten/remove the lists. JaydonBrooks (talk) 12:53, 29 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.

Should the daily lists of all locations where post-election, anti-Trump protests occurred be shortened or removed? Parsley Man (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment - I understand there are already other discussion threads about this topic, but I think it's time the debate was finished once and for all, since the others are still open-ended, and I think an RfC is the way to go. Parsley Man (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No -- Split (or propose some inclusion criteria instead of this RfC) - Should be split to make separate article and list (see above), and then a better inclusion criteria developed at the list talk page. This question is asking if it should be shortened without proposing any actionable way forward. An inclusion criteria will be necessary in any event. I happen to think that would be best accomplished on a separate list, but if people don't want to split the RfC should be a proposal of specific inclusion criteria. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    • In case the above is not clear, I am not in favor of leaving the existing list as it is. It is definitely the case that some will have to be removed. But some being removed isn't proposed here. What this asks is whether the list should be removed. It's not at all clear that there should be no list whatsoever. After all, there are several individual protests that received extensive news coverage. Some can be worked into prose, and others might be difficult without turning the prose into an unbulleted list itself. So my first preference is to split in order to focus on improving the article separate from the list, and to develop workable inclusion criteria on the separate list's talk page. Second choice would be developing inclusion criteria for the list that would necessarily prune most of it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove - This list has become unnecessarily, ridiculously long, not to mention unencyclopedic. I think it'd be best if we dropped it altogether. Parsley Man (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove — We should describe the protests, not list them. A list is simply inappropriate in a topic like this. Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 does not list every rally Trump attended.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove – Objectively, they must go. Excessive listing. --Bod (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove and Replace - The listing is extremely long. 2 or 3 months on the "Pre-Election" timeline is about the same length as one of the days on the days on the "Post-Election" list. That is not acceptable. We should change the Post-Election protests into a timeline, removing any unnecessary or excessive details. JaydonBrooks (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Summarize in prose. — JFG talk 19:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove per my three zillion comments in previous threads. And yes per RECENTISM, DUE, INDISCRIMINATE and NOTNEWS (HT: JFG for that last one that I had not thought of). -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep but Split as I have said all along. At this point in time, we don't know the long term significance of all these protests. What we do know is this is virtually unprecedented to have this much protest at the election of a new president. The previous occasion set up the Civil War. All we can do at this point is to document history in the making. Because the country is so factionalized and one faction has won all the political power, we are headed into a period of single-party rule--the first in almost a century. The last time it happened it set up The Great Depression. Protests are the only opposition available to other factions. Applying any further rationale to these protests in this environment will cause complaints of WP:NPOV, depending on the side of the reader. As a major contributor to this content, I have avoided applying too much prose to my additions. I was absent for more than two days yet content continued to be added. I'm not the only one seeing this significance. Using Google as my resource, after that absence, I can clearly see how much more difficult it is to find sources outside of the narrow time range of today. And that is just in two days. Imagine what got lost in just that time, I think I've only found some of it. Major media tends to flock around the major cities and only gives a minor nod to what is happening in the flyover states. Most major coverage is superficial because the click based economics of on-line journalism encourages almost sentence long articles requiring more action and ad exposure for the user. Simply logging the sources still serves as a resource to the future historians who will determine the significance of these events as development to whatever happens next. So the main article, here, deserves much more prose but should take up less space. I expect there will be a lot of arguing about what that prose is. The logging should be in a supporting wikilinked article. As the significance of specific protests, groups, movements and direction becomes more apparent, those specific protests can be expanded upon. The key thing for future historians is to be able to find the sources, or clues to find the sources to get that information in the future. The work of capturing those sources has to happen now. Trackinfo (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think this demagogic tirade just proves, once and for all, that your motivations for filling this page with list after list after list are obviously rather partisan. You literally just basically said that Trump is going to cause a second Civil War and a second Great Depression. And even IF that was true, even if America just suddenly devolves into chaos tomorrow, so what? How does that have anything to do with Wikipedia? As has been cited several times before, NOTNEWS. It is NOT Wikipedia's job to "document history in the making," even if that's what this is. Again, these protests could turn out to be absolutely nothing and could completely vanish in a couple weeks - they're already gradually dying down. And would you just listen to yourself for a bit, and realize how melodramatic you're being? "I was absent for two days...imagine what got lost in just that time." Because apparently, to you, this article isn't complete if even just two days' worth of protests isn't about five columns long. Plus, by openly citing Google as your main source, you basically admitted that you're going out of your way to find instances of protests that otherwise would never be noteworthy, just so you can plug them into this article. That's definitely not encyclopedic. As Jack Upland so plainly put it, the Donald Trump campaign article doesn't list every single rally Trump attended, so why should this one list every single protest, even the ones that - as Markbassett says below - are basically just every time a bunch of high school students want a day off of school? It should be obvious to everyone now, after this, that your motivations are not to enrich Wikipedia with encyclopedic content, but rather to turn this article into a giant laundry list that basically amounts to an anti-Trump propaganda page. The fact that you have also lashed out with aggression and hostility towards anyone who questions your edits should also be further proof that your intentions are not to better Wikipedia, but to further your own views. I rest my case. 169.231.44.116 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment - I will have to agree with this sentiment right there. Trackinfo seems to be displaying some sort of WP:OWNERSHIP attitude when it comes to this article. For example, he sent this rather aggressive message to my talk page about putting up a mere bare URL tag on the article. But I think I will stop right there; this seems to belong in another discussion (or even another discussion thread) entirely. Parsley Man (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Trackinfo: Respectfully, "future historians" don't care about your evaluation of significance or your obsessive collection of tidbits. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Get a blog. — JFG talk 07:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to pile on here but what Trackinfo seems to be saying is that we should be a News Ticker, RECENTISM should be embraced and INDISCRIMINATE is irrelevant. The possibility that there is some kind of WP:AGENDA here cannot be dismissed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I have an agenda in trying to post complete and accurate content. As with other stories, wikipedia can and does do better coverage than the media because we can aggregate content down to the summation. I had no intention of this content taking over this article. I do have the intention of it being the support article, the list of these individual protests. I have said from the beginning that this should be split; there are numerous fashions to split it. I offered up the various (and many) Occupy protest articles as a format example. Once split, this article can be more pristine, where the POV forces can argue about the accusations and conclusions in the prose, while the list is linked but kept separately. My message above is that time is of the essence in capturing the list data. We will see what develops in the future as to its significance. I enumerated some of the possibilities from the past. We don't know what is happening now. If this turns out to be nothing, it can be discarded in the future. But these protests involve several hundred thousand people, its not nothing. As for ownership, I have not posted a single photo or video, I haven't been near a protest, but the article is cluttered with them. I have moved a few for cleanliness, but that content completely originates from other editors trying to add to the content of this article. Some of those pictures were added before I added the location of the protest. They became clues. I specified that in my absence other users still seem to want to add to the list, so its not just me. I have a long history of being activist in helping other less experienced users to post their content. I do chastise other editors who do not use their skills for the betterment of wikipedia simply because the new editor doesn't know what to do. Yes I do have my pet peeves on wikipedia. They've been on my home page for years. Push my button, I bark.
Folks, we have at least another 1,520 days of the Trump presidency to deal with. Its kind of obvious he attracts protests of this article wouldn't exist. Virtually every word in articles about him will offend a faction on one side or the other. We are going to need to come up with a way to deal with this minefield of controversy and that is going to go a lot deeper than the mere documentation of the existence of protests around the country.Trackinfo (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Once again, you literally did not make a single argument in favor of this article and its content from the standpoint of Wikipedia's goal of encyclopedic content. Those in opposition to this article's transformation into the disastrous, clustered, cumbersome, confusing list of lists that it is now have cited a TON of Wikipedia's policies, including: NOTNEWS, INDISCRIMINATE, RECENTISM, DUE, and now AGENDA. Your only argument is based on your obviously-biased perspective that Trump is going to cause some historic upheaval in American society, on par with the Civil War and/or Great Depression. You're arguing from a personal perspective, not an objective one, as a Wikipedia editor should. Once more, IF this does turn out to be historically significant (which is becoming increasingly unlikely by the day, as they continue to die down), THEN we can come back and revisit it. But if it continues to decrease in prominence and significance, then it's obviously not necessary. We don't create an article under the assumption that it'll eventually become necessary - you create it after the fact, when it has become obviously clear that it necessitates an article. JFG said it best - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want to create your own little blog where you document every single protest that's ever occurred against Trump - from the ones attended by thousands to the micro-protests of half-a-dozen or less - then feel free. That non-encyclopedic content doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
Furthermore, you're missing the actual point of this RfC. No one is advocating the deletion of the page. We are simply requesting that the page be seriously cleaned up, and yes - a vast majority of the lists be removed, since it is getting way out-of-hand. The protests can be summarized in prose, and MAYBE a basic, much broader timeline can be included. But this trend of five columns of cities, schools, and locations PER DAY is objectively getting ridiculous. 169.231.145.204 (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove -- generally unless there is notability about one. Set some kind of basis why one would mention location X and not Y -- is it size ? is it something that happened at the protest ? Or does any High School bunch that wanted a day off school get included ??? Set some bar for mentioning an individual but otherwise just mention it as paraphrased desciptive, and seek a RS. Markbassett (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
p.s. Also I suggest cutting out the small tidbits before 2016 as unrelated to the bulk of article content and main focus. This article started in March 2016 with the Chicago protests about Trump for President, and the vast bulk of it is post-election. The hitchhikers of real estate etcetera are WP:OFFTOPIC. Markbassett (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The examples and citations just keep coming and coming with no end in sight. This article is already at 520 citations and we don't even have a filter. This has to stop. Parsley Man (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Shorter or remove - Agreed that this is getting out of hand. I played my own part in it, having attended and photographed protests myself, but I don't think it serves a purpose to seek out and list every single protest day after day after day. If a daily list is still deemed necessary, it could be condensed to something like "On November 26, protests were held in fifteen U.S. cities and five cities abroad", with only particularly notable protests highlighted. Funcrunch (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Even before this RfC was opened there was a strong consensus in favor of deleting the list and turning this into an encyclopedic article. It is now clear that this consensus is overwhelming. The list needs to go and future direct referencing of specific protests should be reverted unless there is something highly unusual that requires a specific mention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Listen TrackInfo, I'm really grateful for your hard work and effort into this article, but it simply has too many unnecessary details and is too long. You're going to have to face the facts here: Some of your hard work is going to get deleted in the sake of making this article shorter. JaydonBrooks (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I am perfectly fine with that content being deleted from this article if it is included in an adjoining list as I have mentioned repeatedly. I'd create the article myself, but the previous effort by another editor was rebuffed within minutes.Trackinfo (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
An article about an undue, indiscriminate list is completely unnecessary as well. People really do not have to know every last city and school where a protest occurred. Parsley Man (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Trackinfo -- no, I'm saying to find (*not* WP:OR craft) whatever narrative there is for the overall phenomenon and delete all named individual events except for any significant enough to individually name, whether that is for size (e.g. over 1,000 protestors) or some significant happening at that event (e.g. violence or famous person). This is more in keeping with the encyclopedic article styling as shown by precedent of other articles involving protests, e.g. 2014 Hong Kong protests Protests in Sudan (2011–13) and even general phenomena like Streaking. I'll also suggest US-only and to drop everything prior to 2016 -- the article was started in March about the presidential campaign and event in Chicago, and the prior material is tiny secions and not really related. Markbassett (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Consider it done. ;) Parsley Man (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
What is the difference between this article and what became List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States, List of Occupy movement protest locations in California, further expanded to Occupy movement in the United States once broader scope was apparent. Plus there are articles about individual cities. It is a literal tree of information. We could do that level of expansion for several cities with ongoing protests already. Those lists contain far smaller protests. I used the Occupy coverage, that precedent, as a basis for the information I was collecting. A similar expanse of cities that was greatly expanded upon as the significance, or one might even say, lack of significance was achieved. I have been discriminate in not bothering to post any small protests. There are a few exceptions, when there is something of further substance to report, a new form of purpose or celebrity involvement. I can't count the number I have NOT reported here because they were too insignificant. We are simply talking about the difference of Markbassett's thousand to my hundred. The Occupy articles of the past listed far smaller events, down to a multiple, internationally sourced incident of one woman and three dogs doing an Occupy protest. It probably got that level of coverage because of the size and the dogs. Nobody has had the balls to argue this does not achieve WP:N because clearly with hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, front page coverage on almost all major media, it has achieved such status. WP:GNG The complaint is too many sources. On wikipedia, we don't destroy detailed information, we move it to lesser articles. WP:UNDUE is in the eye of a partisan beholder. We all realize this is discussing a specific politician, certainly his supporters would love to gang up to make this opposition go away. Hide it. Brush it under the rug. And most specific to the volume of content I have documented, don't show its scope. Even though it has been attacked above as recent (what a terrible crime), its size and scope certainly demonstrate there IS something there. It is some anxiety that is likely to manifest itself again in the future. There are plenty of articles I can source showing opinions of what this is, what it has the potential to achieve and how to do it, along with plenty of dismissive opinions. Even it doesn't amount to anything, just like Occupy, which has so far amounted to nothing, this happened. It is not wikipedia's place to say it was a bunch of crackpots so we can ignore it. We write thousands of articles about subjects that affect far, far fewer people every day on wikipedia. The difference here is simply some partisan editors want this information to go away. Trackinfo (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I hope you aren't suggesting that all of the !votes against keeping the level of detail you desire are from Trump supporters. I certainly am not one. Funcrunch (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I assume you are reacting to the logjam of information crammed onto this one page. It should be split off as I have said from the very beginning. Looking at the history of the List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States, it turns out it took us almost 2 months to figure out what to do with that data that looks a lot like this and apparently I created the list article back then. Occupy had the same kind of dismissive voices trying to limit coverage and nit picking every word. The main difference here is the page protection here that has essentially prevented the mass of community involvement in this article. Instead it has limited input to just us old hats, which on the broader view is against wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is supposed to be free to edit. We learn a lot when other voices can be heard. Yes people will go crazy trying to include everything, they will be far less discretionary than I have been. Some edits will be out of format, unintelligible, irrational and unsourced. But out of that mess, out of that overload of information, we will eventually pare it down to properly sourced information. That is how wikipedia works. In the grand scheme of things, this could all be summed up in one short sentence. Following Trump's win, a lot of people protested across the country. "A lot" will get criticized and we will get into numerical and sourcing arguments. "Across the country" would also be insufficiently articulate. This content backs up the numerical and geographical data. It backs up the duration. It sources the details necessary to make a generalization statement. And when the prose is allowed to be written, it will get into the details of what was said when and where. Historians will later be able to apply the significance of this as it was a precursor to whatever happens next. Now is too recent. This could be another massive fizzle like Occupy was. It still merits coverage. Trackinfo (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
"The main difference here is the page protection here that has essentially prevented the mass of community involvement in this article. Instead it has limited input to just us old hats, which on the broader view is against wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is supposed to be free to edit." <-- So are you essentially arguing that no article should ever be protected, and all articles should be 100% free to edit? You do understand the concept of WHY certain, potentially contentious articles are protected in the first place, right? Particularly to safeguard against this. Once again, as has been pointed out numerous times already, your arguments are based entirely on your personal view of the subject of the article itself. You have not argued against the policy-related objections to the article, and instead you have subtly accused all those in opposition of being Trump supporters, and you use rather crude language such as "Nobody has had the balls" to argue THIS particular policy, as well as outright basically rejecting a major Wikipedia policy such as UNDUE because of your personal opinion. You're obviously not doing much to change any minds here, and are only further proving the point that you more than likely have an agenda here. 169.231.146.96 (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The process I have been following should pretty much prevent WP:UNDUE from being invoked (though it didn't though partisan eyes). Most major media is producing lists, a lot of major media means a lot of different lists. Those serve as clues for me to follow up and find the local coverage to our list. However, our list is better because it has aggregated the list from the various major (national and international) media, thus is additive by being more complete. Need I remind you that the major media has been decimated financially, closing many bureaus across the country. Providing coverage in so many places is beyond the capability of the major media, so they cover the major cities and have to reduce their coverall of other areas to mere lists. Our list is better because it includes local media sources that are much better in reporting what is happening locally. And I must say, some of the most complete reporting about what is happening in America is coming from The Guardian, a British newspaper that I believe is aggregating this information from afar as I have been doing. And there are other editors who are adding to the list, this isn't about me. For example, I did not include the Portland protest on Monday (November 21) because I could only see sourcing of around 60 people in attendance (though the protest showed up in a lot of different sources). An IP editor saw fit to add it anyhow. Yes I do encourage IP and novice editors from contributing. I have had other situations where I have asked for page protection, but, lets say I am far more conservative about its use. The page protection on this page was in effect during the height of activity, from before I arrived November 9 until November 19. That goes beyond protecting from a vandal and has artificially eliminated the contributions of a lot of editors. Trackinfo (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Even if the page were split I would not support keeping this level of detail. And this page is not currently protected... Funcrunch (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Your claims of partisanship being the source of all this opposition is especially rather intriguing. Need we remind you that you had previously made the very pompous claim that Trump is basically about to cause a second Civil War and a second Great Depression? If that doesn't sound rather partisan, I don't know what does. Once again, get a blog. 169.231.146.96 (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Let me get more specific, what I reported was the fact that the last newly elected president to get this much protest in the streets following his election was Lincoln. He was elected on November 6, 1860, South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860 and that was the precursor to the Civil War. Since that time, there has never been this many people in the street protesting an American election. I am not claiming to know anything about the future ramifications of the current protests. I am merely following the sourced reports of their existence and reporting what will become a part of history for whatever happens next. Trackinfo (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Then why in the world did you make that claim that Trump would cause a second Civil War, if not for the purpose of claiming to "know anything about the future ramifications of the current protests"? Certainly does sound like a very biased action to me. Parsley Man (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
You don't read well, do you. Maybe you read in what you want. To quote myself above . . . this is virtually unprecedented to have this much protest at the election of a new president. The previous occasion set up the Civil War. Trackinfo (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The implication is still there, though. Parsley Man (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:NOTNEWS. Certainly unencyclopedic. Instaurare (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove Unencyclopedic. Adotchar| reply here 13:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove WP:NOTNEWS - Brought here by the bot. LavaBaron (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think it's time for a Snow close. Not trying to call victory here, but there's been little activity in recent days and the voting seems pretty lopsided at this point. Surely a close is warranted now, right? Parsley Man (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    • As I've asked a few times now -- what would that mean if it were closed? What would the outcome be? There's no single thing to "remove", and only one person actually wants to keep everything, so it will have to be shortened. These repeated calls for it to be closed make me concerned that you're looking to take an action that people aren't actually supporting (i.e. nobody says "remove all examples" or "remove all bulletpointed text" or "remove the whole timeline section") -- so time would be better spent figuring out inclusion criteria to go about making this workable rather than looking to hurry along a process that has a lot of people choosing an option that was never actually defined. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I do not wish to talk about inclusion, because I have already stated the obvious. Protests that occurred in major cities daily ever since the election results are certainly notable and should be mentioned IN PROSE. Otherwise, everything else must go. Parsley Man (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
        • No protests should be directly referenced that have not received extensive coverage in multiple non-local reliable sources. That to me does seem obvious. This article has become an anti-Trump WP:COATRACK. If the subject were not so clearly notable I would seriously consider sending it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
With your artificial requirement of broader sources, please be prepared for over referencing in order to accommodate this requirement. Earlier I placed this is the wrong section. Let me explain. WP:RS does not mention local sources or give a distinction. IMHO, you should choose your sources based on the subject they are reporting about. You don't go to the The New England Journal of Medicine for information about coins and you don't ask the American Numismatic Society about HIV research. You choose the expert in their sphere of influence. In that same light, the New York Times might have broader readership and a loftier stature, but they don't know what is happening in Kansas nearly as well as a newspaper, radio or TV station in Kansas. So your imposition of non-local sources is artificial for this specific subject, with the intent to limit content. I can find a lot of mentions of these locally sourced protests as mentions in broader reaching publications--that's where they came from. And since there is no such thing as a wikipedia definition of non-local sources, you are going to need to make that definition topical to this article exclusion process. The complaint is this article has too many sources. You want multiple non-local sources, how much is multiple? Multiply that number by the number of entries and that is the potential number of ADDITIONAL sources you cause in order to defend the existing content. You might get ivotes, your might makes right to overpower the existing standards I have adhered to and the precedent I have cited. I'll cite more of the comparable Occupy protests. List of Occupy movement topics shows the development of articles of those less focused and ultimately (apparently) meaningless protests. The same arguments were used then. This could be bigger. Since Trump is in the title, it is certainly more focused . . . on Trump and his actions now as the most powerful man on earth. The consensus of a dozen people should not dictate wikipedia's coverage of a phenomenon that could very likely be visible over the next four or more years. Trackinfo (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
For the love of G-d will you please stop posting these walls of text on here. Most of us don't have the time to plow through them and they are reaching the point of being tendentious. I did not say excessive citations are required for something to be mentioned. I did say that for a specific mention there would need to be coverage in multiple non-local RS sources. I think we can pretty well figure that out without a need to add a million inline citations. Honestly, we are not morons. Your fierce determination to preserve and expand this political COATRACK notwithstanding, there is a very strong consensus against that. If you are unable to respect that consensus perhaps you should find another article or subject to devote your efforts to. Your comments are casting serious doubts on your motives and ability to remain neutral here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Your effort to censor content, which is what you are doing, has deeper ramifications, which I am pointing out. "I know it when I see it" does not work because you are reading beyond the guidelines in order to achieve a goal.Trackinfo (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Once again, your comments prove your obvious biases here. First you claimed that Trump would cause a second Civil War and second Great Depression. Then you accused all of those in favor of Removal of being Trump supporters. Now you're accusing those in favor of cleaning up the article of "censoring content." Your comments are actually turning out to be the best arguments against keeping any of this content, by proving your partisan motivations. 169.231.152.100 (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Trackinfo: Nobody is trying to censor you; we are simply telling you that Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue to collect and publish every minutiae about those protests. When everybody except you patiently explains that this list violates a litany of Wikipedia policies such as WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SOAPBOX etc., perhaps you should question your own attitude and motives before accusing fellow editors of censorship… Among Wikipedians, there is no cabal, and casting aspersions is frowned upon. It's nothing personal; you just seem to misunderstand how and why we collectively write this encyclopedia. Please WP:LISTEN and take a break. — JFG talk 00:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Split this unwieldy article in to pre- and post-Election Day articles. (And, I suppose, a 3rd article once Trump (shudder) becomes President.) Then editors at each article can work out what to keep. My opinion will be to shorten to notable incidents, in place of the presumably incomplete but overlong list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • No way. That's like arguing that the Occupy protests page should be split into multiple articles based on year. Two, and possibly even THREE, articles on this is extreme overkill for a subject that's not worth it. Plus, your little snide remark about Trump's upcoming status as president proves your bias. 169.231.152.100 (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, but split Looking at the topic as a 'foreigner', the election itself, and the next four years, is a historic break from a post-war continuity in governance and political direction already remarked on by European and other world leaders as singular and potentially world-changing. Part of the debate inside the USA itself has mentioned the failure of mainstream media to report on events even-handedly, and of a campaign of deliberately confected lies designed to distort truth. In that context, while protests are being reported on individually right now, it may be that in two years' time a collective memory of these protests will have vanished. This would be most concerning if the right to demonstrate itself were to be altered, and the dynamics of news media were influenced by a litigious White House, or by agents for the President. In that sense a record of current events in detail could well be more justified now than on previous occasions. The structure of the article might be changed to point to geographic locations. Perhaps by states of the union, with links to lists for each state. This would be in keeping with, for example, Wikipedia coverage of television shows, where it is common to split off episode details by seasons. Disclaimer: I am not an American. I do not live in the USA. I was invited to comment here by Legobot. Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:33, 29 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.

Needs to Distinguish Riots from Lawful Protests

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is listed a helpful chronology of protests. Unfortunately, it is not clear what is listed. If people protest lawfully on the sidewalks or in parks that is quite a different matter from riots. Perhaps there are 4 categories: 1) peaceful lawful protests, 2) mild riots where persons take to the street but do nothing violent apart from obstructing traffic illegally, 3) violent riots where fires are lit, cars are smashed, fights occur, and 4) including #3 also Democrats attack & beat-up supposed Trump voters. At any rate, a first step would be to list legal protests vs illegal protests which go at least as far as blocking traffic. (PeacePeace (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protests_against_Donald_Trump/Archive_2&oldid=1137101604"