Talk:Protests against Donald Trump

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) [1]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Nominated for ITN

-Ad Orientem (talk) 05:15, 14 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)

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

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)

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)

Should we split this article?

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)

• Oppose split The solution to the problem is not another article, it is adhering to guidelines and policies, like INDISCRIMINATE and UNDUE, and not including every trivial protest or repeating the same entry over and over again just because the date changed. There is no issue in this article that cannot be resolved with a little more discernment as to what to include. And it is not just the issue of the length of the article we need to be concerned with. When you list every gathering of a few dozen or even hundred people waving signs you run the risk of turning this into an anti-Trump WP:COATRACK. See the above (2 threads) discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support The nature of the protests changed after the election, enough to make it a separate article... But what would they be called??? Protests against Donald Trump's campaign and Protests against President Donald Trump? --Bod (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no need for a split.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I know I was the one who brought up a potential split in the first place, but now, given how bloated the article is becoming and the newer, more generalized (and therefore appropriate) title of "Protests against Donald Trump", I am in strict opposition of a split. All we need to do now is do a lot of trimming on these so-called lists and we should be good. Parsley Man (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - But I do think that the timeline section should be split into a separate page tilted Timeline of the protests against Donald Trump. Charles Essie (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It seems somebody has already split the article Post-election protests against Donald Trump. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Having looked at it, I'm changing my position to support. Charles Essie (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• I'm concerned that this happened without consensus, but then again this whole article has been written without consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Do do you think it should be redirected until a consensus has been established? I was on the verge of doing so, but I wanted input from others. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:21, 16 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)

• Alternative - Since this talk page is sprawling, just a heads up re: the section below proposing a more straightforward split: separate the list from the article rather than create a second list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:31, 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)

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)

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

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)

• Agree per above. Charles Essie (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Draft created - Just to illustrate what this would look like, I copied the list component of this page to Draft:List of protests against Donald Trump, removed galleries, did some minor reformatting, etc. It leaves a sizable amount of text behind, and that text could easily be expanded, summarizing the content of the list. In other words, there's plenty of prose on which to convert this page into a straight article while keeping the list elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Agree per above. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree. I don't see the justification for having a list.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree - There's really no need for a list anywhere. At this point, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are at play no matter how you spin it. Parsley Man (talk) 04:16, 17 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)

• But this list is completely unimportant. Do we really need to know each and every city where a protest has taken place? Parsley Man (talk) 01:44, 19 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)

• Or we could just refocus this discussion on deleting the list and get a consensus for that. Easy as pie. Parsley Man (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps it would be better to have an RfC about all the options.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• How about a timeline page instead? Charles Essie (talk) 02:38, 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)

• No. That'll still give room for all of these indiscriminate examples. Parsley Man (talk) 06:28, 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)

• I think we have to split it. This page is has gotten so inflated that there's no more room for any prose sections about the topics I mentioned above. Charles Essie (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Take it to the RfC below. Parsley Man (talk) 00:02, 22 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)

False news reports about the protests

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, protesters blocking ambulances which result in deaths, and five city blocks of busses 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)

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)

References

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)

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

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)
• 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)