Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

There are 2 separate Barack Obama Conspiracy Theory articles; how can it be, then, that there are 0 for Donald Trump?

I came here looking to find an article entitled "Donald Trump Conspiracy Theories" and was aghast to find there was none. Thus, I'd like to propose for nomination a "Donald Trump Conspiracy Theories article", built on the model of these fine pieces of encylopedia building: :Particularly, I suggest we strike this sort of tone in the article: ***"During the 2008 presidential campaign, one chain e-mail accused Barack Obama of secretly being the biblical Antichrist, saying:

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything is it OBAMA?[25]

The word Antichrist does not appear in the Book of Revelation (though it does appear in 1 John and 2 John); the Book of Revelation instead refers to The Beast. The Book of Revelation never mentions the Beast's age, nor does it include any references to "Muslim descent", as the religion of Islam was not founded until hundreds of years after the book was written.[25]

During the 2008 presidential campaign, former comedian and political commentator Victoria Jackson made claims that "Obama bears traits that resemble the anti-Christ."[26]

The radical Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, Kansas, frequently uses signs at their controversial protests claiming Obama to be an antichrist and runs a website dedicated to proving it, BeastObama.com.[27][non-primary source needed]

Many websites and individuals continue to propagate the myth." " In March 2011, during an interview on Good Morning America, Donald Trump said he was seriously considering running for president, that he was a "little" skeptical of Obama's citizenship, and that someone who shares this view shouldn't be so quickly dismissed as an "idiot" (as Trump considers the term "birther" to be "derogatory"[153]). Trump added, "Growing up no one knew him",[154] a claim ranked Pants-on-Fire by Politifact.[155] Later, Trump appeared on The View repeating several times that "I want him (Obama) to show his birth certificate." He speculated that "there’s something on that birth certificate that he doesn’t like", a comment which host Whoopi Goldberg described as "the biggest pile of dog mess I’ve heard in ages."[156] On the March 30, 2011, edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Suzanne Malveaux commented on Trump's statements, pointing out that she had made a documentary for which she had gone to Hawaii and spoken with people who knew Obama as a child.[157][158] In an NBC TV interview broadcast on April 7, 2011, Trump said he would not let go of the issue, because he was not satisfied that Obama had proved his citizenship.[159] After Trump began making his views public, he was contacted by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, who was reportedly on the phone with Trump every day for a week, providing Trump with a "birther primer", answers to questions, and advice.[160] After Obama released his long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, Trump said "I am really honored and I am really proud, that I was able to do something that nobody else could do."[161]

On October 24, 2012, Trump offered to donate five million dollars to the charity of Obama's choice in return for the publication of his college and passport applications before October 31, 2012.[162]"

An article titled Donald Trump Conspiracy Theories is sure to win good article of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.35.0.70 (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Trump: When audiences get bored I use ‘the wall’

"You know, if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, ‘We will build the wall!' and they go nuts.”- Trump http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/30/trump-when-audiences-get-bored-use-wall/79573388/ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/a-chance-to-reset-the-republican-race.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

This quote should probably go in the first sentence of the article, or maybe the second,, on my vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B420:FBE9:1415:DE0A:A10A:322 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, we will probably put that quote in the article later today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Pepper Spray Incident

The question posed: "Should this article include coverage of the pepper spraying incident at a Trump rally in Janesville, WI on March 29, 2016?"

The clear consensus in the RfC is "no". Cunard (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Drmies: Drmies can you provide an explanation for your terse and confusing edit summary here? There appears no BLP violation as no name is given, and the actual police report is one of the sources along with media coverage. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Such a police press release is not a reliable source, and the relevance of the incident(s) to the Trump campaign is unclear at best. I agree with Drmies that it should be removed. Huon (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The police press release is companion to a WP:RS, CBS News. Are you ignoring that? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What Huon says. I cannot explain why it would strike you as confusing; it's terse because it's short and because I am somewhat disappointed to see a serious article be loaded with highly questionable material and insufficient sourcing. Also, discretionary sanctions apply on BLPs and on American Politics since 1932. Well, they don't apply since 1932 of course. Please edit conservatively, and edit war in moderation only. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's confusing because with no names of the involved, the BLP policy appears not to apply, and because you claim it is "innuendo" when the instance is covered by CBS News and the police are seeking a suspect. I cannot see how these match logically. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is a fairly unequivocal policy, I think, and it doesn't say anything about mentioning names or not. Note: I've nominated the corresponding fair-use image, File:Trump Protester Pepper Sprayed Following Sexual Assault At Rally (Janesville, WI, March 29, 2016).jpg, for speedy deletion per WP:F5 as the image is now unused and I do not believe a consensus exists for the information with which the image is paired to be included in the article. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, I hate to get all adminny about this, but "innuendo": what this looks like is that someone is adding every bit of nasty news they can about Trump's campaign to smear him and his campaign. And BLP. So let's be adults here and not pretend we don't know what's going on. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:BLPCRIME applies to the subject of the article. While I would, by extension, avoid mentioning any names of the people involved, this incident is being widely covered by reputable news organizations. It is obviously related to Trump's campaign. There remains the question of editorial discretion as to whether it is significant enough to include in the article.- MrX 22:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the word Drmies is looking for is WP:COATRACK. - MrX 22:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, related yes, editorial discretion yes also: thank you. BLP applies everywhere. Coatrack--no. I had found the words already: innuendo, smear. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I added a few sentences about this incident before I saw this in the talk page. Feel free to remove it if there is a consensus to do so. It reads as follows: On March 29, during a protest outside a rally in Janesville, Wisconsin, local police reported a 15-year-old girl was groped and, following an altercation with the suspect, was pepper sprayed by another individual. A 19-year-old woman was hit with the pepper spray during the same incident MrVenaCava (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's funny because that's basically the wording I'd left, but that's what Drmies was not very kind about.

I mean, it's covered by CNN, CBS, NBC, Int'l Business Times, Australian news [1], New Zealand news [2], British news [3]... if it's not a notable incident being on international news, I don't know what would make it notable.

@Drmies: - I would appreciate an apology for being accused of "innuendo" and "smears" and "adding every bit of nasty news they can" (seriously, look at my contributions to the article, it's precious little compared to the article size) and the snide "let's be adults here and not pretend we don't know what's going on" too. I don't think it's tremendously civil of you to attack my motivations. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

:@Drmies: - All the editors working on this extremely important article about a year-long event have been surprisingly civil and collaborative. It surprises me that an administrator would join the mix and become accusatory toward a fellow collaborator. Your "lets not pretend" comment fits from both sides of the political aisle. Lets not pretend that every week of the campaign has not been filled with controversy of one sort or another. As far as editors behavior here, once the nipping starts, teeth are barred and blood is drawn. Lets stay calm and create a factual article we can all be proud of. Buster Seven Talk 05:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say anything about it being the subject of the article or not either, for good reason: BLP applies to everything we write about living people. —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nizolan: WP:BLPCRIME states "For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." We can argue whether this sentence refers to the subject of the article, or all living people in general, but it doesn't matter because the information that you removed doesn't mention anyone's name. This type of overly-broad application of the BLP policy is one of the reasons the Politics 1 and 2 Arbcom cases were brought in the first place. - MrX 12:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: "Subjects" refers to the "subjects" being written about. I'm not seeing the ambiguity here. There's a reason the very first sentence of the BLP page says the policy refers to "information about living persons to any Wikipedia page", with that emphasis on the "any"; see also the template at the top of this page. You might want to look more closely at that diff, by the way—I didn't remove any information, notwithstanding my reservations on including the information in the article; I merely added the word "allegedly" so that it wasn't worded as a factual statement. —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I also note that in neither of those Arbcom cases did any of the decision relate to the BLP policy, in Politics 1 it isn't (as far as I can tell) even brought up in the main page of the case, and in the second case Collect (whose enforcement of BLP was the subject of complaint) was not sanctioned. I may be wrong, but I don't see anything in those cases that would militate against a firm adherence to the policy.

My BLP-related concern is that, as an editorial judgement, I don't believe we should include an allegation of sexual abuse which is only relevant to the article as one among a whole host of widely-reported incidents at Trump rallies. WP:BLPCRIME says explicitly that we should be even more careful when we are talking about persons who are not public figures, so the fact he's not the subject of the article would seem to make it more dubious, not less. And whether the name is mentioned or not seems to me to be just one factor rather than a decisive factor here, the "Trump supporter" is a particular person whose name is given in the references. —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I referenced the wrong case. The correct one is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others#BLPs.- MrX 12:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

" the "Trump supporter" is a particular person whose name is given in the references. " - It seems that maybe you didn't even read the sources @Nizolan:? Police are still looking to identify the individual and no name has been released.

"Authorities are looking for one person in connection with the alleged sexual assault and another in connection with the pepper spray. Police released an image Wednesday of one individual in connection to the alleged incident, but they did not specify which alleged crime the person was possibly connected to." - CNN Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The alleged groper is already identified per this earlier source that was used in the article in the first place.--TMCk (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Last Updated Mar 30, 2016 1:10 PM EDT" - At yesterday, the name was not in that article. And WP:BLPCRIME still does not say that we shall not link to news reports.

The news coverage also shows that other Trump supporters were shouting things like "n****r lover" at her. [4] Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: I said the name was given in the sources because I read it in one of the citations last night. There's no indication that the "Last updated" applies to the name, since that's just a general note for the entire article. No need for the finger-pointing at other editors. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE It appears the man is taking pains to present himself to the media, and therefore WP:BLPCRIME lacks relevance (if it even did before and I don't think it does, see below) since he is self-promotionally attempting to be WP:WELLKNOWN. [5]

Overall, attempting to appeal to WP:BLPCRIME on the basis that SOURCES may identify an individual seems to be pushing the limits and/or misrepresenting the policy deliberately. The article already has numerous similar incidents reported on:

• September 3rd 2015 - perpetrator and victim both named in article and source
• March 10 2016 - perpetrator named in article and source
• March 12, 2016 - man accused of rushing stage is identified by name, and in source
• March 19, 2016 - article does not identify man by name but NBC source [6] does.

Quite frankly, to try to suppress adding basic coverage of this most recent incident on the basis of a specious and unjustifiable and inconsistent appeal to a policy that does not apply is beyond pedantic. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

How about coming back if and when the guy or the girl or both of them are being actually charged (with assault)?--TMCk (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's just silly. If we take your misinterpretation of the policy seriously, we should just delete the entire section on the violence at Trump rallies, even though it's reported internationally and highly notable. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about policy at all. Please be more careful when reading.--TMCk (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC

As there appears to be a problem determining a consensus I am filing a request for comment. Should this article include coverage of the pepper spraying incident at a Trump rally in Janesville, WI on March 29, 2016? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - the incident is internationally reported, notable, relevant, and the listing is consistent with other incidents listed in the article section. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Leave out for now. If there is something to it and it stays in the news it can be revisited.--TMCk (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Leave out for now. I'll leave aside the issue of whether including the sexual assault claim is dodgy on BLP grounds, other than noting my continued concern on that front (thank you MrX for the Arbcom cite—I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but will do so), and stating for the record that contrary to claims above I haven't attempted to remove the claim from the article and don't intend to do so myself barring clear consensus.

My concern is essentially that we need to exercise editorial judgement here. It's a general maxim with article creation that accuracy does not confer notability. I believe, like our notability guidelines in general, this also applies in some form within articles: we don't need to include every incident on this particular page. (Cf. the ongoing discussion at the Village Pump over reactions to terrorist incidents for more concerns on these lines.) We should be selective in the incidents we choose to include. My suggested criterion would be to follow something like the overall notability policy on events. If there is evidence of sustained media coverage over more than a few days —the Lewandowski incidents, for instance—then they should go in. If there isn't, they shouldn't. There is a dedicated article on Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, where they can be listed even if they're not listed here. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Point of order - I think we need a good consensus one way or the other on the WP:BLPCRIME claims, otherwise when the information is reflected in that other article, that argument could very well just pop up again on the new page. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my opinion the BLP point is specifically about the sexual assault and not the pepper-spraying, since the assault allegation seems to me to be a lot more serious. It may be that the two can't be divorced: I'm not sure that's true, since we can mention the pepper-spraying as an incidence of violence without the sexual assault allegation. I'm ambivalent on that issue, though. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you include the pepper spraying you'd need to include it was in response to the punch in someones face and then you have to go further back to explain the trigger for that and you're all the way back to the "sexual assault" claim.--TMCk (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, and I can see that it might be seen as POV-biased against the victim. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"you'd need to include it was in response to the punch in someones face" - TracyMcClark, you seem to be mistaking Trump partisan claims for facts. The accurate reporting, which follows the official police report to the public, says that it was her attempting to shove him away and not a "punch in the face." Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please pay more attention. I will give you again your own source after you removed my post from last night from your talk page:
"Janesville Police Sgt. Aaron Ellis told the Associated Press Wednesday that the girl told police she punched the man whom she accused of groping her,..." and "Ellis said the girl could also face charges for punching Crandall."--TMCk (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Leave it out for now - This seems like a relatively isolated incident that is only tangentially related to the campaign. The importance would be elevated if Mr. Trump, his staff, his security, or the Secret Service were involved. If this is still being covered by major news outlets in week, I will change my !vote accordingly.- MrX 16:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Leave it out Per WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't tied directly to the campaign, and might fit better in a side article about violence at rallies if it fits anywhere at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Leave out for now - not everything that happens at a Trump rally is relevant to the campaign. Huon (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Leave it out - Trump's campaign was not directly involved thus the incident should not be added. Meatsgains (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Leave out for now unless there is some new development. Neutrality^talk 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed...leave it out...it could have happened anywhere. Buster Seven Talk 05:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Update – Media reports are now stating that the sexual assault allegations have been rejected by police [7]. In view of the apparent consensus above and the fact that the distinguishing feature of the incident is no longer accurate I am removing the material from the article pending the confirmed decision of this RfC. (Pinging Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz as the original editor) —Nizolan ^(talk) 13:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Out - (a) It's WP:OFFTOPIC, an event in the crowd between people not involving Trump or any of his workers so not really related to the article topic. Similar things happen in many concerts or sports events, or anywhere a crowd is packed so it's a dog-bites-man not even very notable item. Also this seems (b) counter to WP:NOTNEWS chasing a tabloid story or 7-day wonder, and (c) smells like just going in for political reasons. Markbassett (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Out, per above, especially last three posts. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Out – Who am I to argue with a snowball? Objective3000 (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Include. I do not think these sorts of "campaign" articles are--or should be--restricted solely to the activities of the candidates and their campaign staff. Reactions by the public and notable controversies that arise out of the campaigns are totally appropriate and within scope. And as noted by others, this particular controversy received plenty of press. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Omit. A minor got violent, assaulted someone, got pepper-sprayed for it, was charged by police, Trump wasn't involved, none of his campaign workers involved, and we haven't heard about any convictions of anyone, AFAIK.[8]. Did I mention "minor"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:44, 9 May 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.

Proposed Article: Donald Trump's Wall

The page for Donald Trump's Wall is missing. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.198.157 (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

You can go to Donald Trump's Wall and discuss it there. The objection to that article's existence is: "Unlikely solidly independently notable for its own article, could be merged amd mentioned to his own article at best. Questionable for WP:EVENT and WP:GNG."Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

This article features a notable dearth of Wall-related material; I propose a section entitled "The Wall".or "Donald Trump's Wall" or "Wall of Trump" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWallmaker (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Incidents of violence against protesters by Trump supporters" vs. "Incidents of violence between protesters and Trump supporters"

The line "Some of the events have been marked by incidents of violence against protesters by Trump supporters" should be changed to "Some of the events have been marked by incidents of violence between protesters and Trump supporters" to acknowledge the fact that protesters have attacked Trump supporters and thus remove bias against Trump supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvarado98 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

References

New Material for Lead: Trump's Butler calls for Obama's Death

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/politics/donald-trumps-longtime-butler-calls-for-violence-against-obama-secret-service-to-investigate.html

Trump's long-time right-hand man and beloved minion advocates hanging President Obama for treason, calls him "Kenyan Fraud" Secret Service Investigates Mar-A-Lago as potentially terrorist organization advocating violent overthrow of government "“With the last breath I draw I will help rid this America of the scum infested in its government,” Mr. Senecal wrote last May, saying that the president should be dragged from the “white mosque” and hanged “from the portico — count me in !!!!!” — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWallmaker (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we add this piece,, along with Trump's White Nationalist Delegate, his signed copy of Hitler's Speeches, his loving Friendship with David Duke, and enormous popularity among White Supremacists under a Tell-All section called "Trump's connections to White Nationalism. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWallmaker (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump's ex-butler's own opinions are not relevant. Objective3000 (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

the NY Times seems to think otherwise, but I must have forgotten that the average Wikipedian holds political views drawn largely from thousands of hours spent listening to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWallmaker (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I personally despise Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and subscribe to the NYTimes. My personal opinions are not relevant. We follow WP guidelines here. Your edit is a WP:AGF violation and not useful. Objective3000 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Twitter controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the details regarding a Twitter handle's website, which Trump retweeted, be restored to the page? Meatsgains (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• No - Per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. The information on the website is not relevant and deserves no place on Trump's presidential campaign page. Meatsgains (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• YES - Major news coverage in multiple news outlets has deemed it notable enough to include, due to the egregious nature of the account (far more outwardly and obviously white supremacist than some of the other white supremacist accounts Trump has retweeted). Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes (include). It's a key detail - an extraordinary one - that is of historic significance; I cannot recall any other presidential candidate ever doing such a thing. It's been extensively covered in the high-quality sources. And of course, it doesn't take up much space at all. Neutrality^talk 06:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(I imagine other presidential candidates haven't done such a thing because Twitter was only founded in 2006...) —Nizolan ^(talk) 08:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but since the civil rights movement, no major-party presidential candidate until Trump has directly repeated the words of openly virulent white supremacists in other media formats, press releases etc... either. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

1964 was pretty much what I was thinking of, yep. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - Verified information is what we rely on. The fact that a candidate is using Twitter (understandably a new phenomenon) as a vehicle to communicate is remarkable and will most likely become a mainstay of political campaigning. Without judging whether what was is tweeted is good or bad, the fact that Trump tweets is newsworthy and the details should be restored. Buster Seven Talk 06:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes -- Hear, here. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Unfortunately, this has been a recurring theme for this campaign, which is why it's important. Mr. Trump's retweet has been covered by Fortune, CNN, NBC, LA Times, The New Yorker, New York magazine, and the Washington Post, as well as internationally. This material provides relevant context.- MrX 16:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• No - I think it's ancillary to the topic.CFredkin (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - relevant and notable, part of what makes Trump different from other candidates.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• No - Associating someone with "Hitler" is usually a good indication that a conversation has gone off the rails a bit. It's enough to mention that he tweeted at a white supremacist. Adding that he tweeted at a white supremacist who praised Hitler seems a little redundant. It seems like WP:UNDUE soapboxing. NickCT (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• No it seems to me it's a guilt by association COATRACK addition. Hitler bit is not really relevant to the article. Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The comparison to Hitler is obviously "red hot". But, its not what he tweeted that matters . It's that he tweeted that needs to be mentioned. Buster Seven Talk 13:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• No very clear CoA here, based on WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. If we applied the same criteria being suggested by those in favour, at least half of this article would be devoted to picking apart tweets. JamesBay (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• No - Connections like this between the Trump campaign and extremism have received a huge amount of reliable news coverage and analysis and absolutely fair game. However the proposed level of detail here is overkill/piling on/non-neutral. If readers want to know more about these tweeters' particular flavor of white supremacism then they are free to click through. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

We can all agree the tweet itself is significant and should be included on the page. The question is, should the details claiming the "website contains a pro-Adolf Hitler documentary and a photo of American Nazi Party founder George Lincoln Rockwell" be added? Meatsgains (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why not simply add "nationalistic" into the description (my bolding): "...including posts from a user with the handle "WhiteGenocideTM" (a reference to the nationalistic white genocide conspiracy theory),..." and be done with?--TMCk (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Because we should work by the reported facts in the Reliable Sources, not by insinuation or requiring someone to play a game of Myst to figure out what's being referred to? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So you'd like to remove the "white genocide conspiracy theory" part?--TMCk (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's make it clear here, are you suggesting just having the word "nationalistic" or the entire phrase "nationalistic white genocide conspiracy theory"? Maybe it would help if you provided an example sentence or two of how you prefer to see it written, and why you think the wording used by pretty much all the media coverage isn't good enough for wikipedia. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh? I already gave the exact sentence above.--TMCk (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I support TracyMcClark's version, which I've included below for those who might have been confused:

Trump also raised controversy by "retweeting" posts from white supremacist Twitter feeds, including posts from a user with the handle "WhiteGenocideTM" (a reference to the nationalistic white genocide conspiracy theory). Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That looks plausible to me, though I'd use a dash rather than brackets. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this account/site should be described as "nationalistic" which seems to be added in this RfC. I think of nationalistic, in U.S. politics, to be pro-America and I don't think white supremacy is pro-America as the country currently exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Haven't thought about the younger audience maybe not making the connection to the far right nationalism.--TMCk (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not just "a reference to a white nationalist conspiracy theory"? —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You're trying to engage in WP:OR then. We should stick to the wording as used by the numerous news organizations. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Who? Me, Nizolan or the article as it stands?--TMCk (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Shall we request a closure for this RfC? Meatsgains (talk) 02:11, 10 May 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.

Hitler

This section is troubling. On the one hand, I know the Hitler comparisons and fascism accusations are out there. On the other hand, people say all sorts of stuff about candidates, and there is nothing comparable on Bernie's page despite the fact that when I google the craziest slanders I can think comparable Sanders + communist [9], or even Sanders + Stalinst [10] I get hits. I know, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF. But I do think that it is important to be evenhanded during a political campaign (see my extensive efforts to be evenhanded in treatment of candidates spouses this past January/February ) I more or less do think that either we add long sections on the slanders and denials being thrown at Bernie, or we need to remove these accusations from the Sanders page, or we need to justify treating Trump and Sanders differently.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

While I personally think these bold comparisons should be removed entirely from Sander's and Trump's page, I know others would oppose such an action. That being said, since they are more than likely to remain, both pages should give due weight to the comparisons. Both candidates have been compared to unfavorable individuals and/or ideologies therefore, the comparisons should be of similar length and in-depth coverage across both pages. Meatsgains (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you both. This stuff about the Hitler salute is pure trivia, because people who raise a hand invariably look like they're giving a Nazi salute if the angle of the photograph is just right. If a photographer had captured the people at the Trump rally from the side instead of the back or front, then obviously it would have shown people raising hands straight up instead of forward (like the Nazis). If the people at the rallies were saying "hail Trump" or "hail victory" or "hail my leader" that's one thing, but instead they were just promising to vote in a democratic election even if there were hurricanes. It seems to have been all in fun, and we need to let the news rags do the reporting on this, rather than discussing it here in this article where WP:BLP applies. We don't compare Sanders to Lenin and Stalin and Mao, nor should we compare Trump to Hitler, based on such flimsy reporting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

---

It's obviously not trivia. Nor is it based on "flimsy reporting." The comparisons to fascists have been widely addressed in serious publications; the head of the Anti-Defamation League has made comments on the point; and many scholars have weighed in. Whatever you feel about the merits of the comparisons. we follow the sources here.

As for Sanders: if editors feel that something is lacking on his bio or campaign article, they are free to take up the issue there. Neutrality^talk 01:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The material in this article was focused on a supposed Hitler-like Nazi salute photographed at rallies. I removed it because it's trivial. Moreover, this article is not a forum for Trump's opponents to place their criticisms of him, no matter if they're professors or not. We could put into the Hillary Clinton article comparisons of her to Hitler, given the number of human beings that have been eliminated via her dictatorial march to war in Libya without congressional authorization, but that would be inappropriate for a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Since there have been serious comparisons of the Trump movement with fascism, it should be included. I note one of the people quoted was Robert Paxton, one of the world's foremost scholars on fascism. This is not just polemical writing, but helps readers understand the movement. The Sanders article btw says that he has been called a socialist, which certainly has negative connotations in the U.S. TFD (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

But what Paxton actually said is that although there may be points of comparison, Trumps campaign is NOT fascist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one has suggested removing the Paxton material, or removing the subsection (numbered 8.2 in the TOC) with the header "fascism comparisons". The only thing that I deleted was the subsubsection (numbered 8.2.1 in the TOC) titled "Hitler comparisons" for the reasons explained above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This topic was already thoroughly discussed on the talk page here. Further discussion and/or consensus should be reached before summarily reverting. For the time being I have hit 'undo' on this revision. | MK17b | (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

When that discussion occurred back in March, there was much less Hitler/fascism material in this article.[11] There was only a subheader about Hitler, not the present situation where we have "fascism comparisons" plus "hitler comparisons".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "Hitler comparisons" can be combined into "Fascism comparisons". I think the "salute" should be mentioned, but it seems like it's given undue weight.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• After giving it a careful read, I believe that his entire section needs to be rewritten. What we have here are a series of allegations of similarity to fascism. Some of the writers, including Paxton, conclude that the comparison does not hold. Others, notably the "fascist salute" people, are making a clearly inaccurate comparison - at the very least they need to brush their Leni Riefenstahl. There is, for example, not a shred of evidence that anyone involved thought of the gesture as a fascist or Roman salute. To me, they looked like a bunch of over-eager students who wanted teacher to call on them. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The GREAT PROBLEM with this section is that it conveys the impression that there is a well-supported similarity or connection between the Trump campaign and fascism when, in fact, all that we have is a collection of individuals who mostly conclude that there isn't , and a few who assert that they perceive one - but on very thin or no evidence at all. I think the section needs to be rewritten to reflect this reality, the Hitler section merged under the fascism header, and the fascism section E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Can't be true - his wife has denied it here :) | MK17b | (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

renamed

To something like Allegations of similarity to fascism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

How about a spin-off article, Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler, Similarities Between? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exciting News (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the current name is fine.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been posted at talk:Stop Trump movement#RfC: Should this article list people who have merely stated that they will not endorse, support, or vote for Trump?. Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 02:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Campaign Staff - Rick Wiley

No mention of Wiley's appointment and subsequent dismissal and/or campaign staff in general? | MK17b | (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton's "Delete your Account" Tweet

On 11:27 AM on June 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton tweeted out "Delete your Account" in response to Donald Trump's tweet "Obama just endorsed Crooked Hillary. He wants four more years of Obama—but nobody else does!" It has been described by media as Clinton's most retweeted comment of all time. Also, Donald Trump Responded with "Where are your 33,000 emails that you deleted?" Where could I fit this information in the article?

Sources:

• http://time.com/4363217/hillary-clinton-delete-your-account/
• http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-donald-trump-delete-your-account.html
• http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-trolls-trump-twitter-39738581
• http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-already-beat-donald-trump-delete-your-account-tweet-soars-toward-2380336
• http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-response-to-hillary-clinton-delete-your-account-tweet-2016-6

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say history, but this is the sort of thing where we might want to wait a week before making a more final decision on placement to have more clarity as to how the media is covering it/viewing it. For now, the history section. ~ Rob^Talk 22:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Late to the party, but... That would be WP:undue weight, in my opinion. No one (alright fine, very few) will look back at this election and think that that specific Tweet was a pivotal part of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah absolutely WP:UNDUE. There's so much ground to cover in this campaign, that a couple of back-and-forth tweets are below the significance threshold. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Far Right?

This edit restored content regarding a random tweet sent by a crank to a journalist. I don't believe that's relevant for inclusion here. It also added content re David Duke and the Klan which is redundant with this section in the article. Per WP:BRD the editor adding/restoring this content should seek consensus for inclusion here.CFredkin (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should merge the Jared Taylor and David Duke sections with the far right section. --GHcool (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The "far right" (aka white nationalist) section should go; there is already enough in the article about white nationalists (which are NOT synonymous with the far right). But since we retained a sentence about the European right liking him, it made me notice that there is nothing in the article about the overseas reaction to Trump's campaign. Should there be? Despite the usual reluctance of foreign leaders to intervene in a U.S. presidential election, Trump has been criticized by the prime ministers or presidents of Britain, France, and Mexico[12] and has been praised by the leaders of Russia and North Korea. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I'm going to pull the whole section while we discuss it. The American "far right" stuff is argumentative and redundant to earlier content, and I don't really think we need a one-sentence section about the European right. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The leaders of North Korea did not praise Trump. An opinion piece on the "DPRK Today" website said that he might make the slogan "Yankee Go Home" a reality.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The news stories say that the opinion piece in the state's official media outlet is "sure to reflect thinking inside the regime." North Korea praises Trump and urges US voters to reject 'dull Hillary', North Korea state media praises Donald Trump as a "wise politician", North Korea editorial praises 'wise' Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Liberal bias. They are trying to smear North Korea by saying it supports Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN that violates WP:NOR. To say, "NKorean newspaper said [x]" and "someone else said NKorean newspapers reflect their government's opinions" therefore "NKorean government said [x]", is original research. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The same articles openly state this is not an official stance of their government. While it signals their view, its simply not in the source. That plus how little weight should be given, it should probably be left off the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

None of this material about the reaction of foreign leaders was added to the article, and from the lack of response over the past 10 days, it doesn't appear that it will be. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square section

The Tiananmen Square section was removed, calling it trash and undiscussed on this page. It looks to be very clear, important, and well documented. If Trump thinks that the Tiananmen Square massacre was a riot, people should know this. It's been in the article for over a month, so I think deleting it should be discussed here. The onus should be on the deleter at this point. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You are must discuss it here before you add it. The article is under sanctions and it says right at the top of the page that you must obtain a firm consensus before adding it. No attempt was made to discuss it. You restored it without any attempt to gain consensus. Many people are simply ignoring the fact that there are sanctions in place and just add any negative stuff about Trump that comes up in the news. It's simply not right. Doc talk 15:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've looked at the article sanctions above in detail and checked out most of the links, but I just cannot find anything special about adding material. Rather, all I see is about editing the article. A deletion seems to require consensus just as much as an addition. Correct me if I'm wrong (and provide a link or a quote). Given that you've made a contentious edit to this article with your deletion of a long established section, I believe the onus is on you to discuss it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

test Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones here - this text is well-documented and quite significant, and has been stable in the article for a long period. The editor who removed the text has not articulated any substantive reason for objection other than the text is "negative." That may be so, but it is significant and well-sourced. Neutrality^talk 15:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump is one of a number of politicians known for regularly making controversial statements. (Others are Hugo Chavez, Tony Abbott and Rob Ford.) If we create a section about each statement, it will overwhelm the article. I would rather just note in this article his propensity for making these types of statements. TFD (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to suggested language. I agree that we shouldn't recite every outré statement made by Trump on the campaign trail (that would indeed overwhelm the article), but we can't go in the other extreme with a wholly generic bit about his propensity for controversial statements, either; I do think the reader needs some specific examples for context. Neutrality^talk 16:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd also agree that the article needs specific examples of Trump's controversial statements throughout his campaign but the page already contains more than enough of that. Meatsgains (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone should point that out to The Donald. The next controversial statement is right around the corner. Maybe we could have a "Top Ten Controversial Statements" and plug in new ones as they are spoken or tweeted. Buster Seven Talk 21:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Undue coverage of minor details to malign Trump? WP:COATRACK. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC) This is NOT significant to his campaign, certainly not at the suggested magnitude. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump University lawsuits

Trump University and the lawsuits against it are becoming an increasingly prominent issue in his campaign. Trump himself has made it an issue by talking about it in campaign speeches - he devoted 12 minutes of a speech in San Diego to the lawsuit [13] - and by repeatedly making personal, racially-tinged attacks on the presiding judge,[14] which have been condemned by many commentators.[15] I think this has reached the scale of coverage where it ought to be included in this article. And it's not a WP:RECENT or WP:NOTNEWS issue; Trump has been talking about it on the campaign trail since February.[16] Where would it go - maybe as a section in "People and groups"? --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this needs inclusion. It could be its own section, or as a subsection under "People and groups" - I would be OK with either. Neutrality^talk 14:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"People and Groups" should probably be renamed "Controversies", but it looks like Trump University information would fit well as a subsection there given the other content covered. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that the stuff in the news is about one specific federal lawsuit filed in California in 2010. I don't see anything about multiple Trump U lawsuits even in articles that point out he's been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades. Doc talk 15:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There are, in fact, three ongoing suits: two federal class actions (which are both being handled together in San Diego, California), and one New York state court action by the New York State Attorney General. (See here.) All three actions have been in the news of late. Neutrality^talk 15:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And two of the three are being handled by the judge he keeps criticizing, so it is not about one or the other. Also the recent release of documents related to the cases has been getting a lot of press. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That's fantastic. Guess what's also been getting a lot of press that is far more directly related to this campaign? "Clinton: Trump deserves some blame for violence outside events"[17]. "'Disgusted' police condemn violent protesters at Donald Trump rally in San Jose"[18]. Stuff like that. Isn't that more relevant to the campaign than this lawsuit stuff? Doc talk 08:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Earlier there were similar comments about violence inside Trump rallies; was that covered? These are two sides of the same coin and could be covered in a single item if people agree it should be included. Personally I'm not sure it should. There is always some to and fro between the sides, and most of the coverage about it is generally finger pointing about whose fault it is. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I am going to add a paragraph about Trump University to the article. Open to revision of course, but it gives us a starting point. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. And I do like the idea of changing the name of the "people and groups" section to something else, such as "controversies". --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Um... yeah. I don't think it's appropriate to add that without a firm consensus here. I know you're an admin and all that, and probably not a Trump fan. Why not just let it wait? Doc talk 06:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD time now. Doc talk 06:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Where the heck was the talk page inclusion for this disaster?[19] Just because Trump is like a "big poopy head" doesn't mean his article entries here deserve a free-for-all style of editing. It's sad that the anarchy is here as well. Very sad. Doc talk 06:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that you removed this from the article. Would you care to explain why? At this page, after 48 hours, we had three people in favor of adding information about Trump University, and none opposed as far as I could see. So I thought we had consensus to add it. Your comment above about violence at the rallies - was that supposed to be interpreted as opposition to adding the Trump University material? Could you please state more clearly what you are trying to say ("I think we should not say anything about Trump University because..."), instead of just throwing around "disaster" and "free-for-all" and "anarchy" and similar unhelpful comments? --MelanieN (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now I see - your "disaster"/"anarchy" comments were about some other addition. Let's keep this thread to be about the Trump University material that I added and you removed, OK? --MelanieN (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that this is a relevant issue. Doc's arguments against appear to be all based on unrelated topics, like what about violent protests, or simply angry outbursts. I don't know what the anarchy comment is about. Objective3000 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Just for clarity (so that it is clear who is in favor of what here): When you say "this is a relevant issue," do you mean that you think there should be something about Trump University in the article? --MelanieN (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. These are major lawsuits, heavily in the news, calling into question the entire enterprise. Trump's comments indicate that he believes it is notable. Objective3000 (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I don't agree with his second revert, and it would appear to violate WP:1RR. Objective3000 (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that you don't even know what a 1RR violation even is. How sad. Doc talk 05:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually do agree with deleting that paragraph; it was argumentative. I'd also like to see the paragraph before it deleted, where Trump doubles down on his completely unproven claim that the government of Mexico "sends" undesirable people across the border. What would others think about deleting that paragraph - the one that begins "After the public backlash, Trump stood by his comments by citing news articles to back his claims up" - in addition to leaving this one [20] out? --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I've restored the Trump University material deleted by Doc9871. No policy-based reason has been advanced for the deletion of this content, which is (1) well-sourced; (2) clearly relevant to the campaign, with the relevance explained in text; and (3) of proportionate weight. The only argument for deletion is that "there's no consensus for inclusion" - which is, standing alone, not a very strong reason for deletion at all. If Doc or anyone else has specific suggestions for changes in wording, sourcing, emphasis, then of course that should be very welcome, but the mere position that "I don't like this material and disagree with its inclusion" doesn't cut the mustard here.

On the merits, the inclusion of this material on this page is is analogous to the inclusion of a short subsection (six sentences, by my count) on the Hillary Clinton email controversy in the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to include on that article, just as the Trump U material is a perfectly legitimate thing to include on this article. Neutrality^talk 00:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

What a crock that you restored that, "Neutrality". You people do understand that you need a firm consensus before you add stuff to this article. Right?! It says so right on the page. Negative, positive, neutral. Anything. There's no special set of rules that allows negative BLP material to be added to this article because it's Trump. It's a very bad precedent. Shame on you. Doc talk 02:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You have not explained how inclusion of this material violates BLP in any way. That is probably because it doesn't violate BLP in any way.

In any case, I suggest laying off the angry outbursts. Neutrality^talk 03:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits. If in doubt, don't make the edit." Did you not see that? Doc talk 03:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Moreover, you've raised no substantive BLP concern. Merely "objecting" to well-sourced, relevant, proportionate text, without articulating some colorable reason behind the objection, is insufficient. WP:BLP directly states:

"Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved."

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Such is the case here. If you have some substantive concern, feel free to idenify it. But BLP is not (and never has been) a shield for filibustering. Neutrality^talk 03:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is under sanctions and there was no effort to get any consensus on the talk page before the potentially contentious material was added. Therefore, it should never have been added. This isn't rocket science, and you're not exactly dealing with a chimp. It's a blatant double standard that further erodes the integrity of the editing process. Doc talk 03:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That still doesn't identify any substantive BLP concern. As I wrote above, merely saying "I object!" is not a trump card (no pun intended). I've quoted the relevant substantive portions of the policy that make clear that this sort of cited content is comfortably within BLP parameters. If you can't identify a substantive, underlying reason for your objection, then there is little point in continuing this back-and-forth. Neutrality^talk 03:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Forget I said BLP for just a second. The material is not allowed on this article precisely because of the sanctions on it and the reasons I gave. Are you following me here? Doc talk 04:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Since "consensus" is all you can talk about, here is the situation: People who have supported having something about Trump University in the article are: MelanieN, Neutrality, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, and Objective3000. That's four. People who have opposed having something about TU in the article are: Doc9871. That's one. Right? --MelanieN (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's see how y'all vote on the joke down below (the "White Nationalist" thing). Reads like a bad propaganda piece. Lots of refs though! I'm dying to see that garbage in the article. Doc talk 11:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for consensus

Yes or no, please: should this paragraph be included in the article? (I added it; Doc removed it citing lack of consensus).

Trump University, and Trump himself, are embroiled in three current lawsuits. The lawsuits have been invoked by Trump's rivals in Republican primary debates, and Hillary Clinton has used the Trump University allegations against Trump in speeches and campaign ads. Trump has responded by repeatedly criticizing the presiding judge in two of the cases with personal, racially-tinged attacks, for which he has been criticized by legal experts.

Opinions? --MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. That seems good to me. Neutrality^talk 00:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• You bet I removed it "citing lack of consensus". Active arbitration page here, people. Very clear instructions on how to add stuff here. Must gain consensus before adding it. Seriously? Facepalm Doc talk 05:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, so you are against including information about Trump University. At least this time that is clear, although you have still not given any reason why not. (At my talk page you said "I don't think you get what a "firm consensus" is on an article under ARBCOM sanctions. 2 people commented for, and I commented against. 2 days passed, then your "decision".[21] Are you confident that a firm consensus was established before you added that? Please explain how." Actually the situation after 2 days was: three in favor (I count too, you know) and one (you) who didn't comment on Trump University one way or the other, but suggested also including information about violence at rallies. Three in favor, none against, looked like consensus to me. If your suggestion to include violence at rallies was actually supposed to be a comment against including TU, it was anything but clear. As I keep saying: please say what you mean, directly, instead of expecting us to read your mind. Anyhow, since it now appears you were against including it, that is why I am trying again to get a clearer consensus.) --MelanieN (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871: once again: (1) you've articulated no substantive policy-based reason underpinning your objection; and (2) in any case, we have consensus here. Consensus is not unanimity. Neither BLP nor active sanctions permit a user to permanently shape an article to their desires by merely lodging an objection without a clear policy-based substantive explanation/rationale. Neutrality^talk 13:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - This information has been the subject of substantial coverage. WP:DUEWEIGHT instructs that it should be included.- MrX 14:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, this information should be included, but let's edit for neutrality a bit. "Embroiled" should be changed to something like "involved", as "embroiled" can imply that he's deeply tangled in the mess (i.e. at fault). I'd rewrite that entire last sentence as "Trump has repeatedly criticized the presiding judge in two of the cases, stating that his Mexican heritage serves as a conflict of interest." "Responded" must be removed, as it is not clear in the reliable sources that Trump has made these criticisms in response to attack ads. "Racially-tinged" is so obviously non-neutral that I won't comment further on it. To be clear, I would oppose this as written, since it's not neutral to basically call Trump a racist in Wikipedia's voice. I may not be opposed to adding a sentence saying that cites specific prominent commentators or legal experts as describing the criticisms as racially-tinged. I'd have to see how it was written. ~ Rob^Talk 16:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Apparently this was pushed live before it actually obtained consensus, so I made my edits. Please note that it's likely a BLP violation to call Trump's comments racially tinged in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. without attribution to a source), so WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE should be followed if that aspect of my change is to be reverted. ~ Rob^Talk 16:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    • "Racially tinged" is how the news media has described it in straight-news accounts. CBS News and the Washington Post used the phrase "racially tinged"; the Los Angeles Times described them as "racial comments"; Politico called them "racially charged attacks." To be sure, we need to carefully cite our sources, but it does not seem to me to be necessary or appropriate to downplay or soften our language in a way that diverges from the sources Neutrality^talk 16:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @Neutrality: As you can see in my edits, I'm not downplaying. I'm just attributing "racially tinged" to the Washington Post. ~ Rob^Talk 16:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
        • That's true, and I thank you. My one concern is that a casual reader who reads this section might look at that sentence and think that only the Washington Post described it in those terms, when in fact that characterization is quite common across the news media. Neutrality^talk 17:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Where to put the detailed information?

In my opinion, people need to decide which Wikipedia article will be the "main" Wikipedia article about the Trump University lawsuits, and then details should go there, with other Trump articles having at most a brief summary. We have this article about the 2016 campaign, we have the Trump University article, we have Legal affairs of Donald Trump, we have an article about Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, we have Art Cohen v. Donald J. Trump, etc. Given all those other articles, I doubt we need much at this one. It's not the lawsuit that's been most significant in his campaign, but rather the characterization of his remarks about the judge as racist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree, we should decide which is the "main" article rather than trying to keep up with four or five (although Wikipedia does not prohibit having the information in more than one place). My recommendations: at this article, a paragraph summarizing it just to the extent it is a campaign issue. (That apparently needs a little more discussion at this talk page; the paragraph I wrote and added can be seen in the article history.[22]) The main article about the lawsuits should be the one at Trump University, and I think (and have suggested) that the Art Cohen v. Donald J. Trump article should redirect to it. The "legal affairs of" article is a puzzle. It currently has a not-very-up-to-date paragraph about the cases; I would like to replace it with a very brief summary and something like "For lawsuits involving Trump University, see Trump University.". That's a discussion for that page, not this one. The Curiel article is a biography and should focus on the person, and on the lawsuit only to the extent that it affects him. Other people's thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Donald Trump

Editors interested in creating and improving Wikipedia articles related to Donald Trump are welcome to join WikiProject Donald Trump. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Fascism section

I object to the recent inclusion of this section in the article. Some of the content already existed there, but I think the section title, the excessive 3rd party commentary, and the inclusion of a large fascist symbol are inappropriate and undue.CFredkin (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually think there is justification for something like this in the "historical analogies" section, since the comparison has been made quite often by numerous observers, not all of them partisan. I do think the section on the hand-raising pledge is excessive, with way too much detail, and could possibly be omitted entirely. Let's wait to hear what others think before removing it, however. (I already removed a section called "Tyranny" which IMO was not sufficiently supported by multiple sources.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Please keep this article NPOV.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I was on my way to remove the fascist symbol, but somebody has removed the whole section. OK, let's discuss it. I think there are enough neutral sources to include it, but let's hear what others have to say. Since it is strongly negative, we would need a "firm consensus" to include it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

There should not be a "Fascism" section and certainly no symbols of that movement. Some of the content is relevant to his campaign, but need to presented in balance fashing. For example, this...

"One expert admits Trump's speeches and rallies do resemble "... the rallies of fascist leaders who pantomimed the wishes of their followers and let them fill in the text," but that Trump himself is mostly "... a demagogue who voices contempt for basic principles of liberal democracy, offers simple explanations of complex issues, and draws on racism, religious bigotry, and extreme nationalism to 'make America great again.'""

... is not a reasonable representation of the totality of sources that compare Trump's rhetoric with that of Fascist leaders of the past.- MrX 18:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there should be a "Fascism" section because of exactly the reasons MelanieN laid out. --GHcool (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; it's not like it's only been mentioned in passing a couple of times. Numerous articles from numerous sources have drawn parallels, and to not include a section on it would be the non-NPOV route. It would look like editors were trying to repress any negative information from being included in the article. I feel MelanieN is offering a fair and balanced approach. Rockypedia (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

In my mind, this is a difficult question. I think it’s obvious that a fascist image should not be used. I think there should be no reference to an ex-wallpaper hanger. On the hand-raising pledge, I don’t think the “hand-raising” part should be mentioned at all if there weren’t repeated requests that attendees pledge allegiance to him. If there are repeated incidents, yes it should be mentioned. On comparisons to fascist attitudes, there appear to be a large number in respected press. WP:NPOV indicates that they should be included. Objective3000 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)