Talk:Protests against Donald Trump

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protests against Donald Trump article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

Rogue Twitter accounts was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 June 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Protests against Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Elections and Referendums C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American C‑class

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Presidential elections C‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 March 2016. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 was copied or moved into Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 with this edit on 12:43, March 13, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Protests against Donald Trump was copied or moved into Timeline of protests against Donald Trump with this edit on 16:46, 26 January 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Template:Findsourcesnotice Template:WPUS50k

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adam192ac, Raffiter10 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Garc liz.

"Trump bashing"

Is there really no article covering the emerging trend to bash Donald Trump? It seems to have become a celebrity obsession and they're not anybody if they've not publicly criticized him. There should be an article on it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you are kidding. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing we need are unnecessary, superfluous articles related to Donald Trump. Now THAT seems to be a trend nowadays. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Donald, I agree in principle, except that I think it's become such a celebrity obsession to attack you that it's become a phenomenon in its own right. It seems like to fit in now a celeb has to publicly denounce you, which is a bit sad I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean "SAD!"? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title "Trump bashing" is not encyclopedic. An article titled Celebrity criticisms of Donald Trump would be a better title. You could also mention how a large portion of celebrities have lives that are train wrecks in order to bring balance/perspective to the article.Knox490 (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DACA decision

Are the protests related to Trump's decision on DACA notable enough for a standalone article? And I don't mean just people organizing and attending rallies, I'd like us to even consider a more general "reaction" article. See Protests against Executive Order 13769 and Reactions to Executive Order 13769 for possible ideas. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, though considering the DACA article is fully protected right now (apparently due to a lengthy edit war), I expect contention either way... Funcrunch (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI there are now some images from today's protest at Trump Tower in this Commons category: commons:Category:Protest against the DACA rescission in New York (5 September 2017). I've added one to the article as it looked like there was room. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should have pix from San Francisco up by tomorrow hopefully. Funcrunch (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And more from a march/rally yesterday: commons:Category:Protest against the DACA rescission in New York (9 September 2017). If there are more in the days/weeks to come, I'm going to presume not post about it/them here barring highly unusual circumstances (I recognize it's of limited usefulness on the talk page). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Protests against Donald Trump

Several protests have been recently added without changing the Timeline for Protests against Donald Trump. In my view, any protest mentioned here but not mentioned on the timeline during his Presidency should be added to the timeline or the section here should be blanked.Theoallen1 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Condense or break up the article: Length not justified

The article now has more footnotes than the French Revolution article. The French Revolution lasted ten years and has had a far greater impact on world history than these Trump protests.

Condense the article or at least break it up. Condensing the article makes more sense.Knox490 (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because there is silly irrelevant information like a listing of fake Twitter accounts. Seriously. --219.75.113.186 (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Social Media Protests

In reviewing this article, it has become apparent that the article focuses solely on physical protests and neglects the strong social media protests that have been occurring over the past year. There has been an explosion of trending tweets such as #NotMyPresident and #ResistTrump. I plan to analyze the collective protests against Donald Trump through social media hashtag analysis and through reputable articles relating to the subject. I believe this additional information will make the article more complete and representative of the total opposition that has taken place, rather than just the physical protests. The analytics will be done mainly through google trends, but I am attempting to find a better social media engagement tracking service. If anyone has any suggestions, please feel free to respond! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffiter10 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. We can't forget about that petition for the electoral college to put Hillary in office. And how many new startup organizations have formed about organizing opposition to Republican politicians across the country? How about the celebrities like George Takei who have revitalized their careers as anti-Trump activists. Maybe even anti-Trump meme culture (i.e. Covfefe).--98.109.212.28 (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twitter Accounts

Seriously, why is there a list of Twitter accounts? This is totally irrelevant for an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, not a directory. These listings only serve to extend the length of the article without adding in any encyclopaedic value (or maybe the intent was to promote the Twitter accounts in question). It's a simple manual of style for an encyclopaedia. To add on, many of these accounts are not even referenced. That constitutes original research, which also brings notability of the information into question (i.e. Does this mean I can set up a random account masquerading as a fake U.S. government branch and list this account here as well?).

I have already been kind enough to explain my edits in my edit summary, but User:Another Believer, did not explain it when he/she reverted my edit. An experienced Wikipedian should have known better. --219.75.113.186 (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]