Jump to content

Talk:2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Probably too early for this page but could become a relevant event after the election once we get results

[edit]

I think we should hold off on this page, if not, it is in need of big expansion. I also think this link is potentially notable concerning the "October Surprise", if in the event that Trump loses:

https://theconversation.com/us-election-puerto-rican-voters-could-deliver-donald-trump-an-unwelcome-october-surprise-242326 CNC33 (. . .talk) 19:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a little quick, especially since we don't know what the effect of this rally will be. Perhaps it will be remembered as just another rally and we can't have a separate page for every rally on which there has been reporting.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 21:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Speederzzz i think the page is a good idea, in all probability future historians will be quite interested in it Potholehotline (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we can still make it in the future, the sources aren't going anywhere
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 07:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need this per WP:TDS. LuxembourgLover (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

[edit]

Looking at the history of this page and monitoring changes, there seems to be some kind of edit war going on. Some are calling it a “nazi rally”, while some are trying to remain unbiased. We need a consensus on how to handle this page, keep it neutral and wheter this page is even necessary.

Best,

YoungArtist79 (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not exist. Trying to spin another bombastic campaign rally into a literal Nazi event is beyond sensational and certainly against Wikipedia:NPOV. Rob Roilen (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page should be written neutrally, but it should also exist. The reason why it was called a Nazi rally by many prominent figures is because the rhetoric was very similar to Nazi rhetoric, and those reactions should be included. There was nothing sensationalized here, this "bombastic event" had countless examples of racism, misogyny, and authoritarianism, and this page is accurately explaining what occurred and what the reactions were. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is so dangerous and disingenuous to characterize language intended to be patriotic as "Nazi rhetoric". If the same standard was applied to all campaign rallies, there would be countless rallies by Democrats that could be characterized as Nazi rallies.
The context of the commentary around this event is vital. It is notable that one of the people who started the "Nazi rally" comparison for this particular event was Hillary Clinton. If the only people saying this are people politically opposed to Trump and his associates, it is not appropriate to use it as material which frames the entire article. Rob Roilen (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article does not say he engaged in "Nazi rhetoric"
The context of the commentary around this event is vital and that context is that in recent days three top military officers who worked directly with him in the Oval Office have said he is a "fascist" as he has repeatedly called his political opponents the "enemy within." soibangla (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speakers

[edit]

I converted the unsorted, unsourced list of speakers into a bulleted list sorted alphabetically. Sources are still needed for some of the entries. Ideally, I'd prefer to see the bulleted list converted back into prose as part of an overview of the event's program, with speakers covered in order of appearance and with additional information about what each person said and did on stage (as sourcing allows). Will continue to watch how the article evolves and try to revisit as the dust settles a bit. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While the speech of Tony Hinchcliffe is going to get its own section, we probably want little prose sentences summarizing what each person did. We can't have whole sections on them, but, you know, "Hulk Hogan ripped off his shirt. Steven Miller said “America is for Americans and Americans only."" etc. The current little list is kind of silly. We still need to see how much attention the other parts of the rally get. Birdsgeek (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone seen a helpful source with a rundown of speakers in order of appearance? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to include Trump's full name

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This should be renamed to include Trump's first name, such as 2024 Donald Trump rally at Madison Square Garden or 2024 Donald Trump presidential campaign rally at Madison Square Garden, etc. CNC33 (. . .talk) 03:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to 2024 Donald Trump rally at Madison Square Garden ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jantokiilo (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page cannot be moved while the AfD template is present, but happy to move after the banner is removed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2024_Trump_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden#Requested_move_31_October_2024 below. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Maintain Neutral Point of View

[edit]

As it currently stands, this article is plainly not neutral. Pointing to mainstream articles as sources is not enough; do these referenced commentators have opposite political affiliations? Have these publications recently publicly endorsed candidates with opposite political affiliations? Are quotes coming from disgruntled former staff? If the answer to any of these is "yes", it is only right to consider sources outside of that community.

We need to keep our personal political opinions out of the encyclopedia. Describing people derogatorily through citations is not appropriate.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Roilen (talk • contribs) 14:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to identify specifically problematic text here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, if you cannot tell which parts I'm talking about I think you should recuse yourself from editing the page. Rob Roilen (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlwoodwa Here is a source for the "wrong rally" comment from Harris at her rally in La Crosse. Can you please help me add it to the article so I can revert the edit with a proper source?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-kamala-harris-tell-hecklers-182914641.html Rob Roilen (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob Roilen: Thanks for providing a reliable source for that quotation. However, before you restore your edit to that paragraph: do you have a reliable source for your claim that David Rem was referencing [Kamala's] appearance […] where she told several Christian attendees that they were "at the wrong rally" – that is, a reliable source for the connection between Rem's statement and Harris's statement? jlwoodwa (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"loaded introduction"

[edit]

Rob Roilen I don't see it's loaded, and I don't see you opened a discussion about it, but I do see you want to delete the article

please would you restore this sentence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Trump_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden&diff=prev&oldid=1254135758 soibangla (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is "loading the introduction" because it frames the article within the perspective of a particular group of commentators. This is not appropriate for encyclopedic writing. Rob Roilen (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it does not frame the article within the perspective of a particular group of commentators
it's just a routine edit accurately explaining what he said, from a routine highly reliable source soibangla (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and again here[1] this is not an opinion that you removed. you have made it clear that you do not want this article to exist. soibangla (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN article written by Gregory Krieg cited as a source is plainly, obviously, unabashedly biased against Trump and Republicans. The language used throughout the article is sensational in nature. Referencing any content in this article in the lede of what is supposed to be an objective, neutral article about a campaign rally is inappropriately framing the content through the perspective of one political persuasion.
The Politico article written by Jason Beeferman cited as a source displays its clear non-neutral POV in the title, which is "Is a Trump rally akin to a Nazi rally? This state senator thinks so.". The state senator is Manhattan state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal. The perspective of a single state senator, who happens to be a Democrat, is not something that should be used to frame the perspective of an encyclopedia article. Rob Roilen (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I wrote a lot of the lede and so I will defend it. The entire reason that this article exists is because there has been an extra-ordinary amount of commentary characterizing the rally - this rally in specific - as racist and vitriolic. I don't think it frames the article poorly, rather, it tells you why the rally was notable. If you want to add a conservative response or whatever to the lede, like: "Republicans countered that the position held by Hinchcliffe was not reflective of Trump's opinions," and you can source that, it might belong in the lede as well.
Further, the comparison to the Nazi rally - whether you agree with it or not - is an important part of the coverage of this rally. We can't just take out all opinions from every article ever. Many political events are only notable because of the opinions, reactions, and commentary they spur. The Basket of deplorables is an example of such an event, where the reason it is noteworthy is because of a conservative response. Birdsgeek (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and what I'm arguing is that this extraordinary amount of negative coverage specifically coming from one particular side of the political spectrum in the US, the week before the presidential election, is an example of journalism that, while perhaps technically factually accurate at times, completely fails to maintain neutrality and signals through various phrases and tone that the reader should hold a negative opinion of these people and events.
That is why it is inappropriate for the lede of an encyclopedia article. The lede frames the reading of the rest of the article, and since encyclopedias must be neutral, it is important that the content of the lede does not contain content that could be construed as providing more weight to a particular judgement of the people or events.
And again, the Nazi rally references originated from a very small number of highly partisan politicians who just so happen to be members of the party opposing Trump and his associates. Their very much not-neutral political opinions are irrelevant in the context of the lede of an encyclopedia article. Rob Roilen (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how does that have anything to do with your removal of the sentence that is the subject of this thread?
"During his address, Trump continued his assertions that his political rivals represent a traitorous "enemy within" America." soibangla (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with Rob Roilen's analysis and I believe the edit should be restored. what do others think? soibangla (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the edit should be restored. Besides his misunderstanding of how an introduction is supposed to work, it's clear that Rob Roilen's reasoning for undoing the edit is based on his own personal standards for what should be considered a valid source, and these standards do not correspond with Wikipedia's standards. He frequently uses the word "encyclopedia" as a way to disconnect Wikipedia's regulations from what he believes should belong in any encyclopedia, broadly, when it should be clear that this is not the case.
Lastly, what Rob Roilen wants is an "optically" neutral tone, and I believe that part of his reason for the removal is to make it so that the first things the reader sees does not include descriptions of Trump's rhetoric (which is one of the main reasons this article exists) and summary of reactions.
I don't think this has been brought up, but articles covering specific campaign events are not created unless there was a reaction or result that warrants it. By removing negative information, Rob Roilen is (maybe unintentionally) attempting to change the purpose of the article and turn it into a whitewashed, pointless version of itself. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you this recently banned account? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fearless_Speech --FMSky (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it isn't the same account I'm seeing some similarities Rob Roilen (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it isn't the same account then why are similarities in what someone else wrote concerning? soibangla (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that @ me? No, I am not the blocked account. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates and map?

[edit]

Template:Infobox event allows coordinates. Helpful for this article to have coordinates and a map in the infobox? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link to MSG is sufficient. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Dixie"

[edit]

I see mention of the song "Dixie" was removed. Here are some sources and excerpts:

Thoughts from others on including mention of the song? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in my comment on the edit, the actual song played was "An American Trilogy" by Elvis Presley. While it contains an excerpt of "Dixie", they are certainly not the same song. Rob Roilen (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see your edit summary, and I am noting what news sources say. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the news sources fail to mention that it was not, in fact, the song "Dixie", they are factually inaccurate and exhibiting an obvious bias, and should not be used as sources for an encyclopedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we can't use WP:Or to make claims in articles, we can to some extent use it to help us decide which sources are reliable and to a lesser extent what to cover. If it's clear from videos that the song played was American Trilogy including Dixie but also the other parts, and sources failed to note this IMO it's fair to at a minimum exclude mention of this and consider whether that particular article should be used at all; especially if we only have a few sources mentioning this. Nil Einne (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that most of the sources mentioning Dixie seem to be within 24 hours or so, so as always with this sort of think it's easily possible that a big part of our problem is that's we're trying to cover something fairly while contemporaneous sources are still being written. So just waiting 2-3 days may help resolve this. I appreciate with an upcoming election in the US, this may seem like a long time, but we can't expect Wikipedia to be to perfectly cover current events. Nil Einne (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: I think it could be mentioned, but I would suggest using a more comprehensive source such as this Snopes article. The article should mention the artist and song title, but it should also mention how it was played. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50 Cent

[edit]

--Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antichrist and Prostitute Comments

[edit]

If you watch the actual videos of the speeches by David Rem and Grant Cardone, the context of these remarks is obvious. Rem calls Harris "the antichrist" because of her comment at a La Crosse, Wisconsin campaign rally where she told a group of Christian attendees that they were "at the wrong rally". Cardone says that "[Harris] and her pimp handlers will destroy our country" because he is referring to how he believes that she is incompetent and not actually the person carrying out policy decisions. He does not actually use the word prostitute.

None of the mainstream media articles being used as sources for these comments even bother to fully quote what Rem or Cardone said, so it is very difficult to source anything properly. It is only appropriate to mention these comments if they are properly contextualized. Otherwise we are not maintaining a neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Roilen (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't watch videos to decide what was meant, that's WP:Or. If no reliable secondary source has talked about these things then we won't either. Sources can make inferences by considering what someone has said, considering other stuff that has been said etc, but we can't. We can just summarise what reliable secondary sources have said about something. That's how wikipedia works, and has worked for 20+ years. So until and unless you can find a source, there's nothing to talk about here. While nominally our policies and guidelines can change, WP:Verifiability is part of our WP:5P and is so fundamental to wikipedia, that even that aspect isn't worth pursuing although this isn't the place for it anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm making is that if a single mainstream article even bothered to do proper journalistic due diligence and include the context of these comments, we would have a reliable source for what I'm talking about since the context is self evident. The fact that these publications have all chosen to avoid doing that calls their reliability into question when considering them as source material for a neutral POV encyclopedia.
Publishing that someone called a presidential candidate the "antichrist" without providing the context of the remark is not maintaining a neutral point of view.
The prostitute reference is not appropriate at all for an encyclopedia, especially without proper context. The word was not even used in the speech and comes from heavily editorialized commentary on the event. Rob Roilen (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you are engaged in original research to second-guess reliable sources soibangla (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to "second-guess" since the so-called reliable sources do not even properly contextualize their commentary. If there is an example of proper, unbiased, factually accurate reporting on this I would be happy to use it as a source. Rob Roilen (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"and said the woman vying to become the first woman and Black woman president had begun her career as a prostitute"[2] soibangla (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a source for who actually said that? This is the only context from the article:
"With just over a week before Election Day, speakers at the rally Sunday night labeled Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage,” called Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris “the devil,” and said the woman vying to become the first woman and Black woman president had begun her career as a prostitute." Rob Roilen (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardone's comment was shocking and needs its own section.Arbeiten8 (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While it may have been shocking to some who hold opposing political views, there is clearly a rather large cohort of people who agree with the sentiment behind the crude imagery, demonstrated by the large crowd cheering at the remark. Giving undue weight to particular comments from the rally by giving them their own sections reduces the neutrality of the article.
    If you can find a source that fully contextualizes his comment within his speech I think it would be fair to include this section. Rob Roilen (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commentators are saying, "Grant Cardone...likened the Democratic nominee for president to a prostitute...The overt sexism throughout the night...was astonishing" Trump’s Promise to Young Men: I Am Your Retribution Against WomenArbeiten8 (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can see that this article is not appropriately neutral for an encyclopedia. Even the headline is loaded. Rob Roilen (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump not depicted as Hitler

[edit]

Rob Roilen Trump has been depicted as fascist by multiple prominent figures. check.

the rally has been likened to the 1939 Nazi rally. check.

but no one of note has equated Trump with a genocidal maniac, and the content I removed is thus a strawman and suggests that notable people have equated Trump with Hitler, when in reality no one has

the content is deeply misleading, consequently it should be removed, again

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Trump_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden&diff=prev&oldid=1254256904 soibangla (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No one of note has equated Trump to a genocidal maniac."
This is a blatant lie. Gen. Mark Milley has said that Trump was a fascist, how is this not someone of note? Several other figures close to Trump or who directly worked for Trump have also made similar comments, as well as claiming he admires dictators (Which is a fact, sorry. These are literally Trump's own statements).
You also cannot seperate this event from the rhetoric that was preceding it. Trump stated several times that there is an "enemy within" that needs to be dealt with through military action, and among the specific people threated was Nancy Pelosi. Specifically. As well, there are Trump's many comments about race, how some people have "bad genes", and how "immigrants are poisoning the blood of the nation" (which is a quote from Mein Kampf). As well, Trump has made it very clear that just like in 2021, he will not accept defeat if he indeed loses the election.
You are pushing this narrative out of the belief that equating someone with Hitler is offensive and sensationalist, but what else are you supposed to do when Hitler serves as the best historical counterpoint to how Trump is conducting his campaign? When someone's actions match those of Hitler's rise to power, that is a cause for concern. Worldwide, people are noticing these similarities and that is entirely Trump's own fault. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I am responding to Rob Roilen. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
suggests that notable people have equated Trump with Hitler, when in reality no one has What? Where to begin? The DNC projected gigantic text on the outside of MSG equating Trump with Hitler. QED. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanewashing

[edit]

Editor Rob Roilen has been been continuously pushing an edit war on this page. As well, he is currently causing issues with other editors through his personal campaign against Wikipedia (which is against site rules). This person does not respect the rules of this site and is simply sanewashing what happened during this specific event and how the majority of people reacted to it. All edits made by Rob Roilen should not be considered "unbiased", they are cleary in favour of Trump in both their intention and execution. All edits by Rob Roilen on this page should be removed due to Rob Roilen being a clearly biased source. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly don't assume bad faith on my part. I am not a "source". I endeavor to maintain Wikipedia's foundational principal of neutrality, and in particular I encourage my fellow editors to look outside of mainstream sources they personally consider "reliable" when publishing content for an encyclopedia.
Many of the cited sources happen to be from publications that openly disparage people who belong to a certain political persuasion, and these outlets also openly endorse people who belong to the opposite political persuasion. This is grounds enough to consider their commentary with additional scrutiny, and to compare it with commentary from outside their influence. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your conduct shows bad faith, I am perfectly justified in claiming this. You are claiming the page wasn't being neutral when it was giving a reccounting of what occurred and what the reactions were (save for a few now-removed examples of using "Nazi" innapropriately). The concessions for Trump and other speakers, deletion of reactions, and other edits show a blatant motive to defend the event itself.
You are also the only person pushing for this page's deletion. This is not the only Wikipedia page that mentions Trump's authoritarianism and similarities to Hitler, in fact there are entire pages that cover this topic. If you believe this page should be removed for spreading the idea that Trump is like Hitler, then you should also be arguing that these articles should be removed. By your standards, any Wikipedia article that covers Trump cannot mention anything about Nazism or Trump's authoritarian statements and actions, even when Trump met with a self-proclaimed Neo-Nazi (Nick Fuentez) and has made several public statements that aligns with fascist idealogy. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way you are talking about this makes abundantly clear that you do not support Donald Trump or Republicans. And that's okay. When it's not okay is when your personal political opinion affects the neutrality of an encyclopedia article. It is incredibly important for us all to understand that in a world with 8.1 billion people, there are going to be literally millions of people who disagree with our politics, even strongly disagree.
I am not the "only person pushing for this page's deletion". And again, I encourage you and other editors to read up on what it means to "appeal to authority". If you say that there are many sources claiming Trump is a fascist, but every single one of those sources happens to be an outlet that has openly endorsed politicians who oppose Trump, their objectivity certainly comes into question. Rob Roilen (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I have not made any edits or put my opinions into this article, that is why I am arguing these points here. You, however, have been making edits based on the personal opinion that including statements of Trump being a fascist is too extreme to include, even when it's a reporting of someone stating this. You are guilty of the very thing you are condemning, please do not project this behaviour onto me. And no, I do not dislike Republicans as a whole, and there are in fact several Republican groups and politicians who share my views on Trump. Trump's rhetoric is not Republican, at least not in the way it was before Trump.
Once again, the level of neutrality you expect from articles is unrealistic. Forcing neutrality can be misleading because it gives the impression that the subject is more contentious and that "both sides equally have a point". This is not Appeal to Authority or Appeal to Popularity, this is Appeal to Consensus. If you are discussing a subject that has a consensus pointing in a particular way, it is dishonest to portray the opposition as equally valid.
Lastly, your hyperbolic statements here like "every source is from an outlet endorsing Trump's political opposition" are not true unless you are only talking about the United States (and even then this is not accounting for third-party candidates and non-partisan organizations that oppose Trump). This does not take into account international response towards Trump, which is largely negative, and that has no way of endorsing Trump's political opposition beyond simply giving their verbal support. Even setting this aside, if opposing Trump makes all the outlets biased, how can any source be used on here to appease your standards for neautrality? "Bias" does not mean "opinion". It seems to me that what you really want is an article that is optically neutral, as in you want all of the negative information removed (or muddled with opposing viewpoints) so that it is unclear to readers what actually happened during the event, and how the vast majority of news outlets, politicians, political analysts, and affected communities reacted. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to discuss editor behaviour. There is already a thread at WP:ANI where behaviour in this talk page is being discussed, please raise any issues there if they haven't already been raised. Either way stick to the content issues here. Nil Einne (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response section

[edit]

Since the "Response" section is getting longer, thoughts on creating a subsection for "Entertainers" or "Politicians"? Might help with flow / organization. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather it didn't turn into one of those lists. For starter, the responses are all political, regardless of who they come from.
I'd rather see it move more towards a "response" than "responses". If Trump loses, this might be an important turning point. If it wins, I suspect it will be a window on his increasing authoritarianism. Either way, I think it's more important to document response as a whole. Guettarda (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting a list format. I just mean grouping / separating text re: entertainers and re: politicians. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But I don't think that benefits the article or readers. I think it creates an artificial divide. And where would you put the archbishop? Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not in a subsection for Entertainers or Politicians. I don't feel strongly about creating a subsection for either, was just an idea for organizational purposes. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2024

[edit]

2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden → 2024 Donald Trump rally at Madison Square Garden – Using his full name in the article title is far more specific / encyclopedic and follows the same naming convention as other Trump-related articles (many far longer than this one) that use his full name instead of simply his last name. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... Just seeing now that the same rename was proposed above but couldn't be actioned until the AFD was closed (which it is now). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging CNC33, Jantokiilo, Another Believer who participated in the prior discussion. Guettarda (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I just mentioned below, I support the rename. CNC33 (. . .talk) 17:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • how about 2024 Madison Square Garden Trump rally? I believe that having Trump's fully name is overly wordy for an overly wordy title name already... no reason for the at to be there.
-1ctinus📝🗨 17:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this title. It's more concise, gets straight to the point on what the article is talking about. Rager7 (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rob Roilen (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. My only hesitation is that "Trump rally" (sans "Donald") is the common name.[3][4] But the arguments in favor of "2024 Donald Trump rally at Madison Square Garden" are reasonably persuasive and using his full name is more befitting of an encyclopedia so I'm hopping aboard the consensus train.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Not a big deal either way. The biggest problem I see is that a casual or first-time user might see a terse use of Donald Trump's name as a sign of bias. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had suggested this earlier (above) while the article was still being discussed to be deleted. I think it is much more specific to include Trump's full name because it's not like his name itself is a political party or movement (such as the Nazi rally at MSG page). He is an individual and his full name should be included. CNC33 (. . .talk) 17:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as wordy and not being WP:COMMONNAME... Donald Trump rallies are commonly called Trump rallies. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we not disambiguate from the many other things that bear the Trump name? Why leave any ambiguity that this was a rally for Lara Trump, or the Trump Organization? Why would literally every other article about Trump feature his full name except this one? It makes no sense. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 06:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per main article name. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding the reliability of CNN's political commentary

[edit]

Hello, I have opened a discussion about CNN's reliability in light of its recent reporting of events like this:

wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CNN

Maybe this will help keep the talk page clean while a more in-depth discussion occurs elsewhere. Rob Roilen (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We get it that you don't like CNN, but this is quite a stretch. CNC33 (. . .talk) 17:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to discuss this with you at the given link Rob Roilen (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with you, but the standards for US reporting at this point are pretty low, and politically charged reporting doesn't set off too many flags with media bias reporting (compared to objectively false statements about science or more inflammatory language, etc.), especially if everyone is using the same charged language. That is to say, liberal sources tend to be biased in ways that aren't as overtly damaging. Also, media bias information websites tend to lean toward the American left and favor those sources in scale, even when descriptions reveal the source's partisan bias is more troubling than benign. So, it's hard to prove that something like CNN is problematically biased, beyond a simple partisanship. Please make sure you come to Noticeboards fully prepared or not at all, because any weak showing that gets marked as "I don't like it" will be used as precedent in the future. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I simply believe that it is only fair for Wikipedia to have a separate category for CNN's political commentary on WP:RS/P, as it does for other outlets, because of inaccuracy due to inordinate bias. If you agree with me at all I would appreciate your input in my discussion attempting to reopen the discussion Rob Roilen (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that I think CNN has a contextual problematic bias which might be more apparent in the case of this specific article. But I don't think it's, in a more general sense, to the degree of marked unreliable sources such as Breitbart c.2014-2020 (the extent of my familiarity with that source). I'm not in favor of reopening a discussion that you're not prepared for, and I'm not going to devote a large chunk of time to unraveling the biases of a labyrinthian news agency. Unfortunately, some fights on Wikipedia, especially through DRN, aren't worth having. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Trump_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden&oldid=1255408648"