Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

FEC Form 2

Trump has filed FEC Form 2, 22 June 2015. See [[1]]. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

SSM

Howard Kurtz - Fox News interview

TRUMP: Look, it's an issue that been determined by the Supreme Court. And frankly, you know, I'm about jobs; I'm about making the country great. I would have liked to have seen the decision differently. And you have another decision ObamaCare, which is a disaster given to us by John Roberts who was appointed by Bush who was pushed by Jeb Bush.

Changing statement - he hasn't said "Christian views on marriage" -- Callinus (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

General election polls not yet relevant

Unanalyzed general election polls are not yet relevant, are misleading, and amount to WP:original research, since they do not contain running mates. The one listed showing Hilary is not really relevant at this point. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We have an article for Republican polling, and that is available in the template and series box. Mention of polls at all on preliminary campaign articles is not only irrelevant, but no encyclopedic. Spartan7W § 20:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and actually, some polling shows combinations of Trump and one of the other Republicans as possibly beating Hilary and a running mate. What's more Hilary hasn't been nominated.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well she hasn't been nominated yet, although she is quite likely to receive it. But the fact she is the near-guarantee like Nixon in ')0, the polling is inherently flawed. Spartan7W § 20:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Another Democrat could still enter, Hilary has problems.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget Bernie, he's polled competitively in several of the early states. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Polling-data is encyclopedic, as long as it is handled properly. Almost every WP:SOURCES article I read about Trump specifically mentions that he is doing well in the polls. Wikipedians should not use our own logic (for instance, reasoning that since the polls in question didn't include veeps, therefore they are not REALLY worth noting), we should reflect what the sources actually say, per WP:NOTEWORTHY. It is perfectly fine for an article about a presidential candidate, to talk about how well that candidate is doing in nationwide/swingstate polls relative to other Republican candidates (if the reliable sources talk about such things), to talk about how well that candidate is doing in nationwide/swingstate polls relative to other Democratic candidates (if the reliable sources talk about such things), and to talk about how well that candidate is doing (relative to others) in their fundraising/endorsements/staffers and so on and so forth. It is NOT original research, to quote some article in Politico which discusses the hypothetical matchup of Trump versus Hillary, and mentions Quinnipiac polling-data on that hypothetical. That is the *opposite* of original research. (It would be original research if, extrapolating from the Politico/Quinnipiac datasets, using a spreadsheet on my own, I were to come up with some claims about how well the S.Palin/D.Trump ticket would fair against the M.Obama/H.Clinton ticket during the 2020 elections... since absolutely *none* of that particular hypothetical has been discussed in Politico, nor polled by Quinniapiac.) Just because something is in the future, does not mean wikipedians can refuse to include it, in our articles. Reflecting what the sources say, means, if the sources are talking about the future, then wikipedia can summarize what they said, in a neutral tone, no problem whatsoever. Otherwise, logically, we could just delete all this 2016-election stuff, because the final outcome is in the future, right? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Right: polling is relevant as long as it is handled properly, which means dismissing polls that really don't mean anything. As has been pointed out already, it is not possible to conduct a meaningful general election poll because we are still a full year from selecting the running mates. Thus, polls concerning the general election are merely "noise", basically just space-filler material. And no, not encyclopedic. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Doing some research on specific sources turns up these sources (see greenbox). That's just the top few hits from googling for trump hillary poll. I'm sure there are more. Now, I fully realize, hypothetical head-to-head nationwide polling is inherently flawed; it ignores the electoral college, it ignores the winner-take-all nature of swing states, it ignores veep-picks, it ignores the next 15 months of campaigning / scandals / zingers / gaffes / commercials / endorsements / momentum / etc. But it is WP:NOTEWORTHY, and cannot be omitted from wikipedia, because wikipedia has to stay neutral per WP:NPOV, and reflect what the sources say per WP:V. See also, WP:5, this stuff is critical to what 'being encyclopedic' means. I don't find polling-data-summaries listed at WP:NOT. Are we just talking about different things, here? Here is a reliably-sourced sentence I think belongs in the article.
suggest a specific sentence, that summarizes the candidate-relative-polling-numbers, for Trump-vs-repubs and Trump-vs-dems
  • Dana Blanton (August 04, 2015). "Fox News Poll: New high for Trump, new low for Clinton". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Marisa Schultz (July 30, 2015). "Trump surges in new poll while Hillary sinks". In a head-to-head matchup among all voters, however, Clinton beat Trump, 48-36 percent. But she trailed Bush, 44-41, a sharp turn from May, when she handily topped him, 47-37.
  • Jennifer Agiesta (July 1, 2015). "Poll: Bush, Trump rising nationally for GOP, but both trail Clinton". Clinton, though, continues to lead all GOP candidates in head-to-head general election match-ups. ... Looking ahead to the general election, Clinton continues to hold significant leads over Bush (54% Clinton to 41% Bush) and Christie (56% Clinton to 37% Christie). She has also opened up wide leads over Rubio (56% Clinton to 39% Rubio) and Walker (57% Clinton to 38% Walker), as those two have slipped among independents. Clinton's clearest advantage, however, is over Donald Trump, 59% say they would vote for Clinton if the 2016 match-up were between her and Trump, 34% say they would back Trump.
  • Susan Page and Erin Raftery (July 14, 2015). "Poll: Trump leads the GOP field but falters against Clinton". Donald Trump has surged to the top of a crowded Republican presidential field, a USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, but the brash billionaire is also the weakest competitor among the top seven GOP candidates against Democrat Hillary Clinton. ...in hypothetical head-to-heads against former secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic nominee. Bush, the strongest candidate against Clinton, lags by four points nationwide, 46%-42%. Trump trails by 17 points, 51%-34%. That's a wider margin than Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (down 6 points), former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (8 points), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (9 points), Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (10 points) and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (13 points).
    Do you disagree that these specific newspapers and television networks count as WP:SOURCES of information about political contests, User:Eclipsoid? Do you disagree with my interpretation, that they are in fact publishing scientifically-gathered polling data, from wiki-reliable polling firms? Obviously, we need to summarize what is being said (not list every blow-by-blow percentage), and we need to phrase the overall summarization of those factoids neutrally (not copy the POV attention-grabbing headlines), but that is hardly difficult, right? If the sources reported something, it means that something was WP:NOTEWORTHY, and that something thus belongs in the relevant wikipedia article. These secondary sources are reporting material that, prima facie, belongs in this specific article. Something like:
* As of July 2015, Trump moved into first place in polls of Republican voters, when asked their first-pick preference for the Republican nominee in 2016; however, in hypothetical nationwide head-to-head polling data amongst all registered voters regardless of party affiliation, as of July 2015 Trump was behind the likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by double-digits, with approximately five other Republican candidates faring than Trump better by this metric. (Or we could do it graphically, like here.[2] They have versus-Clinton charts for Trump, Bush, Cruz, Huckabee, Walker, Rubio, Paul, Ryan[former], Christie, albeit not yet for Carson for some reason, nor for any of the other repub candidates whom aren't polling in the top-ten-tier nationally amongst repub voters.)
    Once we have numbers for August, we can add another sentence; once we have numbers for September, we can do it again. We record the history of the polling-numbers over time, not merely because it *is* the proverbial footnote in the history books, but because the trends will show how the campaigns are faring, relatively speaking, to each other (intra-Republican and also intra-major-party). We already have an article with blow-by-blow polling data, but *this* article needs some polling-data-summary-sentences. As an aside, same exact reasoning applies to all the other campaign-articles, where such data exists, and secondary sources have reported on it... I note that only 8 of the 17 repub candidates actually *has* been polled against Clinton nationally per huffpo, because the polling firms haven't bothered with several candidates who have very little shot of being the repub nominee (plus have been skipping Carson ... or maybe that's a temporary bug in the HuffPo server and his chart is just down for repairs).
    Anyways, long story short, merely linking to the polling-data-articles in not enough. There are headline-stories about how Trump is doing in the polls against other repubs, against dems, against specific demographics, in approval-rating, in could-support, and so on and so forth. The history of his polling-data (relative to other presidential candidates) is definitely a topic for this article. By way of contrast, we have a separate article on endorsements, and this article links there, but this article also has a collapsed list of nearly all of the endorsements. We also need either a graph, or a one-sentence-per-month summarization, or a collapsed-copy, of the polling data about Trump, since that polling data is proven to matter, by the wiki-reliable sources that keep publishing about it. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

On the inclusion of all significant viewpoints

The problems with this page are comparable with the problems expressed in the tag, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." It is particularly important for articles on present-day politics to include important sentiment(s) from all sides. For the sub-categories, Trump is often the only one sourced, and the opinions of Trump's critics are often given misrepresented and/or. A good example can be found in the paragraph about the remarks on illegal immigration in his candidacy announcement speech, which the article simply says drew criticism from his "opponents." This suggests that the only people who criticized his remarks are people who had biases against him from the start; if this were the case, Trump himself would not have been on record saying he didn't expect the resulting backlash to be as severe as it was.[3] In truth, the remarks made him many more opponents than he had previously had. AndrewOne (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have something specific that needs to be addressed? Based on what you've written, I can't decipher what your complaint is. Whatever it may be, systemic bias is NOT what are describing--of that much I am certain. So, you'll need to help us zero-in on whatever it is that you think requires attention, or we'll have to pull your tag. (Actually, we should probably pull it anyway, as it is clearly inappropriate.) Eclipsoid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello User:Eclipsoid, I believe User:AndrewOne is especially complaining about this bit, bolded-emphasis added by myself:

During his announcement of his candidacy, Trump made a statement regarding illegal immigration that prompted reactions from his opponents, as well as from proponents who defended his remarks. He stated in part, "[snipped]." In the days following, several businesses and organizations - including NBC, Macy's, and Univision - cut ties with Trump over his comments. Defenders of Trump's remarks on illegal immigration have included presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Congressman Steve King, and various families of victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. For his part, Trump has defended his comments, cited news articles to back up his claims and made illegal immigration a major issue in his campaign.

Macy's obviously cannot and ought not be lumped in with "Trump's opponents" (aka other presidential candidates competing against Trump in particular , and the proponents of non-Republican-political-parties including Democrats in general). The paragraph is unbalanced, because although it talks neutrally about the controversial statement, and gives a reasonably-neutral quotation of the controversial statement... it then goes on to give one sentence of vague criticism ('several businesses cut ties'), and one sentence-fragment saying vaguely that 'his [political] opponents reacted' to the statement. Everything else is positive. There is nothing specific I see that terribly *wrong* with the positive stuff; it appears to be backed by sources. I would suggest that some of the positive-parts are improperly vague: does Ted Cruz 100% agree with Trump? does Steve King 100% agree with Trump? the prose here implies as much, but that may not be the case (wikipedia should clearly reflect what the sources say -- and avoid implying something the sources do not explicitly say).
    But we cannot omit the negative coverage. When I do a search for trump announcement immigration rapists "good people", the WP:SOURCES that turn up are very-negative,[4][5][6] mostly-negative,[7][8][9][10] pretty-close-to-neutral,[11] somewhat-positive[12][13][14] (Santorum & Guiliani need to be added to the paragraph... but note well they cannot be lumped in as "defenders" of Trump per their own multi-faceted-statements) and mostly-positive.[15][16] Right now, what is in mainspace doesn't reflect ALL the sources.
    There is a particular flaw with the boldfaced bit in the paragraph; from the interview with Costa, as reported by HuffPo, we learn that Trump blamed "Democrats and [his other] enemies" for blowing up one paragraph of his announcement-speech into a controversy. Now, it is okay for wikipedia to state that according to Trump the controversy over the statement "prompted reactions from [primarily] his opponents" but it is NOT okay to use wikipedia's voice, and state flat out that the statement "prompted reactions from Trump's opponents" without attribution nor qualification... thereby implying that Trump's opponents were the only ones who reacted. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and also WP:ABOUTSELF. We can and should give Trump's position, and Trump's reaction to the backlash. But we have to give it as Trump's, not as wikipedia's.
    Most seriously, the paragraph mentions the businesses-cut-ties stuff, but otherwise ignores the mostly-negative and very-negative press coverage (see list of samples above). Those very-negative and mostly-negative WP:SOURCES also need sentences in this paragraph (my suggestion would be one sentence about criticism by other Republicans and one sentence about criticism from liberal&Democratic groups and then a summary-sentence that sums up the list of groups that have criticized the controversial stance which roughly parallels the "defenders" sentence), otherwise we have an WP:NPOV problem. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

another announcement-speech quotation, the "no-bicycle-races" campaign promise

User:99.112.166.96 added something about this back in mid-June, but it was deleted, and I can understand why (looks very random when taken out of context). But appearances can be deceiving, and in this case bicycle races *are* worth mentioning methinks, per WP:NOTEWORTHY best-quotes-list by Politico. Here is a rough-draft that I put together:

During his announcement speech, Trump said he would keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and criticized John Kerry for the current status of negotiations with Iran; Trump also criticized Kerry's judgement outside the political realm, in particular breaking[when?] his leg (at age 72) in a bicycle race, following which Trump made a firm campaign promise never to race bicycles himself.[17]

This is too long, and may need to be cut down, but I'm not sure how far we can cut it down ('as simple as possible but no simpler') yet still manage to explain to the readership the context of the no-bicycle-races remark. I do think the quote helps give the flavor of the Trump candidacy; it is funny/zany/flamboyant, yet at the same time cuts to the heart of one of his important campaign-issues (it really matters who the president picks to put at the negotiating-table with other countries). As for placement, the no-bicycle-races stuff belongs in the Announcement section, either immediately after (or perhaps merged with) this existing sentence: "In the speech, Trump also pledged he would fund Social Security, not cut it, renegotiate U.S. trade agreements, oppose federal Common Core education standards, and complete the Mexican border fence and make Mexico pay for it."

p.s. I also would suggest adding more context to the 'make Mexico pay for it' portion, since that sounds non-sensible until you understand that Trump is planning on using illegal/undocumented immigrants to supply the labor, and subsequently deporting them, then via diplomatic channels trying to extract the cost imposed by those deported, from the government of Mexico. Not as good a sound-bite, but this is an encyclopedia so we should try and stay a bit more formal/educational. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a couple sentences about this to mainspace, after I found a cite for Kerry's accident; he wasn't in a bicycle race, that was a bit of poetic license on Trump's part, but Kerry did break his leg in May'15. I haven't tried to clarify the make-mexico-pay-for-it-portion yet. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Trump on the Border

FoxNews just asked their frequent guest, Karl Rove, if the aggressive stance of Donald Trump will hurt or help the Republican image. Rove says he has a concern, "But first, let's go over some basics of his plan [crafted with Senator from Alabama, Jeff Sessions.] Rove then uses his familiar chalkboard, saying it is what other Republican candidates want also:

  • Increase ICE
  • Local law enforcement
  • Deport Criminal Aliens
  • E-Verify
  • End Catch+Release
  • Defund Sanctuary Cities
  • Increase penalties w/visa-overstays.

The 14th Amendment (born in the USA) was discussed. Trump wants to keep families together by sending anchor babies back with their illegal-entry parents. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

HollywoodReporter article has Trump answering great questions

Donald Trump is interviewed by HollywoodReporter and is asked about his wife. 

Headline-1: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine"

QUOTE: When will you get Melania out there talking about you? "Pretty soon. She wants to do it. She is a very confident person. You've seen her on The View, and you've seen her on different shows. Larry King. You've seen her being interviewed. She's got a great style, and she would be an amazing first lady with heart." -- AstroU (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine

QUOTE: "What would Melania care about as first lady?" She would care very much about women's issues. We're talking about mostly medical issues but women's issues. She was very strong on that with me the other day. Ivanka and Melania said, "You're not getting fairly treated on your feeling toward women." My mother was this incredible woman. I have known incredible women. I have many women executives, frankly, that are better than my men executives. I pay them the same or more." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

The article in Hollywood Reporter[18] is amazing!
FYI, here are a few (from the many) issues he answered:

  • The FCC and net neutrality
  • Do you regret the Rosie O'Donnell "pig" answer?
  • Is Ronald Reagan your model? [No.]
  • Your remarks on Mexicans and illegal immigration.
  • Your comments about women have been called sexist.
  • On abortion,
  • On gay marriage. Have you been to a gay wedding?
  • This is a dead issue for the GOP at this point?
  • What media do you consume?
  • Do you believe in legislating equal pay?
  • How do you view Hillary right now? [Answer: Hillary has problems far greater than the nomination]
  • Anyone in the GOP primary race you'd consider as your vice president?
  • Whose side are you on in Deflategate — Tom Brady or Roger Goodell?

On Tom Brady: Tom is an unbelievable guy. He's a very good friend of mine. I have his number right here someplace. Whatever. Here, look, he just called me. (He holds up a Post-it that says "Tom Brady's New Cell #.")
-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- The many, many issues in the interview will be great for editing this article.

His campaign team

What else can be said about his campaign team? He certainly doesn't need any 'advisors'. 

Headline-1: Trump strategist Roger Stone off campaign, dispute whether fired or quit

QUOTE: "A top political adviser to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is off the campaign, but both sides dispute whether he was fired or quit. A Trump spokesperson said early Saturday that high-profile adviser Roger Stone was fired. “Roger [Stone] wanted to use the campaign for his own personal publicity,” the spokesman told FoxNews.com. “He has had a number of articles about him recently, and Mr. Trump wants to keep the focus of the campaign on how to Make America Great Again." However, Stone said later in the day that he quit, citing in part Trump’s “provocative” battles with the news media, politicians and others." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

According to the National Journal, a woman named Hope Hicks identifies herself as spokesperson for the campaign. Perhaps she should be named? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, per WP:NOTEWORTHY. Over on the main endorsements-page, I've been putting staffers into the "activists" section, since basically they are activists who happen to be getting paid out of the campaign coffers. Hope Hicks is not currently a bluelink, so I would say she should probably be 'hidden' away in the endorsement-box. Roger Stone is not a redlink, but moreover, because he was the subject of some news-headlines over whether he quit or was fired (or both but in disputed chronology), he ought to be in the main body-prose, once when he joined, and once when he left. (Stone should also be listed, like Hicks, inside the endorsement-hide-a-box... but in Stone's case, with a parenthetical note that he may no longer fully endorse Trump... we know Stone's no longer with the campaign-team, true, but the other hand, just because Stone is no longer working on the campaign, doesn't mean he has unendorsed Trump... it could logically be the case that Stone is no longer happy with the campaign-direction, but still thinks Trump is the best candidate on offer). Ping User:Vesuvius_Dogg, would you like to WP:BOLD-ly add your source-find about Hicks to mainspace? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Add Steve Forbes and Art Laffer to his campaign as financial advisors. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Add Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, who helped him craft his border plan. == Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Add Corey_Lewandowski (campaign mgr) listed in the lede herein. -- AstroU (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Trump going to Dallas, Los Angeles, and CNN debate

Leading up to the CNN debate at the Reagan Presidential Library, he campaigns in Dallas, then "Trump is expected to deliver a national security address on the USS Iowa in Los Angeles on Sept. 15, before taking the stage to participate in CNN's first GOP debate at the Reagan Presidential Library the following day."[19] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC) -- (FYI, for future editing.)

Original research:political positions

This section has a lot of original research. There is no publication "Trump's political opinions" or "Trump's political goals". Some politicians have beliefs but, for political reasons, compromise or say different positions.

Furthermore, a quote or political belief is not necessarily a political position. For example, Dick Cheney probably has some very personal views about lesbians because his daughter is one, but his political position, if any, is different.

This concept of political positions being original research is not only with Trump but many other politician articles in Wikipedia. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The section has over 50 references, with many reliable sources. That's hardly OR. ~ RobTalk 21:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Trump's Rolling Stone piece

Here's more grist for the mill. The part that I'm seeing get the most play is his insulting of Carly Fiorina's looks. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, feeling 'hit', Bobby Jinal hits Trump back. Fiorina and Jindal have greater coverage because of Trump. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements

I’m not sure why endorsements from sports figures, pro-wrestling figures, and past reality show contestants are notable. But, assuming that they are, what exactly is a political endorsement? In an obvious example of edit-warring, Cuckservative has repeatedly added a number of questionable endorsements and refused to discuss his edits. They were reverted four times by two editors and it hasn’t been reverted a fifth time because we don’t edit-war.

In his addition of Jared Kushner, the cite provided doesn’t even mention Jared. In his addition of Phil Ruffin, there is no statement at al from Ruffin in the cite. Not a word. In the addition of Mike Ditka, Ditka says he likes Trump. He may like lots of people. This isn’t close to an endorsement for President of the U.S. I can’t imagine why you would want Hulk Hogan’s endorsement, but in adding him, Hogan says he’d like to be his running mate. That’s not an endorsement. And so on. Objective3000 (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing, and not just in this article. I think the minimum barrier to inclusion should be that any endorsement is actually called an endorsement in at least one reliable source, that the source should be independent of the endorser, and that the endorser should be notable enough to already have a Wikipedia article. This will eliminate Twitter shout outs, Facebook posts, forum posts, rumors and innuendo. - MrX 14:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you even read through the sources I provided. For starters, the list of endorsements for Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have way more questionable "endorsements" from state officials, Washington insiders, and political consultants with either no Wikipedia article or no explicit statement of endorsement, yet nobody seems to have a problem with them. Second, you can hardly call Charlie Sheen's endorsement for Trump an "endorsement," yet nobody seems to have a problem with his inclusion on the list. Last but not least, I would be happy to walk you guys through every single one of the sources I provided and show you the exact sentence that demonstrate their support for Trump/endorsement. Regards--Cuckservative (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I removed Charlie Sheen's entry. If there are problems with other articles, they need to be fixed also. But, we are on the Trump article and many of the "endorsements" aren't. Objective3000 (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Cuckservative: Do you agree that we should not use (only) WP:PRIMARY sources and that the sources should actually say endorse, or some close synonym?- MrX 11:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Make America Great Again hat photo

I think this has become such a cultural fashion icon that it could be spun off into its own article -- anyone have a Creative Commons licensed photograph of it?--The lorax (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Early. Could be forgotten in a couple of months. Objective3000 (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally I feel like any inclusion of the hat is a tad too promotional for my tastes. The main issue is that the hat is not really a "fashion" icon in my mind. It isn't like the hat is Gucci or Prada it is just a hat. We didn't include a picture of Rick Perry's iconic glasses even though there is plenty of "news" articles on those. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

2nd debate (CNN) and recent Trump polling

It seems that Wikipedia editing enthusiasm has waned in recent weeks, along with Trump's recent poll numbers. As far as surveys go, didn't early September mark "peak Trump"? I know he's said he leads among evangelicals, but he scored just 5% in the Value Voters Summit survey (of 2,700 participants), putting him in fifth place among that demographic. Shouldn't that be mentioned? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't like any WP:recentism. Like all early front runners, he will likely fade and eventually.... But, I've always thought an encyclopedia should wait for events to develop in their own manner. We are a year from the election. Sometimes, editors are in too much of a hurry. Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Mel Brooks is also counseling patience. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, his popularity has risen. Let's see what the next debate delivers. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Note on talk page posts

Any posts even vaguely using Nazi terminology or references will be reverted and the posters likely blocked. This talk page is not your local political chat forum. --NeilN talk to me 19:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that it's likely we've not heard the last of this, the article was semi-protected after reports to ANI and RFPP because of disruption, edit warring, and socking by one editor. Other editors rightly pointed out the issues and given the editor's insistence on adding a Hitler connection to the lead with completely disruptive referencing and then subsequently using Nazi terminology with reference to Trump, it's clear they were not here to improve the encyclopedia. Their first block was for 31 hours but after they started socking, I blocked one of their IPs for two weeks. Editors can keep this in mind when talk page protection expires in two days. --NeilN talk to me 21:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposition: First of all excuse me for editing this section, but I did not want to create a new one. My question is should there be a section within the article mentioning the ways Trump is promoting his campaign? Ralphw (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Obama/Islam

Now, should we add Trump's unresponsive-ness to allegations that Barack Obama was not American and a Muslim? Reference Aryamanaroratalk, contribs 22:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it merits mention. His "birther" campaign was very much part of building a constituency for a possible 2012 run, and he does not want to disappoint that constituency by conceding ground. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It's a pretty big deal.- MrX 15:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it merits a short mention. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a short mention. It's more substantive than other things that we currently mention, such as the Lindsey Graham phone saga.LM2000 (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course. It would be an inexplicable oversight not to. Neutralitytalk 23:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, It should be mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by VK007I (talk • contribs) 06:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree that it is a tremendous omission that Trump's support for various fringe theories (Obama is a secret Muslim born in Nigeria, GWB was the 9/11 mastermind, vaccines cause Autism, most Mexican-American women are raped while crossing the border, etc) have been given suspiciously little mention in this article. This is especially egregious in light of Trump's remarks that Muslims should be barred from the country. If Trump 1) thinks Obama is a secret Muslim And 2) thinks Muslims should not be allowed in the United States, it follows 3) trump thinks Obama should be deported. this should be mentioned in the very first lines of the article, so that it is clear Trump is a neo-Nazi protest candidate, rather than a legitimate politician. 50.29.117.25 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if DT would be neo-nazi why neo-cons can to have more say in US and blood us on someone else wars? Apparently DT is critical about neo-nazi ruling for now Ukraine and sponsored by our taxpayer money by BO st.dep. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
you have unusual views about the world, friend. you also seem to having quite a bit of difficulty in stringing together coherent thoughts. If in any way possible, I would highly recommend seeing a psychiatrist as soon as you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk • contribs) 07:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Education levels

Should this article indicate the fact that Donald Trump has greater appeal among less educated Americans? news polls from the past 4 months -- Moxy (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Take a shot at it. Also, explain why that would be. You can check his campaign site to see he is popular with 'blue collar' workers. -- AstroU (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Most likely the explanation is that low levels of education correlate extremely well with xenophobia and racism. The correlation is almost perfect.Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

False. Any growing group will contain growing number of less educated people. The 'more educated' are by definition minority. tip: think about semantic context of word 'more' . More than what? 99.90.196.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
It has been shown many times by sociologists that, within any given society, higher levels of education correlate with lower levels of "racism", or lower levels of intolerance of members of out-groups. In contrast, people with relatively lower levels of education, show relatively higher levels of intolerance of outgroup members, or a higher degree of racism. These are both relative claims, and simply imply that the more educated persons become, the less intolerant they typically, *on average*, become as well. Your points are largely non-sequiturs. Simply saying "false" and then incoherently stringing some word spaghetti together does not make an argument. This is a platitude, friend.Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You argue on unopposed argument. You admit that you not understand me but you dispute my thesis. Basically you dispute whit yourself, repeating what you already posted. The fact is in any society highest level of education belongs to minority - the less educated outgroup is majority. In any randomly sampled group the number of less educated persons will grow proportionally with the group count.
Similar kind of argumentation is observed when your media regret that 'during indiscriminate bombing most victims are women elderly and children' - because in any population this group consist a majority. The same fallacy is to insult, as you do, untested in pools implication, to always most numerous group of people, who do not having high education. (of course 'high' do not mean 'US high school' which is worldwide considered as elementary education)99.90.196.227 (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015

When Trump was responding to a question on the Muslim Database he said he would implement it. What he really meant is that he would implement tougher illegal immigration laws. Can this misinformation be deleted? Ylemel (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.
    It was a direct quote and is well referenced whenever it is mentioned in the article so I doubt it will be removed and replaced with what you thought he really meant. Putting in a direct quote from the person is not misinformation. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The media particularly CNN has edited the clip to make it sound like he did say he would. In reality he was asked about the database and although he didn't directly deny it until later, he instead discussed the border in which the reporter kept asking him questions about the database, the responses by Trump while discussing the wall make it seem like he did want a database of Muslims especially the way it is edited by some media outlets. He has however supported a database, that is for the Syrian refugees Obama plans to bring in to the US which I added to the page under Syria.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The original question put to Trump as a 'gotcha-moment' slipped into the discussion of the Wall (to be) on the southern border, as noted here. But, as is his way, Trump doubles-down on what he would do (noting also that we have tracking systems already in place, aka: all of everyone's phone messaging, etc.) I read the current text and it sounds good to me, but not because he said 'yes' to a deceptive reporter. -- AstroU (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "gotcha" moment. (This phrase should be banned. Politicians should be expected to be answerable on questions of their proposed policies if elections are to be meaningful, and there is nothing illegitimate about asking pointed questions in order to find out more about a candidate's views.) You may not wish to admit that Trump wants to put the "whites only" sign back up on the US, but he has stated this explicitly many times, because he knows his who his "base" is (relatively uneducated and underemployed persons who harbor ethnic prejudice and blame other races for their own shortcomings in finding a job or finishing school.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.117.25 (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

BIG news to those expecting Trump to drop out

For everyone who expects him to not being in the race, this should be BIG news. 

Headline-1: I. Will. Never. Leave. This. Race.

QUOTE: "I. Will. Never. Leave. This. Race." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Speculation aside, not sure this is notable for inclusion per WP:NOTNEWS. There is already text in the article about a third-party candidacy. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Not every quote that comes out of his mouth is worth adding verbatim. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I put the quote in to disquade WP editors from thinking he will be stepping aside on his own, and he continues to lead all others by double their popularity. Of course we can wait and see (Wikipedia is history, not news) but down-stream, we can remember this Trump declaration. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Double? Trump is at 36% and Cruz and Carson at 12% which would be triple! -- AstroU (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

George Will views

George Will a dyed in the wool, honest to God bow-tie wearing conservative, has characterized Trump's policy proposals as "ethnic cleansing". I say we listen to this man and add it to the lead

Here's the George will link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-bobblehead-campaign/2015/09/25/741262e0-614d-11e5-9757-e49273f05f65_story.html

And also--Why is there no mention also that "make America great again" is generally believed to be code for "Make America white again?" This is like a John Wilkes Booth article that doesn't mention that he shot Lincoln. It's missing the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.117.25 (talk)

I have refactored your header. Please read WP:TALKNEW: "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." --NeilN talk to me 23:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I vote that the Will characterization gets mention, considering he is arguably the most prominent political conservative pundit in the country. It is a notable view and has been made often, and deserves mention. How many votes do we need?50.29.117.25 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia is not determined by voting but by consensus, determined by who has the strongest arguments rooted in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am acting as an admin here so, aside from removing obvious WP:BLP violations, won't be involved in content decisions. --NeilN talk to me 23:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
As your title states, it is a person's "views". I don't see why this should be in the lead. Perhaps you can find a way to include it in the article. But, I doubt it. There are certainly better sources. Objective3000 (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok how about this: "Even a political analyst as staunchly right-wing and conservative as George Will has labeled Trump's policy proposals as "ethnic cleansing", and many other commentators have pointed out that Trump is just to the right of Adolf Hitler at a similar stage in their political careers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That is unnecessary editorializing. If Will's comment is significant enough to be included, it can be added without any commentary. Let the readers decide how to characterize his comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
ok. In the spirit of collaboration, and trying to present this more neutrally, and in acknowledgement that there are two sides to every issue, I came up with the following, which I hope you'll agree is definitely fairer to Trump, and takes a more neutral and balanced tone, presenting both sides of the controversy:

"Politically, Trump's positions can best be characterized as occupying the space just to the right of Adolf Hitler, but just to the left of Genghis Khan." What do you think?Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you don't know much about Genghis Khan. Objective3000 (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you doubt that for Mongols Genghis Khan was good. Why you reject American rights to have a great leader? Of course i reject (2 up) your stupid here opinions.99.90.196.227 (talk)
Yes, I do, in fact, doubt that Genghis Khan was good for the Mongols. Nevertheless, I wish to offer my sincerest apologies if I have offended any Genghis Khan supporters or enthusiasts by comparing him to Donald Trump.Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
LOL. So we have a doubt in historical perhaps never (able) settle debate. But why you using doubtful thesis as you simplistic opinion ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
as usual, i have no idea what these words are supposed to mean. in fact, I don't think you successfully managed to string together even a single coherent, rational thought in any of your comments this evening.. Farewell, friend.Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Why you flashing over the nonsense redlink >> Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies ? This thesis is false. Freshman student should be able to show here contradiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ID cards for Muslims

I see that someone removed the claim about ID cards for Muslims as unsourced. Here is a source from the Washington Post, with a direct quotation from Trump affirming the plan. Can someone Please restore the content and add the source? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/19/donald-trump-wont-rule-out-warrantless-searches-id-cards-for-american-muslims/ Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no direct quote from Trump regarding ID cards in that article, it just notes that he did not reject the options". That's quite a bit different from the wording I removed from the lede earlier.LM2000 (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Though there is a direct quote that he would not rule out the ID cards, I believe. How about re-adding and "he has said he would not rule out requiring Muslims from carrying religious identification cards" or something of that nature, then? If we're going to include that he has been accused of fascism, it is appropriate to not obscure the reasons *why* he has been widely understood as fascist. Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Also in that article , he says he would not rule out closing Mosques: "Well, I would hate to do it, but it's something that you're going to have to strongly consider because some of the ideas and some of the hatred — the absolute hatred — is coming from these areas," he said.

I think this is also notable and significant enough for the article. No? Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Even if true why Muslim have to use fake ID and other not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand, friend. In America, there is no official religion and no one is required to carry a form of identification specifying their religion. The last time such a policy was implemented upon a particular religious group in the Western world happened in 1930's Germany, when Jews were required to wear the Star of David on their person, identifying them as Jews. Such identification later allowed the Nazis to quickly exterminate the vast majority of Europe's Jewry. It is for this reason that all decent people reject Trump's grotesque proposal. Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

one may call worshiping of devil a religion and look for constitutional protection for cannibalistic bloody rituals. Will be it ok? Why you thinking that marking Muslims or Jews automatically will led to they extermination/extinction? Decent people do not try to hide own religion but are usually proud of it. I agree religion could be private , but how private is public gathering in explicitly identifiable buildings? I think you are not religious - right? Your derision on people tradition and religion which are based on conviction make me to bet on this. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I am Jewish, and I find your intolerant and bigoted remarks inappropriate.if I had to bet, I would say you are not actually an American, so great is your ignorance of the meaning of freedom of religion. Adieu.Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
(And the quotation is from Nietzsche.)Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Imo Nietzsche works is piece of crap. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Considering how weak your facility with language, you'll excuse me if I am neither interested or impressed by your opinion on "Nietzsche works". Cheers, friend.. Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Any freedom has a limit when someone freedom trespass other person freedom. There are always limitation of freedom. One may found criminal code intolerant and bigoted. Im not sorry if my remark about ritualistic cannibalism show intolerance or bigotry to it. What arrogance crossed you head to think you can spread fallacy, stand here, and cheer other out. Have you nothing more to say - do not respond.99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Why the advertisement-like tone of this article?

Reading parts of this article, you could swear the copy was written by Trump campaign itself.

This article is highly non-neutral, and in fact reads like an advertisement, or an ode to the author's hero. 50.29.117.25 (talk) 5:36 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Is that why the word "fascist" appears 19 times? Martinevans123 (talk) 5:51 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Counting the number of times fascist appears does not make it false that much of the copy here is written in inappropriately breathless and glowing terms for an encylopedia article. An article should not fawn over its subject in such a hideously grotesque fashion: his "populist politics and opposition to the establishment republican candidates have earned him support among the working class, despite controversy."

If the Trump campaign did not write that line,(which they have inserted in multiple articles) I will eat my hat---as it is nearly word-for-word the same language on their campaign website.50.29.117.25 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

How to organize article sections with overlapping content?

User:Cwobeel made this improvement to move content on Muslim immigration into the appropriate section on immigration. But the edit also moved the Muslim database subsection into the immigration section, where it does not belong. The “Muslim datase” subsection is about all Muslims, not just immigrants. Breaking that subsection out would fragment content on Muslims. Do any editors have suggestions on how to keep content on Muslims together, and at the same time keeping content on immigration together? MBUSHIstory (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of fascism

An article in Vox which features leading scholars on fascism like Roger Griffin and Robert Paxton has a clear consensus that Trump is not a fascist.

"To be blunt: Donald Trump is not a fascist. "Fascism" has been an all-purpose insult for many years now, but it has a real definition, and according to scholars of historical fascism, Trump doesn't qualify."
"Every expert I spoke to identified support for the revolutionary overthrow — ideally through violence — of the state's entire system of government as a necessary characteristic of fascism"

I think we can conclude that this is a mainstream view among scholars that can be stated in Wikipedia's name; and speculations that some, unnamed scholars on fascism may disagree, does not require Wikipedia to let the mainstream view to be presented as "some scholars".

Furthermore; while Trump has indeed been accused by several politicans and journalist of fascism; many have also stopped short of the fascism allegations,but still critized him sharply; and the intro should be rewritten to reflect this more diverse criticsm; so the criticsm isn't portrayed simply as being fascist or not.

The better way to write the lead is also to first lay out Trump's position first, and only afterwards include the criticsm; not to start the sentence with the criticsm. Iselilja (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Agree. The source for the fascism content does not support the content, which is a violation of WP:BLP. The fascism term was used about proposals to register Muslims, and to put them under more surveillance, not in response to the Muslim immigration ban proposal (which was criticized not as fascism, but as un-conservative, violating US founding principals, and violating the no-establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment, because it targeted a religion, and was criticized as implicitly saying the US is at war with all of Islam, which is the ISIS narrative, especially after Mr. Trump cited presidential proclamations based on the Alien Enemies Act, which applies only to alien immigrants from a country or government at war with the US. Here is proposed content for the article body - "Critics, including conservatives, accused Trump of using fascist rhetoric for his proposals calling for more strongly monitor "(ref)“it was after Trump started calling for stronger surveillance of Muslim-Americans in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks that a handful of conservatives ventured to call Trump's rhetoric something much more dangerous: fascism.” Why some conservatives say Trump talk is fascist, M J Lee, CNN, 11-25-2015, [20](/ref) I am WP:Bolding this at the end of the relevant section. Whether or not this deserves mention in the lead is a matter of WP:WEIGHT, but the lead, as it stands, violates BLP. MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree. Many commentators and news outlets refuted the fascism and nazi WP:LABEL as obscene[1], with Gianni Riotta, saying, "I am dead sure: Trump is not a fascist. Using the label not only belittles past tragedies and obscures future dangers, but also indicts his supporters, who have real grievances that mainstream politicians ignore at their peril."[2][3][4]Yourmanstan (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Disagree - I removed this from the BLP article because I thought it was a BLP vio. But, VOX is just giving an opinion of some historians, as if all historians agree. And, the claim this is about immigration only is simply false. He stated that ALL Muslims would be forbidden from entering the country. All would include businessmen, tourists, artists, diplomats, etc. Look, he appears to have a long history of saying outrageous things in front of large crowds, and then later claiming he didn't say it and that the media made it up, or he was misunderstood. Then, he continues to double-down on the original statements in front of new crowds. At some point, he must be taken to task for what he actually says in front of large crowds and quietly makes vague comments about later. Yes, we must be careful in non-BLP articles about people that are still living. But, we cannot sanitize articles about ANY active political candidate simply because they are alive (as I hope most candidates are). Objective3000 (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

MOS issues - The lead first paragraph is not a stand-alone summary; The lead as a whole does not summarize the article body

MOS:LEAD issues - The lead first paragraph is not a stand-alone summary; The lead as a whole does not summarize the article body. The lead needs a major rewrite. MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree the lead should be rewritten and ideally be a summary of the body (though as this is an ongoing campaign with many upcomin updates, we shouldn't require a perfect summary at every point of the campaign). As it is now, the lede is too exclusively focused on his comments and stands on immigration/minority issues, and partly in a loaded lanuage. Trump's popularity in polls relies on many other things than his most controversial comments and positions on immigration/minorities. For instance they show that he has a particular high credibility among Republican voters on being the best candidate to handle the economy ; which may depend on him being perceived as a successful businessman, along with a certain protectionistic stance (re: China, TPP, bringing jobs back from Mexico). His popularity is also based on a general anti-establishment sentiment, and his claim of being self-funded and not relying on any Super-Pacs. In addition, and not of least importance, is his high name-id and an unusual high amount of media appearances and strong social media presence. His direct and sometimes bombastic manner of speaking also in itself contributes to popularity among the labor class who often find other politicians to be too vague or hard to understand. Iselilja (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Health

Why we can not adress what DT was talking about this issue in Iowa. Can you(if they ban you change ip) do something to editors who are Santorus suporters and fighting neutral info about DT campaign. 70.209.201.101 (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Trump has not yet released his medical records, according to CNN, which reported on 12-3-2015 that "Trump said Thursday he will release a doctor's report of his health within two weeks and it will show 'perfection'.". Content on Mr. Trump's health might be in this article if the health subject receives coverage in reliable secondary sources as having an impact on his presidential campaign, per WP:WEIGHT. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Protection

I've just protected this page due to the high level of socking it's been receiving. While I only semi'd it until the first of the year I would recommend y'all set up some sort of Unconfirmed users' talk page where new and unregistered users can contribute. If you do so, put a visible template at the top of this page to let such users know where to go to discuss the article. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

👍 Like -- People who are serious should become registered contributors. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Having a separate page for that is unusual... we have {{request edit}} for that. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Somewhat moot now that the protection is about to expire, but the point is that the talk page itself has been protected, not just the article. Without another page there is no way for an unconfirmed editor to comment on the article or to request an edit to the article or to this talk page. Meters (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
You can always make requests at WP:RFED when a talk page is also protected, at least until WP:RFPP ends up protected too. Monty845 20:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

News.Google.com

This page is currently seen through a redirect of the deleted page called "Donald Trump and Fascism" as it appears on Google News "Wikipedia: Donald Trump and Fascism", as if it's fact that he's a fascist. In accordance with the protection of the biography of living persons, I don't see why a redirect of such a smearing politically-based title from a wide-spread news source as Google News should be allowed. IMO, the link from Google News should be broken altogether. 209.6.149.58 (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing for Wikipedia to do about this, especially as other pages that ARE indexed by Google mention this now-deleted page. As of a few minutes ago, a "Google web search" for
"Donald Trump and Fascism" Wikipedia

showed 

Donald Trump and Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Fascism
Wikipedia
This redirect may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject or some other entity.

at the top of the list. Shortly, even that will disappear.

Likewise, Google News will change within a few hours if it hasn't already done so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Susan Collin's comment

I removed this from the article in the section "Republican frontrunner", but it was reiserted which I think is a clear mistake. First, it cannot stand in its current form as it consists of copyvvio/close paraphrasing. Second, the whole comment is a bagatelle, and there is no need to include it in a rewritten form either. The fact that a senator or some other Republican of some importance has commented on Trump doesn't in itself make the comment notable. This campaign is of course heavily covered in the media and by political analyst and we need to be selective in what we include. Several things in this article needs to go to give place to the further development of the campaign; plus more high quality analysis; and removing Collin's comment is a good place to start cleaning the article. A quote from Collins saying "I dont have this dilemma" clearly doesn't make the cut for what's of lasting importance regarding this campaign. Iselilja (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a copyvio to quote her, and she said she believes Trump may help the Republcan Party overall by bringing out more voters. Isn't that significant? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The overall paragraph is copyvio/close paraphrasing. It's written in a journalistic style; not encyclopedic style; exactly because someone has more or less copied a paragraph from the newspaper. Otherwise, the main rule on Wikipedia is that we write in our own words, and not include quotes unless the exact words are particular important; what quotes like "I don't have this dilemma" is obviously not. Overall, it's clear that this was a pretty random comment from Collins, and she even says herself that this is something she hasn't really thought much about. Iselilja (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't at all agree the overall paragraph is copyvio, but the quote from Collins can go, I suppose. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is the beginning of the sentences I removed "At least one sitting Republican Senator, although personally wary of Trump's candidacy, was sanguine about his prospects for lifting the party: "He may bring out people who don’t usually vote, which could be helpful to some of my colleagues", said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who conceded she had not closely studied the issue as she was not facing re-election in 2016" This is typically journalistic style; and not encyclopedic (and close mirrors New York Times write-up, allthough the exact words are changed. An encyclopedic tone would simply state "Republican senator Susan Collins said she believed Trump as nominee might help Republican down-ticket candidates by bringing out new voters". But considered this is all speculation and Collins "concedes" she hasn't really thought about it, I don't think her comment merits inclusion. Now, the question of whether Trump will bring out new voters is indeed important, in particular for his own chances of getting the nomination. Many political commentators have written more in-depth on this and those commentaries might rather merit inclusion; though just brieftly at the current time; as the picture will be much clearer in just about a month when the Iowa caucuses and NH primaries are held. Iselilja (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

False flag theory?

Seriously, is there any reason why this article should air a conspiracy theory alleging that Trump is a "false flag" candidate in the race only to help Hillary Clinton win the Presidency? If we are to write about conspiracy theories, it should be how Trump himself has capitalized on them and has drawn (in the words of the Washington Post) "from the murky swamp of right-wing, libertarian and flat-out paranoid sources that have proliferated and thrived as the Internet and social media have grown", including using his own Twitter followers to verify his 9/11 Muslim celebration assertions, to corroborate his false claims about black-on-white crime, etc. But the idea that the Clintons are Trump's puppeteers seems unencyclopedic and does not deserve inclusion. Ugh, this is going to be a long election season... Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my summary, it's not about how realistic this claim is (I doubt it myself) but about who is saying it. This isn't confined to InfoWars or other conspiracy boards, it's reported by the BBC, Britain's non-partisan broadcaster. And it's not just people in their basements saying this, but Jeb Bush, who is a candidate '''tAD''' (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
If it looks (as it is now) that too much space is devoted to this theory, maybe it should be a separate article, with appropriate weight from sources debunking it '''tAD''' (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
A reasonable suggestion, which I would support. If it remains here, it needs to be shorter and have better debunking (which should not be difficult given that all the sources are skeptical as well). Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It should not be in the article by WP:UNDUE, unless an RS says it had some impact on Trump's campaign. (It is more relevant to an article on the Bush campaign, since it says more about that than it does about Trump's campaign.) MBUSHIstory (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This theory did get some press, but let's not fall victim to the 24 hour news cycle. Jeb! went with the idea briefly, and if he pushes it, then maybe it's worth some mention, but otherwise, it reeks of sour grapes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Hit the table and the shears will call you,
i saw who ring even while false flaged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.227.196 (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
If no one believes it, I don't think it belongs here. The whole point of reliable sources is to get reliable information, not to use them to support information they reject.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources for valid editing can be found on Trump's Campaign page

The Trump Campaign has archive of main media articles, and on October 8th, had a nice picture of his wife Melania and his daughter Ivanka Trump. Here are some captions: "Previous News: A key argument against taking Donald Trump’s candidacy seriously is evaporating" and "Next News: Donald Trump plots his second act". Archived clips go back to June 30 2015: "Real estate mogul and possible Republican presidential candiate Donald Trump says the U.S. is making poor choices under Democratic leadership" in Reuters; and go currently up to September 30th in USA Today: "POLL: DONALD TRUMP STILL ON TOP AS OUTSIDERS FIORINA, CARSON RISE USA Today Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has strengthened his lead at the top of the USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll while two other outsider candidates, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, have gained ground over rivals with electoral experience." 

URL: http://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/trumps-campaign-manager-opens-up-about-strategy

This is the ticket to find non-tabloid sourcing. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You're saying that Trump's website is the "ticket" to finding sourcing on Trump's campaign? Really? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This looks to be pretty solid proof that the Trump campaign has indeed Astro-turfed this page, as some have suggested---in the person of this Charles Edwin Shipp. one cannot find a single comment of Shipp's in which open cheering for Trunp is not observed, and who engages in endless debates over whether photos of Trump are suitably flattering, and supplies breathless reports of Trump's latest polling figures, and who also has in full seriousness suggested that the Trump campaign website is a more reliable source than what Shipp calls "tabloid" sources. This looks like more or less 100 percent proof that Shipp is affiliated with the Trump campaign, and should go edit somewhere else due to his Conflict of Interest. What else can be the explanation for suggesting seriously that independent newspapers be replaced with sources from the Trump campaign, and his ludicrous complaints of "bias" for calling a spade a spade, and directly reporting that Trump said no more Muslims should be allowed to enter the country? Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

uh so much typing? Put the link to video and transcript. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in answering. No, I am not connected to the Donald Trump campaign. What I am suggesting is not that the official campaign site be referenced, but that a Google-search on what you see there will find important leads to other sources. I am not associated with any political campaign, but I do support conservative thought and "Making America great again." -- Cheers, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: I'll be like Donald J. Trump and double-down on criticism (and edit here every day for a while.)

Split political positions

The two sections about political positions is growing too large. A WP:SPLIT is called for. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article is too long and positions can be moved. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Al-Waleed bin Talal

Saudi Arabian Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal (reputedly the world's richest man) has said Trump is a "disgrace" to the Republican Party and "to all America." In a tweet, he said Trump should withdraw from the presidential race, as he "will never win." Trump has apparently responded by calling him "Dopey": CNBC, RT. Widely reported on BBC radio news. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC) ... also Guardian, Reuters, Times of India, ITV, Saudi Gazette, IBT, etc etc

He didn't call him "Dopey" as in one of the seven dwarfs. Honestly. ^This type of stuff is dopey. Are we supposed to print every little news byte on this person? Doc talk 12:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
How would we be able to tell? And why is this dopey? But I didn't add it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Al-Waleed is rather a huge figure in the finance world. Objective3000 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there any more notable Muslim, worldwide, who has responded to Trump's rhetoric? And including "this kind of stuff" in the article is seen as "dopey"? Thanks Doc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Emirati businessman Khalaf al-Habtoor, whose 2013 Foundation has an entry on Wikipedia, denounced Trump after writing positively of him last summer. "He has insulted 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, and he has business in the Arab world ... He will lose because respectable Muslims will refuse to work with him.”

The same New York Times article includes the closest thing we'll probably ever find to an endorsement from one of Trump's Middle Eastern supporters:

“Look, Donald is my friend, and we have been friends for a long time,” said Akbar al-Baker, the chief executive of Qatar Airways. “I think it is an exercise only to gain political mileage. Nothing more. This is the opportune time to excite more extremist people so that they could give him their votes.”

Nothing quite like the Qataris to play both sides of the coin. But that's another discussion. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I see there is an article for the Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor Foundation. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
So is there any consensus on whether the comments by Al-Waleed bin Talal should be included or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I would say, only if Trump's response is documented. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Trump teases crowd about possible lawsuit over Cruz

Trump told a campaign crowd that because he has "standing" as a presidential rival, he might file suit over Cruz's birthplace. Or he might not. Or he might not have to. Just to say, he's brought it up. We'll see if the theme continues. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

ISIS

the ISIS do not have important info . 'Obama did not bomb ISIS oil before becouse of environ . Trump did not revile since anybody must understand that oil not burn by bombing tankers will be burn sfter the tankers deliver it somewhere. So the Obama exscuse is good only for not thinking or too bussy people. You here on you need a lot of explanation. Donald Trump mesage have deeper meaning for intellectual audience and you eiting by jumping many articles may not geting enought atention and brainpower to get it. 70.209.201.101 (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC) anyway it is alredy in this aeticle that the CO2 tax is for TDT a scam. Here is one of wideo. Obama folks explain why they did not bomb ISIS oil. It is Public BS. I'm not adding D.T. video because you viciously deleting it here. [Not signed, not dated]

Please sign your posts (wp:sign). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Please try coherently explaining what part of the article should be changed, perhaps with some sources. 10:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Article bias?

I have read the article in its entirety, and it strikes me as being biased in certain sections. In the beginning of the article, it says that he has been "making inflammatory remarks about Mexicans and migrants," which is simply not true; he makes remarks about illegal immigrants that enter the U.S., not Mexicans and migrants in general. This information is clearly biased and untruthful, and the information it lists as citations fail to support this initially false conclusion. I will now present a number of sections in the article, and I quote:

"Surveys taken in late 2015 showed Trump polling unfavorably among women and non-white voters, with 64% of women viewing Trump unfavorably and 74% of non-white voters having a negative view of the candidate, according to a November 2015 ABC News/Washington Post poll. A Public Religion Research Institute survey in November 2015 found that many of his supporters are working class voters with negative feelings towards migrants, as well as strong financial concerns." "During the controversy regarding his comments, Trump alleged that "We have places in London and other places that are so radicalised [this word is spelled incorrectly] that the police are afraid for their own lives", prompting the Metropolitan Police, responsible for policing in London, to rebut his comments, stating "We would not normally dignify such comments with a response, however, on this occasion we think it’s important to state to Londoners that Mr Trump could not be more wrong". Conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, described his comments as "ill-informed" and "complete and utter nonsense". Johnson also stated "the only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump" while Zac Goldsmith, mayoral candidate for the Conservative Party, attacked Trump as "repellent"...an appalling creature” and “one of the most malignant figures in politics", with other London-based politicians demanding an apology. Trump's 1995 attendance at a New York fundraising dinner for Sinn Féin, months before the 1996 Docklands bombing, attracted new media scrutiny in the UK." "Trump said in a December 2015 rally "We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people." In the December Republican debate, Donald Trump expanded his rhetoric by saying that the internet should be shut off to countries that have a majority of their territory controlled by terrorist organizations." "Trump's immigration policies, along with his statements regarding Syrian refugees and Muslims, have been occasionally criticized as nativist or fascist in character." "A number of commentators and news outlets have likened Trump to a fascist or Adolf Hitler." "Critics, including conservatives, accused Trump of using fascist rhetoric for his proposals calling for the increased surveillance of Muslims."

As you may be able to see, much of this information is clearly meant to sound biased. First of all it should be noted that the reference to Donald Trump appearing to be a fascist is restated three times, which is repetitive in its own nature and thus should only be stated once. Secondly it appears that in these sections of the article there is a numerous amount of information presented against his favor, including quotes from people disagreeing with his opinions and polls showing he is not popular among minorities. This all may be true, but it is very one-sided. In order for this article to be considered "neutral," both sides of an argument must be presented. This is why I've included sources and evidence of Trump's appeal among evidence against his appeal in my edit that I will now elaborate on.

I have written two versions of an edited version of this article, both which have not been approved and have been reverted. After I had written the first and it got rejected, I was notified that the sources I had produced were not considered "reliable sources" and I had deleted too much true information. I had realized this shortly after, and began writing the second draft, addressing every issue that had been brought up. However, this version was rejected as well, albeit by a different user, with no context as to why it was deleted. I put in for my description, "If something is wrong, I'd be happy to see it edited by others," and so I am advising the reader of this comment to read my second revision to this article and I demand that somebody tell me what is wrong with it, if anything is.

If I do not get a reply within the next few days, I will revert the change that reverted my edits.

--TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a reply: Your work is excellent! Rejected by whom? You are as much of an 'authority' as any other WP editor. Your first example says it all. Other major Republican candidates say the same thing: they are not against immigration, only illegal immigration. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your wonderful reply! I will tell you the two people whom have rejected my work: Vesuvius Dogg, who rejected my first edit twice, telling me that my sources were not very good. I then wrote the second one with more reliable sources, and then it got rejected by Cwobeel, who gave no context as to why... So I am trying to get this series of edits to get past these people. I believe I am still considered a "new" user, so I need to get edits approved by somebody in order for them to be public. It was at this time it was rejected by these people. Maybe when I become a "registered" user I'll have a better chance... But then again, I do not know if I'll keep getting undone, but I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk • contribs) 07:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Rabbi Brad Hirschfield (December 15, 2015). "Hey, America, stop comparing Donald Trump to Hitler".
  2. ^ Gianni Riotta (January 16, 2016). "I Know Fascists; Donald Trump Is No Fascist".
  3. ^ John Cassidy (December 28, 2015). "Donald Trump Isn't a Fascist; He's a Media-Savvy Know-Nothing".
  4. ^ Max Ehrenfreund (December 4, 2015). "Why you should stop calling Donald Trump a fascist".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign/Archive_1&oldid=1091621789"