Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Fitness to be president

We seemed to reach consensus above, to add something about "fitness to be president" to the "controversy" section. Some seemed to be talking just about Obama's statement, but I think to go in the "controversies" section it has to be more general than that. There is plenty of material. Here is a suggested wording for a brief (but well referenced) item:

Trump has been criticized as temperamentally unsuited to be president by multiple newspapers and public figures, including many Republicans. In an extraordinary statement at a news conference on August 2, President Barack Obama urged Republicans to withdraw their support for Trump, saying he was "woefully unprepared" and "unfit" to serve as president.

It could be expanded with more detail; here is a partial suggestion but it would need more quotes:

Trump has been criticized as temperamentally unsuited to be president by multiple newspapers and public figures, including many Republicans. The Los Angeles Times editorialized that "Trump’s blustery temperament and authoritarian notion of the presidency are unique in the field and uniquely disqualifying." In an unusual full-page editorial, the Washington Post described Trump as "uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament." On August 2, President Barack Obama urged Republicans to withdraw their support for Trump, noting Trump's controversial comments and saying "Somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn't have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world... The Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. I said so last week (at the Democratic convention) and he keeps on proving it.”

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A very adamant no. Unless we want to apply this standard to all candidates/politicians pages. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Are all candidates described as "uniquely unqualifed" by this many sources? Have any other candidates been the subject of a full-page Post editorial in July, instead of waiting until November per usual? This is not a normal, partisan, happens-every-four-years situation. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude Unless you want to say Hillary is unfit to be president.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: You should really STOP this disruptive POV commenting, I say. You've been warned before, please see above. Gaeanautes (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What? I'm allowed to say whether we should include or exclude this. He is as fit to be president as HRC (if not more). Please find someone else to harass. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Of course you are allowed to have a say in the discussion, there's no disputing that; but your points are blatantly POV! You seem to be arguing that we cannot write something unfavorable about Trump unless we also write something equally unfavorable about Clinton. And your personal comment that Trump is as fit to be president as Clinton (if not more) is OFF-TOPIC. Refer to talk page guidelines. I'm not harassing you, I'm correcting you on this. Gaeanautes (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not POV, and you should assume good faith. Many Republicans believe Clinton is not qualified to be president because of the classified information on her private server brouhaha. Ergo, I recommend not saying that either candidate is unqualified. That will be for the voters to decide. America is still a democracy.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"That will be for the voters to decide"?! "America is still a democracy"?! Look, we don't rule the world from this WP talk page, OK? At this point, I would really like some other editors to join in and correct User Zigzig20s's premature off-topic remarks and general lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is. Gaeanautes (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Working on campaign articles is never easy. It goes without saying that if you are an American editor, you come to this article with a point of view. Most likely you are hoping to "sculpt" the article to favorably reflect your support (or lack of support) for the candidate. But, as much as possible, we are all challenged to take off our "Make America Great Again" red hat or our pink "I'm With Her" hat....and put on our Wikipedia Editor Visor (available at the gift shop). Conflict will not forward the article. We need to remain collaborators. Chastising each other for the next 3 months won't work. Buster Seven Talk 19:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. And it's not POV to state the truth: Trump and HRC are equals. In other words, they are both equally unfit to become president. If we add this characterization to one article, we need to do the same in the other article. So I think it will save everyone a lot of aggravation if we shy away from these polemics and focus on their policies regarding jobs, immigration, identity politics, etc. There are real policy differences--that, to me, is what's "encyclopedic".Zigzig20s (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly. You say, In other words, they are both equally unfit to become president. If we add this characterization to one article, we need to do the same in the other article. I don't agree and I'm sure most editors don't agree. There is no way to maintain a balance between the two articles. They are drastically different. For instance, if we begin to add comments that are being made about Trumps possible diminished mental state, I don't see a way to balance that in the Clinton campaign article. But...I don't edit that article; I edit this article. Buster Seven Talk 20:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry? "diminished mental state"? Insulting subjects of Wikipedia articles is not the way to go. Of course many on the right believe HRC is not fit to govern. We shouldn't turn Wikipedia articles into attack pages.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include. There have been rather a large number of statements along these lines from both major parties and such calls appear to be increasing. Might be a tad early. I'd wait a bit. Changed to include as this has gained traction. Objective3000 (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe DT has really lost his mind......Is he actually crazy? are just two quick find. His sanity is being discussed. Maybe you are not listening. Buster Seven Talk 20:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC).

Zigzig20 A more recent one The Wall Street Journal in early August,"When you act as if you’re insane, people are liable to think you’re insane".

• Include. This page already includes statements by several people that Trump is unfit to be a president, but these people are a lot less important than Obama. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include it's not so much his fitness to be president, but that Obama as well as many top Republicans are saying similar things. Yesterday on NBC, today in the Washington Post it looks 5 times worse. I'm sure Trump could survive this, but it will certainly be considered a turning point in his campaign. We need a short paragraph in the body and one sentence in the lede. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude, at least as written as against neutrality policy. You cannot cite two newspapers that historically support establishment Democrats and generalize. Similarly the fact that some Republicans oppose Trump is only significant if it can be quantified. Instead of using primary sources, you should use secondary sources that explain in a balanced way who does and does not think Trump is qualified to be president. TFD (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: And what secondary sources would that be? I'm afraid we all have to rely on primary sources when editing this article. "[T]he fact that some Republicans oppose Trump is only significant if it can be quantified," you say? But this is unreasonable. Statements by leading politicians are always important in their own right, and quantified data are only accessible to us via polls. Finally, contrary to your claim, User MelanieN cites more than two newspapers, and additional referencing could be added at any time. Gaeanautes (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include - this is highly significant and accurately represents a substantial segment/range of mainstream opinion. Neutrality^talk 02:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include, but not right now - We are all caught up in the storm(s). Maybe there is a different solution to the "it's something new every other day" problem. Some editors want to say very little about each event while others want to say too much. And the daily high/low lights cascade into each other causing editorial gridlock. There are 96 (?) days till the election. What if we broke the rest of the campaign into 10 day sections 96-86, 85-75, 74-64, etc. and organized it that way. There would be cross-over, sure, but the reader might be better informed (and served) as to what was happening as the campaign marched to its conclusion. We could even back-track and begin with the end of the Republican Convention. Just an idea. Buster Seven Talk 02:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not against adding ASAP. I just think the story will build rather than go away. I think the list of Republican politicians opposing Trump will expand. Buster Seven Talk 19:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include, as soon as possible. The issue is notable and there is plenty of mainstream material to support a section on it. MelanieN's wording works fine, I say. Gaeanautes (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include - The President's comments have been reported in numerous major publications around the world. Trump's perceived unsuitability for the highest political office has uniquely caught the notice of major newspaper's editorial boards. WP:DUEWEIGHT mandates some mention of this in the article.- MrX 18:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Thank you for this update. If Obama's press conference on Trump's unfitness for the presidency really has made headlines throughout the world, the wording suggested by User:MelanieN above should be rearranged to take into account this new development. Since WP is not a news agency, the material could be put in the article text with some suitable delay, and worked through here beforehand. As User:Buster7 has already pointed to above, the unpredictable and massive media cascades on Trump plus the WP consensus requirement plus the conflicting POV of many involved editors is straining the editing environment somewhat. So, let us accept some delay and skip the nitpicking, I say. And enjoy ourselves while making some sense out of this highly controversial presidential candidate and his historically unique campaign :-) Gaeanautes (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include. Nicely written, neutral, and well-sourced.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude any newspaper editorial comment: Include Obama's comments. I don't believe newspaper editors are qualified to judge anybody's fitness for anything. They can't even judge reporters properly which is why they end up with so many plagiarists on staff. But a sitting president can judge. And I know, he's got a political motive, but that's huge. Newspaper editors, absolutely not. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• "Comment: I also don't like the idea that these are the editorials from which to choose. These are papers that have never supported Trump. They are idealogically opposed to Trump any day. It's not a question of true fitness. It's a question of political beliefs.. Sorry, I can't agree and I would say, unless there is 100% agreement on which editors and which outlets, then it cannot be used. Obama's comments, yes. He's political, yes, but he's a sitting president. In addition, absolutely not on anything said by Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney. They have no qualifications to judge anybody. They are shills for their own personal interests and this is blatant bias to include this in the article. The already biased views of editors, absolutely not. Sorry, but this needs 100% consensus because this is a contentious issue and deserves extra care before this edit is made. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include: Many Republican leaders are saying this, it is not a partisan issue, it is a love of country issue. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"some, I assume, are good people"

In the lede it says, "his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."". Can we please add that he also said some were good people? Otherwise we are misquoting him.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No. It's not a misquote. He said the words between the quotation marks. See previous RfC. That's why we included the word "many".- MrX 11:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MrX is correct that the "good people" remark was made by Trump at a different time. However, User:Zigzig20s is correct that the present quotation is woefully incomplete. I corrected it earlier today, so that it refers to "his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." This was reverted for reasons that strike me as extremely unpersuasive. We want to slant what Trump said so that the lead of this BLP makes it sound like he was denigrating a whole class of people? Trump never suggested that the many people who cross the border illegally are bad people. He was explicitly referring to only some of them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We already had this discussion. The compromise reached in the RfC was to add the word many to his direct quote. By the way, you didn't correct it; you simply added more words to say roughly the same thing, but in a tone that tends to make it sound like Trump was speaking about "cases", when in fact he was speaking about people. We should not sugar quote his words, since sources obviously don't.- MrX 16:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the RFC which I hadn't noticed (I've been looking more closely at this article only during the past day or so). First of all, the RFC has a preposterously biased title and question: "Should Trump's characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." be restored?" He only characterized some of them that way, as you well know. But even accepting the outcome of that RFC, no edit of mine removed those quoted words from the lead. I simply expanded the quote. I had not thought about how the word "cases" might mislead anyone, but perhaps it would. Still, something needs to be done here because readers (some but not all) will read this as a blanket statement by Trump about the many people who enter the country illegally, and we both know he wasn't making a blanket statement. I will take another crack at clarifying it later, unless someone else beats me to it, and of course without messing with the outcome of the preposterous RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"some, I assume, are good people" was an after-thought by Trump. It is disingenuous to present it to our reader as the lead-in to the "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." comment. Buster Seven Talk 16:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: Exactly.- MrX 17:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It's important not to misrepresent what he said, especially in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to conduct another RfC to see if that idea gains any traction.- MrX 17:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC QUESTION: "Is it important not to misrepresent what he said, especially in the lede?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Very funny, Anythingyouwant.- MrX 18:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think he may have been serious.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The lead currently refers to "his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.',[16][17][18] [19]...." Many readers will read this the same way as referring to "his characterizations of the many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.',[16][17][18] [19]...." There is no reason AFAIK that we should not more clearly describe what he said, like this: "his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as being in many instances 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.',[16][17][18] [19]...." That much more closely tracks what Trump said, which was this: "in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." In other words, I suggest to keep the quote favored in the RFC, but preface it better, by simply replacing the word "cases" that Trump used (and that User:MrX believes was confusing) with the word "instances".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above. Trump said “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Those are the words that, among others, created the perception that Trump has pandered to racists. Your proposed wording slants the material toward Trump's revised comments. Our sources have not done this and neither should we.- MrX 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

MrX, this is probably the most unreasonable comment that I've ever seen you make. Let's review:

• You agree Trump said "in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."
• You support including that quote in the lead without the first three words, because (you said) the word "cases" might mislead readers to think he was referring to court cases.
• You oppose saying in the lead "in many instances 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.'" even though the word "instance" cannot be confused with court cases.

As far as I can tell from these bullet points, you are arguing to mangle Trump's words, to deliberately distort his meaning, pure and simple. I get that you don't like Trump. Fine. But that's no reason to violate the pillars of Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

What's unreasonable about providing the exact quote that he made on which the perception is based and referring you to the robust discussion above? I never said any thing about court cases. I said "cases", a word which has abstract meaning in the context that you propose. Cases don't traffic drugs and rape. I oppose your wording because "many illegal immigrants" is clearer, and truer to the sources, than "many instances".- MrX 22:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the outcome of the robust discussion above, which was to include the quote at issue. But if I say "I want to rob a bank in my next life" and you put into my BLP that I "want to rob a bank" then you would have no legitimate argument against adding immediately thereafter "if he is ever reincarnated" or the like. Including exact quotes is wrong when you truncate them and remove the critical context. You have moved the word "many" very far from the quote with absolutely no good reason. Readers will think Trump was making a blanket statement about the many illegal immigrants who come to the United States. Is that what you want readers to think? Your position in this argument strongly suggests so. You haven't given any reason why we should not include the word "many" (or the word "some") within a word or two of the Trump quote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We do include the word "many". Here is the relevant passage from the article: "... his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."". If you or C. Fredkin prefer, I have no objection to not quoting Trump and changing the wording to "... his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as criminals, drug dealers, and rapists".- MrX 23:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Either way is awkward and will be misunderstood by many readers as saying "... his characterizations of the many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."". Is that what you want readers to think? What is the big deal if we move the word "many" closer to the Trump quote? I suggest "... his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as including many "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."" To me, that is much more clear, and much more like what he actually said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. If readers see a "the" where none exists, then should read more carefully. Your proposal to add more words does not make this passage more clear. - MrX 14:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting to add all of two words, to make the sentence reflect more what Trump actually said. Do you dispute that he used the word "many" much closer to the quoted phrase than we currently do? That's because it's the natural way to express the thought he was expressing. Removing the word "many" to a far distance is completely unnecessary in the lead, and your objection to moving it (i.e. introduction of two brief words) does not make sense to me. I plan to make the change, while removing two other superfluous words from the lead, for a net change of zero words.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of that passage in lead is not to quote Mr. Trump. The purpose is to reflect what is written in sources. Please don't alter the wording without obtaining a firm consensus to do so.- MrX 21:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well it does quote Trump poorly right now, and it does poorly reflect the sources right now. The following cures both problems while decreasing the length: "the proposed construction of a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border at Mexican expense, his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over that border as including many 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.'...." I haven't heard any reason whatsoever for rejecting this. Is there some reason why it should be longer, and should awkwardly obscure that Trump was not calling all of these illegal immigrants bad people? Moreover, I don't think everything that's put into this BLP requires a firm consensus to remove, which would seem to be a recipe for resisting removal of all kinds of crapola that anyone throws into the BLP. If for some reason you don't like this suggested language, please give a reason, and preferably also a version that can satisfy both our concerns. Thanks. Incidentally, I oppose your suggestion above to remove the quotation marks, for two reasons: first, an RFC above established that it should be included; second, removing the quotation marks would not resolve the concern that the word "many" is too far removed from the derogatory nouns.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I've patiently and repeatedly told you why I object to your proposed verbiage. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Also, this is not a biography; it's an article about a political campaign.- MrX 22:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

When you quote living people, WP:BLP typically applies. As to not hearing you, that's not so. I did hear your objection to the word "cases" so I removed it from my draft. Then I heard your objection to lengthening the lead, so I proposed a revised draft that shortens the lead: "the proposed construction of a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border at Mexican expense, his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over that border as including many 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.'...." I proposed this bolded language at 22:07 on 8 Aug. Your only reply has been to disregard the fact that this is new verbiage. If you don't give any reason, I am inclined to insert the language. Wikipedia:I just don't like it does not carry much weight, after all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop editing against the consensus of "RfC: Should Trump's characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." be restored?" above. The only reason this is even noteworthy is because he said "many" were "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Very obviously, my edit did not go against that RFC in the slightest way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump the pugilist

I edited the article earlier today by adding the bolded material: "Trump said he himself wished to punch protesters who were themselves throwing punches and screaming during his speech, and has defended their ejection from his events, but has also said he hopes that he has not encouraged physical force to subdue or remove protesters." This was inexplicably reverted. Does anyone dispute that the bolded information is factually correct? Why would a fine, upstanding, neutral organization like Wikipedia want to make it seem like Trump wanted to punch even peaceful, polite protesters? Surely the revert must be an unintentional mistake, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit behind on this (got busy with other stuff) but there's basically no way you can say that in Wikipedia voice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

He said it long before protesters too started punching thus it is highly misleading/deceptive to make it appear that he said it in response to such.--TMCk (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this the incident that you mean? Or was it this one where he actually says he wants to punch him in the face? Buster Seven Talk 16:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The incident where Trump specifically spoke of punching a protester in the face was in Las Vegas, and at the same time he said the protester had been throwing punches. Here's the quote: "Honestly, I hate to see that. Here's a guy, throwing punches, nasty as hell, screaming when we're talking. The guards are very gentle with him and he's walking out, big high-fives, smiling, laughing, I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you." So Trump alleged that the guy had been violent before the guards escorted him out. Anyway, we ought to put a time-frame in this sort of language from Trump, because it stopped awhile ago.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you guys really want to go there; I wouldn't advise it. Because the Las Vegas incident, where he accused the protester of "screaming and throwing punches" (although he wouldn't have been able to tell from the podium if that was true or not), is not the only such comment from Trump. If you like, we could spell out his whole history of encouraging violence at his rallies, using his own words so as not to be accused of distortion:

• At a Las Vegas rally in February he said he would like to "punch in the face" a protester he said had been throwing punches and screaming, and lamented "the old days" when protesters would be "carried out on a stretcher". [1] That's a one-sentence version; if you prefer you could use his whole quote: "You know what I hate? There's a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches. We're not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks. Ah, it's true…. I'd like to punch him in the face."
• In March in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he told the crowd there might be tomato-throwing protesters, and urged his audience to "knock the crap out of 'em" if anyone should try. "I promise you, I will pay the legal fees," he added.[2] Or again, if you prefer his exact words: "So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you?Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell - I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise". He later denied having offered to pay legal fees.
• Later in March in North Carolina, a Trump supporter was filmed sucker-punching a protester who was being led out of the event.[3] Trump said he was "looking into" paying the man's legal fees, although he "doesn't condone violence in any shape." [4] The local sheriff's office considered filing charges against Trump for "inciting a riot" but concluded there was not sufficient evidence to charge him.[5]

If you'd prefer not to see all this in the article, I suggest you simply agree to the removal of the claim that the protesters were screaming and throwing punches, because that was a qualification he only used once. At the very least, if we are going to include the "screaming and throwing punches" quote, we should also include his other quote from the same incident, lamenting the "old days" when protesters would be "carried out on a stretcher".--MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Have these incidents stopped, and if so when?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The last such comment I found was the multiple incidents in March. (There were later incidents of Trump supporters beating up protesters, but not of Trump encouraging them to.) Unless you want to include his pugilistic threats against speakers at the Democratic National Convention:He wanted to "hit a number of those speakers so hard, their heads would spin - they would never recover". [6] In any case, even if he only made this kind of statements for a couple of months, it still got enough coverage to be included here. And we shouldn't include the qualification about the protesters "screaming and throwing punches" because he didn't always include it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's standard political language to "hit" an opponent with an argument or with certain facts, et cetera. Think Progress has your quote about hitting DNC speakers from a Trump speech in Davenport, Iowa. Think Progress says "Trump eventually made clear that he was using the word 'hit' metaphorically." If there's reliable reporting that Trump has toned down his language, then it may be worth including in this BLP. And as far as I know, Trump never talked about punching any protester who Trump thought was peaceful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, we won't count that one; l'll strike it out. However I just noticed that I missed one from way back in November, where he said about a protester "maybe he should have been roughed up." Prior to that, he used to tell his rallies "Get 'em out, but don't hurt 'em." [7] So we have reliable reporting that he urged violence toward protesters in November, in February, and twice in March. As for "never talked about punching any protester who Trump thought was peaceful": Trump never thought protesters were peaceful. If they shouted, if they made obscene gestures, if they waved signs, then they aren't peaceful - go ahead and beat them up! Are you really defending him because he only talked about beating up protesters that he thought were not peaceful? That seems rather like a man who only beats his wife when he thinks she deserves it. And to borrow your "standard political language" argument: I don't know of any other politician who has sometimes urged his supporters to "rough up" protesters or "beat the crap out of them"; do you? --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Melanie, I always urge battered wives and ex-wives to defend themselves with whatever weapons they can legally use. But getting back to the point, I think Trump promised several months ago to use more placid language, and he seems to have done so, because I'm sure you would have identified any oversight. I will look around and see what the reliable sources have to say about that. Also, even back when his language was more thuggish, I am not aware that he discussed physically punching anyone who he thought had not already been physically violent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Then read the sources. About he North Carolina victim, he said the guy was "very loud, very disruptive", and had been "sticking a certain finger up in the air". About the November incident, he said the protester should have been roughed up because he was "obnoxious and loud". --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and you didn't answer my question about whether there are other politicians who use this kind of language. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Trump's a fan of the fighting words doctrine. Are there any politicians who use this kind of language? I don't think there are, including at this point Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think we've pretty much said what we have to say. So in the "Violence and expulsion at rallies" section, I propose to replace the second part of the paragraph (the part that begins "Trump's rivals have blamed Trump" which is inaccurate; it wasn't just his rivals called attention to this) with the following:

• During the early days of the campaign On several occasions between November 2015 through March 2016, Trump was accused of encouraging violence and escalating tension at campaign events.[224][225][226] Prior to November he used to tell his rallies "Get 'em (protesters) out, but don't hurt 'em." [37] But in November 2015, Trump said of a protester in Birmingham, Alabama, "Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing."[227] On February 23, 2016, at a rally in Las Vegas, Trump reacted to a protester by saying "I love the old days — you know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks," adding "I'd like to punch him in the face."[228][229][230] In March in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he told the crowd there might be tomato-throwing protesters, and urged his audience to "knock the crap out of 'em" if anyone should try. "I promise you, I will pay the legal fees," he added.[32] Also in March in North Carolina, a Trump supporter sucker-punched a protester who was being led out of the event.[33] Asked about paying the man's legal fees, Trump said he was "looking into it", although he "doesn't condone violence in any shape." [34] The local sheriff's office considered filing charges against Trump for "inciting a riot" at that event, but concluded there was not sufficient evidence to charge him.[35] In April 2015, Time Magazine noted that he had toned down his rhetoric.[8]

Everybody reasonably OK with this? --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Reasonably OK? Yes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Not quite yet. This article in Time Magazine documents that Trump has deliberately toned down the rhetoric about punching protesters and the like. I think it deserves a mention.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Melanie's version is reasonably OK with me, but I would not characterize March 2016 as "the early days of the campaign" - Trump announced in June 2015 and so by March 2016 his campaign had been going on for nine months. I would drop the "early days" part. Neutrality^talk 23:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, making both changes. Thanks for the input. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to specify that Trump "toned down the rhetoric about punching". I think the reader will realize something caused the punching and threats to stop when no more are listed. I don't mind that its there I just don't think it is necessary. Buster Seven Talk 03:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind it there either, though it would perhaps be more useful to note that these incidents stopped when Trump's campaign deliberately pivoted to a more presidential approach. It wasn't happenstance, or shame, or fear of legal trouble, et cetera, that caused the change per Time Magazine, but rather a desire to be more presidential.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"these incidents stopped when Trump's campaign deliberately pivoted to a more presidential approach" - uhh... when did this supposedly happen? Pretty much all the news of the past couple weeks is about how he FAILED to "pivot" and just doubled down on the controversy. Ex. here: ""He does not have a second act, there are no hidden depths, there will be no 'pivot.' It is not that he is willful or stubborn, though he may be, it's that he doesn't have the skill set needed now — discretion, carefulness, generosity, judgment. There's a clueless quality about him."" (my emphasis).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the Time Magazine link makes that point, if people want more information. I don't think we need to say WHY he stopped (which is interpretation, who knows what his motives were?) - only THAT he stopped. (At least so far.) --MelanieN (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember some Tweet about "Melania wants me to be more presidential" but I don't think she specifically said, "Stop talking about hitting people". And I believe Trump still did it a few times after his wifes' reproach. So I agree that our saying "He stopped to appear more presidential" is interpretation. Buster Seven Talk 14:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Melania, Melanie, just coincidence?  :) By the way, this is from a letter written by President Harry Truman to Paul Hume (which Truman knew would become public): "Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!"Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That sounds odious. Please seeWP:Threats of violence which states: Should any threat of violence be made on Wikipedia, it is unlikely the community of editors, including administrators, will be able to make an appropriate "real world" response. Accordingly, if there is any possibility at all that a "real world" threat has been made with genuine intent, the best thing to do is to immediately report it to the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency contact email at emergency@wikimedia.org, where Wikimedia staff can assess the situation and contact authorities if needed. Since this page is watched by many administrators, I will leave it in the air as to how to proceed. Buster Seven Talk 15:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I was simply responding further to Melanie's question above "Oh, and you didn't answer my question about whether there are other politicians who use this kind of language."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Many people have compared him to Harry Truman for his use of crude language (that's why his supporters shouted 'Give 'em hell, Harry!"). And then there was George Wallace. Other than those two, there hasn't been a national level politician like that in living memory. ----Melania (ok, I guess you're on to me). 0;-D MelanieN alt (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Standards have changed over time. Generally they have risen. Except in this election. Anyway, the trouble is with the sentence "In April 2015, Time Magazine noted that he had toned down his rhetoric". I would NOT include this. For several reasons. First, it's just one source. Second, he may have toned down the rhetoric in regard to violence against protesters but this is a more general statement. Third and most importantly, even if he did tone it down for a brief period in April, it does not appear to be the case since then. See the "I'd like to hit people" statement (however you interpret the word "hit", it's still "violent" rhetoric). Basically to put in "he had done something" with a source from April is outdated. What has he done since? I would just omit that sentence from your paragraph.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "hit" quote, Trump made clear he was using that word metaphorically. Do you dispute that he made that clear? Even Think Progress says he made that clear.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually relevant of what he "really" meant - using violent metaphors is still "violent rhetoric". But again, it's sort of beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Volunteer Marek, you may have a point. That April article was the only one I could find saying that he actually has "toned down the rhetoric". In a Google search, I mostly found two types of stories, "Trump is being asked to tone down his rhetoric" and "Trump says he won't tone down rhetoric".[9] I could not find any such quotes from him since March, which is also when the "Trump is encouraging violence" stories peaked.[10] (Granting that the recent "want to hit them" was not intended literally, it was still a violent image; as noted above he likes that kind of talk whether or not he means it literally. But we are talking about encouraging his supporters to attack protesters, and as far as the record shows, he seems to have stopped that after March.) So here's a quandry: I couldn't find that he has threatened protesters since March, but that's original research. I do have the one article in April saying he has toned it down, and I found no reporting of that kind of talk since March, so that's the sourcing. I am still inclined to leave it in. But maybe I should change it to "stopped using violent rhetoric" or "stopped talking about violence toward protesters," since he is still saying inflammatory things on subjects other than beating protesters; he certainly hasn't "toned it down" in all areas. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In your paragraph you already give dates (November through March - it should actually be "and" not "through") so simply omitting the phrase about April should be fine (in fact, it's redundant in there).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually it was November, February, and March. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I prefer "stopped encouraging violence." Sorry, I should have said, "stopped talking about violence toward protesters" SW3 5DL (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've change my mind about using the sentence that he has stopped talking this kind of talk. Quite aside from the "2nd amendment" comment, however you may interpret it (the Secret Service talked to him about it [11] so they thought might be something there), he said just yesterday that he has no plans to change his style because his temperament "has gotten me here". Quote: "I certainly don’t think it’s appropriate to start changing all of a sudden when you’ve been winning."[12] So I will not be including the sentence saying that he's toned down his rhetoric. I'm working on this paragraph (all the sourcing takes a lot of work and I have been really busy offline). I hope to add it today. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Refusal to back Ryan and McCain

Trump's refusal to back Paul Ryan and John McCain in their primaries [13] [14] is a very significant story of this campaign and needs to be added to the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely it belongs here. That's historic. Never done before by presidential candidates. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely worth inclusion given that this is unprecedented. Neutrality^talk 16:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I object. It's not about his campaign. It's off topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's obviously about his campaign given the reasons for his refusal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I believe it should go in their campaign articles. It's not about his campaign, but theirs.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

John McCain's campaign article? You mean from 2008? Graham (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur. This is a significant, albeit predictable, development. - MrX 17:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I also concur. It is a major political and campaign decision that can not be ignored. Buster Seven Talk 19:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, this should be included as something unprecedented. Moreover, the refusal to endorse was apparently a retaliation for comments by Paul Ryan and John McCain made during the previous part of campaign - per sources. That should be noted. That tells a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What does it tell?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: It tells that Trump is a (PA); however, that fact should be plain for most people by now... Gaeanautes (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but calling a presidential candidate names on Wikipedia as you just did is not OK.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: My humblest apologies at that. Trump is not a (PA). But he is vindictive. OK? Gaeanautes (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Who cares? His personality is irrelevant. It's not encyclopedic. We're not writing a therapist report.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) @Zigzig20s:, putting on their campaign page is okay, too. But this is the Republican presidential nominee who is taking Paul Ryan's own words and flinging them back at him. "I'm not there yet." That's never been done by any candidate in any election that I'm aware of. It needs to be here. This meets all the policy for inclusion. Plus, you know the readers will come here looking for it. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you and I don't know that. It's off topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Let it go. Stating his refusal to endorse, in the way he did, using Ryan's own words, is clearly vindictive on the part of Trump. If you don't see that, well, all I can do is shrug. The bastard part is news to me. Buster Seven Talk 20:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We're not writing a therapist report.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7:, I deleted the bastard thing. @Zigzig20s:, look at the page views for this article. Yes, readers are coming here looking for what he said about Ryan. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The appropriate place to look for it is Paul Ryan.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

So should this article not reference endorsements either, by that logic? Graham (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Include. Unprecedented move by a presidential candidate. Objective3000 (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: You can put it on the Ryan page, as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It really is off-topic. If you all decide to include you should really keep it very minimal. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

User:DaltonCastle: It is absolutely off topic. Can editors add it even if there is no consensus? Do they not need to do an RFC?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

How is it off-topic? The usual candidate gives a blanket endorsement to all his parties office seekers. But Trump is not the usual candidate. His unprecedented refusal to endorse The Speaker of the House for re-election and subsequent endorsement of Ryan's primary opponent is a rarity. Rarities deserve mention. Buster Seven Talk 00:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. There's no consensus for it.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This may be a little too vague, especially for just this section alone, but this argument that keeps getting thrown around, that "this is an election unlike any other" is a bad one. Every election, in the history in the nation, is unique. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The message at the top says, Consensus required. Yet there is no consensus to include this.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there is consensus 7:2 if to count comments above. If anyone wants to include that info, it is going to be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Look. Do presidential candidates always endorse members of their own party in down-ticket races? Yes. Is Trump a presidential candidate of the Republican Party? Apparently so since we have this article right here about it. Did Trump break with this tradition? Yes, that's what the hullaboo is about. Why did Trump not endorse Ryan and McCain? Because they wouldn't endorse DONALD TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN 2016 until everyone else dropped out!!!!! So there's no freakin' way in hell you can argue that it's off topic. Please stop being silly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Its not about his campaign. And what I'm saying is that if you mention it, keep it to a minimum, since it is a tangent of the campaign. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how in the world this is "not about his campaign". Actually, nevermind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Lets all go back in a time machine to late May. Everyone that was paying attention was in a tizzy about whether or not Ryan would endorse Trump. On Jun2, he did and it was the News of the Week. Trump got the seal of approval from the titular head of the Republican Party. And here we are 2 months later and Trump, unlike any other politician in modern history, does not return the favor. And you claim its not about the campaign? In the words of your candidate, "That's just ridiculous!" Buster Seven Talk 06:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is 8-2 to include. Buster Seven Talk 06:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include, definitely. (That makes it 9-2.) As noted, it is unprecedented for a party's presidential nominee to refuse to endorse other party leaders in their re-election campaigns. But it goes way beyond refusing to endorse: Trump has publicly praised Ryan's primary opponent , Paul Nehlen.[15] And multiple former Trump staffers are actively working on Nehlen's campaign.[16] --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include. I agree with MelanieN. It is also unprecedented for a Speaker of the House to refuse to endorse the party's nominee and to then give him a horrible wink wink endorsement after dragging it out to weaken that same endorsement. Just unheard of before. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt if that is unprecedented. I suspect you might find that a Republican congressional leader refused to support Goldwater, or that a Democratic congressional leader refused to support McGovern. I don't have any specific information here, but I suspect it has happened. --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Yes, thank you for the critique, Melanie, and I apologize for not being as versed in American history as you are, but my formative years were steeped in Our Island Story. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Proposed wording, for a subsection of "Controversies" titled "Refusing to endorse other Republican leaders". --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In early August Trump refused to endorse Paul Ryan or John McCain, two of the top Republican leaders in Congress, for re-election to their seats. In fact Trump publicly praised Ryan's primary opponent, Paul Nehlen, and multiple former workers on Trump's campaign are currently working for Nehlen. Trump's actions have been described as "extraordinary" and "unprecedented".

Sounds good. Should it mention the precise wording ("not there yet"), since that was intentional? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. It should mention Kelly Ayotte also. I'm going to add this to the article now, although it can still be tweaked. I am wondering whether we should add a sentence saying that his running mate, Mike Pence, the next day endorsed Ryan [17] and gave a blanket endorsement to all Republican congress members running for re-election? [18] --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

And should we add anything about Reince Priebus being "furious" (aka "apoplectic") and expressing his "extreme displeasure" over Trump's refusal to endorse Ryan? [19] --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I like it. Yes, maybe mention Priebus since he's the Chair. And I would mention that Trump apparently told Mike Pence he had no issue with him supporting Ryan. Might not want to use the phrase "In fact. . ." as it sounds a bit POV, and even if the source is using it, we have to paraphrase we can't take everything word for word from the source as that violates the plagiarism rule. One other thing, I wouldn't say 'refused' to endorse, I'd say he hadn't endorsed as he said, "he wasn't there yet." Sources have noted he is giving Ryan back his own words. And @Buster7: noted that in a different section earlier. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, today he went ahead and endorsed all three of them. Does this mean the entire story gets removed from the article? Or does it get updated with the fact that he has now endorsed them (after catching enormous flak from Priebus and the Republican establshment)? [20] --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I updated the section to note Priebus' reaction and Trump's endorsement today. I am still open to the question of whether the entire section should remain or be pulled. Maybe wait a few days and see if it remains a story or vanishes from the news? In the meantime people may be coming here for information about the situation. --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, yes, adding Priebus was a good idea. On keeping it all, maybe wait a few days to see how it all shakes out. I agree readers will likely be coming here for information. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Well done. I'm glad no one removed it. This campaign will ebb and flow for 3 months. But each story is historically important. Months down the line will come a time when we can abbreviate sections in an orderly fashion. Who can guess what tomorrow will bring? Buster Seven Talk 07:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this should be removed, because this is not a newspaper. He's endorsed them, end of the story.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I was bold and removed it. It is no longer a "controversy". You could start an RFC to add it again, I suppose.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Retain or remove?

We were already discussing it here. Three people said it should be kept for a while; so far Zigzag20s is the only one who has said it should be removed. But per the Discretionary Sanctions, "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Since Zigzag has challenged it and removed it (not exactly a reversion of an edit since it had been there for several days, but I'll let it count as a reversion), we must obtain consensus. Here is that discussion: Should we keep this section, as updated, at least for a short time to see if it has lasting repercussions?

• Retain at least for now while it is a subject of intense public interest. Consider removing later if it vanishes from coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Remove as obsolete, because Trump has now endorsed them. Even before that, AFAIK Trump never hinted he would withhold endorsements of Ryan, McCain and Ayotte if they become GOP nominees by winning their primary elections. It's very common for presidents to stay neutral in the primary elections of members of Congress. "[T]here is a general tradition that national party leaders and committeemen shall remain neutral in congressional primaries." Bone, Hugh. American Politics and the Primary System, p. 301 (1965).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Retain. The fact that a controversy or affair may be historical (i.e., in the past) does not mean that it is not noteworthy. An encyclopedia is a work of history, not a newspaper, and this affair is unprecedented and worthy of note. Neutrality^talk 18:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Remove as obsolete.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Retain- at least till the fog lifts. This constant removal of anything that besmirches Trump is contrary to our duty as editors. The whole Trump/Ryan/McCain thread that runs through the history of the campaign is important. To remove this last chapter is a disconnect from the real story. If you want to remove something inconsequential, why not remove the "Hi. My name is John Miller" stuff? Everybody always complaining about WP:Weight. Go back and encapsulate some of last years early stuff that has become unimportant. Make room for whats to come. Buster Seven Talk 18:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting comment about the "Trump/Ryan" theme to this election. Possibly both names should be added (individually) to the "People and Groups" section, where Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham already have subsections. The history with both men goes back far deeper than this week's issue about endorsement. I think that idea has a lot of merit. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Remove With the recent endorsements it reads as if he just didn't endorse fast enough, which is far less historically significant.LM2000 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Remove I have changed my opinion. I now think this endorsement kerfuffle does not deserve a section of its own. Instead, there should be individual sections about McCain and Ryan in the "People and groups" section, so that the history between the two individuals can be laid out and some context provided. I have just now done such a section for John McCain. There was already a whole section, in the "Early campaign" section, about Trump's "war hero" remark about McCain. That incident, and the "endorsement" issue, are now incorporated into a more comprehensive look at the relations between the two men - relations which are surely more significant and more highly reported than those involving, say, Lindsey Graham who also has a paragraph in that section. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Security Experts

@User: CFredkin, @User: Fred Bauder, and @User: MelanieN, you have all provided edits related to the Security Experts section. Can we try to get some agreement? Current it reads:

Security experts

On August 8, 2016, fifty of the nation's most senior Republican national security officials signed a letter calling Donald J. Trump unqualified to be president and warning that a Trump presidency ”would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being” and that “he would be the most reckless President in American history.” In March 2016 a similar previous letter was signed by 121 members of the Republican national security community, expressing their opinion that Trump as president would "make America less safe". "diminish our standing in the world", and "pose a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States."

References

Should it be a named Security Experts or National Security Establishment section, or should it be removed for the list as in CFredkin edit? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I believe it should be included - both letters were widely reported - but ""National security community" might be a better title than "Security experts" or "National security establishment" as it is less judgmental, and it parallels other section titles like "Business community" and "Religious community". If there are similar, widely reported letters from multiple national security people supporting Trump, they could be included here too - particularly if the people supporting Trump are Democrats (these letters got so much media attention because they came from Republicans). --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I support matching section titles. Buster Seven Talk 18:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

With this edit, I moved the reference to the new letter to the section "Opposition from Republicans", which is where previous letters from this group of "experts" are already referenced. As part of the move, I removed a redundant reference to the March letter. Gouncebeatduke reverted my edit and effectively restored the redundant content. This is undue. (It's also a violation of discretionary sanctions.)CFredkin (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It's also not clear to me why we need 2 separate sections to address such letters.CFredkin (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is solely a GOP issue. Democratic experts have taken issue as well. see http://www.presstv.us/Detail/2016/08/07/478932/Trump-nuclear-weapons-Clinton-Obama Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: I agree, but is it in two sections? Why do we include the letters in Republican opposition if it is about security? I understand they are from Republican admins but that could mentioned in the security section. I think the reader will go looking at the security section for these issues. Republican opposition seems like it should be Republicans who aren't supporting him, not their security experts. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree we don't want to be redundant, but it does appear that security expert opposition and GOP opposition are overlapping sets. Maybe there is some way to split the information between the two sections with as little redundancy as possible? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that brings back into consideration Melanie's suggested "National Security Community". Matching thread titles does seem to make it easier for the future readers. Buster Seven Talk 20:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the header to "National Security Community" Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

That addresses the redundancy issue not at all.CFredkin (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Then it needs to be combined. I thought that was the point. I don't see any reason to repeat the same thing twice in the same article. I could see adding it to the Campaign page again, but not here twice. What's the point of that? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Then use the title when the redundancy issue gets handled (not by me). Buster Seven Talk 23:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: Can you please tell me, what is the rationale for having this information mentioned twice in the article? SW3 5DL (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Why ask me? I'm not advocating that we mention it twice. Mention the information once, in one thread, and title it 'National security community'...or some other easy to locate title. You say "it needs to be combined" and I agree. I'm just advocating that the title be congruent with other existing titles which use the word "communities"...which is what I meant by "matching titles". Buster Seven Talk 06:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the National Security community section as the letter is specifically from former GOP officials. (I had not seen it earlier.) The info, I believe, is WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, NPOV, and balanced. Tweaks are certainly welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a clear example of editing against consensus and POV-pushing. Multiple editors have identified the need for this group in the group section. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Retain 'National Security community' section, I say. I'm backing up User: Gouncbeatduke on this. It's obviously not a party issue entirely. I'm positive the 'redundancy issue' can be handled in a reasonable manner. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Too much weight

Considering the importance of the article, too much weight is not a problem. Its a snowball rolling down a hill. There is no finite size to an article especially one about the most interesting American election in decades. When the clock stops ticking we can all go back and refine the article. I like Melanies suggestions. I just think its a bit early to decide. Buster Seven Talk 02:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If we want to get rid of weight, the Background thread would be a good place to start. Almost every sentence mentions a poll of one kind or another...all for the purpose of showing interest BY Trump or interest IN Trump to be a POTUS candidate. Im sure they can all be encapsulated into one sentence with appropriate references. Buster Seven Talk 12:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, polls do fill up a page. It gets worse when they keep getting added to. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Buster Seven Talk 18:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

last paragraph of lede

I think the inclusion of the final paragraph in the lede may be biased- I'm not sure whether that topic in particular deserves inclusion in the lede. I think the paragraphs on populism/political correctness are fair as they are really representative of his campaign. The rallies are important, but I'm not sure enough so to include in the lede. Maybe it can be moved elsewhere in the article? Does anyone have any thoughts?

I'm actually extremely biased against Trump but think we should be fair. Everything written is true, but it's more a matter of, what are the absolute key things we should put in the lede?

-KaJunl (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, what I mean is I think when you read this, that paragraph draws more attention to violence at rallies (and as the campaign inciting violence, in a way) than is appropriate. I don't necessarily think anything in the paragraph is untrue but I don't think it should be in the lede. -KaJunl (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)