Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Protest section - POV tag

Hidden Tempo, Regarding the POV tag added to a sentence, here's part of the source info: "For high school students and undocumented immigrants who were prohibited from taking part in this election, these protests are a space to take part in the democratic process." from —Sarah Jaffe (November 15, 2016). "Why Anti-Trump Protests Matter". Rolling Stone. Retrieved November 16, 2016.

for: Protesting has allowed students and undocumented immigrants who were unable to vote in the election a political voice.

I see now it needs to be paraphrased a bit more.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There is too much detail in the section. We do not need quotes from Zuleima Dominguez and Amy Vandenberg, two of the protesters, or Kate Perry, Lady Gaga and Rudy Giuliani. We should say who is protesting, what they want, how many there are, who supports them and what Trump says. I think that Protests against Donald Trump#Post-election protests should be copied over, leaving out the lists of protests and the Jaffe quote. TFD (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree there is too much detail in the "protests" section, and I think the "school children" section is overdone. Maybe a few sentences in the "protests" section? Or combine it into a more general "public reaction" section? I wouldn't mind getting rid of it (the school children section) altogether. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Excessive citations in the lead

Lead section includes too many citations. Per WP:LEADCITE and WP:OVERCITE most of them should be reflected in the main article contents; a few citations can remain in the lead for particularly controversial statements, if any should remain by now. Also the lead should be heavily copyedited and trimmed for clarity. — JFG talk 08:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Excellent note, thanks JFG. I would recommend that several paragraphs containing extreme detail be heavily trimmed, and redirected to other articles. For example, "Jeb Bush," "John McCain," "Ted Cruz," "Lindsay Graham," and "Mitt Romney" surely do not need their own lengthy sections. All could easily be consolidated into one section: "Republican opposition." Similarly, "Black Community, "Hispanic Community," "Women" should be merged with "Supporter demographics." Most of the controversies are in profound conflict with WP:DUE. There are five paragraphs devoted to Trump's criticism of Khizr Khan, a media story that lasted no longer than a few weeks. For context, there are 0 sentences referencing the Podesta emails and 0 sentences discussing the ongoing Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy in this article's counterpart, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. I go into further detail on that article's Talk page, but the takeaway is that the consistency between these two articles is non-existent. It would be great if we could start the process of cleaning up both of these pages. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop. While there may be some stuff which needs to be trimmed your "proposals" are an over-the-top attempts to push a particular POV. And oh yeah, one thing that is missing from the lead is Trump University controversy. Anyway, I don't actually think the lede is too long for an article of this size.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, he's talking about the lede not gutting the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
"Please stop" what, exactly? Disagreeing with your opinions? Since you seem to be in a vigorous struggle with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, I am hesitant to discuss this issue with you. The problem is that the article is unreadable, and excessively long to the point of absurdity. If you disagree with my suggestions to achieve readability (as well as WP:NPOV), you are more than welcome to do so, but accusing people of "attempts to push a particular POV" with absolutely no supporting evidence is offensive and vile, frankly. I think in the interest of civil discourse you should remove your edit. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
There are two issues I noticed with this article: WP:OVERCITE in the lead and a {{very long}} page, which would gain in clarity if heavily trimmed. Most of the themes in this page are addressed at length in dedicated articles (it seems we have a long article for every phrase that Trump ever uttered during this campaign, a situation which may not be justified in the long term, but I digress). It may well be that copyediting the lede would lead to trimming the article, and trimming the article in turn will justify a shorter and more readable lead. POV is not at play, although I find the article disturbingly silent on anything positive in Trump's message – if he is so despicable, how come half of Americans voted for him? Now that the election can no longer be influenced, perhaps it's time to step back and write about the 2016 campaign in a dispassionate, encyclopedic manner. Saying this for both "camps"… — JFG talk 21:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Kushner should be considered as a key person of the campaign

Kushner's role is understated and deserves more detail. I refer to this recent Forbes article,

Exclusive Interview: How Jared Kushner Won Trump The White House — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdignam (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Post-truth section

In the end of the Controversies section, I tried to add a sub-section on Post-truth and on the number of false statements made during the campaigns. It was reverted with unusual arguments. Two of the paragraphs were essentially copied from the summary section Donald Trump#Presidential campaign, 2016, but were made slightly shorter. Taking content that has been accepted in the broader summary article and putting it into the more detailed main article should be uncontroversial. One sentence was taken from the Post-truth politics article. This is a topic that has attracted more academic interest than various incidents mentioned in this article. Longhairadmirer (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Unusual? You don't think an article should be readable? It's unusual to try to cut down an article that has been established as being too long rather than adding to it? Besides, the "Post-truth" garbage is mainly a leftist talking point, rather than a real phenomenon. As you said, it has attracted "academic" (left-wing) interest. Nearly all sources related to "post-truth" are from devout left-wing sources (WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, Slate, DailyKos, etc.). This article already tilts very heavily towards the POV of the Democrats. The last thing we need is even more left-wing talking points hindering the article's ongoing losing struggle to be neutral. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with removing this. We could have a Wikilink to the "Post-truth" article, but otherwise the falsehood issue is sufficiently covered in this already-very-long article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hidden Tempo, Seriously, you must stop claiming that WaPo and NYT are "devout left-wing sources." This is simply false. Frankly, you should have been TBanned long ago for making these absurd accusations, in addition to accusing editors of being paid by the DNC and scores of snide remarks on many articles. We are volunteers here and do not deserve your constant violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIV and WP:SPA. Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I am entitled to my opinion, just as you are entitled to yours Objective3000. And according to the polls, far more people agree with me than they do with you. Of course, we also have the raw data: The New York Times last endorsed a Republican candidate for President 60 years ago, and viciously attacked Trump throughout this election cycle. The Washington Post has never endorsed a Republican for president, and they recently confessed to hiring a crack team of 20(!) reporters whose sole job it was to dig up dirt on Trump. Now, you are more than entitled to believe that this doesn't qualify either newspaper as "left-wing," but I am more than entitled to characterize these facts as the smoking gun for the unapologetic liberal bias of these papers. And yes, I am a volunteer as well. I have worked hard to improve the neutrality of both campaign articles and have been ruthlessly attacked and even threatened for doing so. And if you think WP:PAID is just a myth, I'm sorry but that's just not the case, unfortunately. It's a very real and ongoing problem that we as a community continue to combat. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, you do not understand the difference between an editorial board and a newspaper. Objective3000 (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you pulled that line the last time I explained what liberal bias is to you, Objective3000. Still doesn't convince anyone that your opinion is correct. I think you've been led to believe that the editorial page is its own little section in the NYT building, completely free of outside influence, and the rest of the reporters are at their desks diligently working to maintain a neutral and fair tone while eviscerating Donald Trump's campaign and offering glowing coverage of Hillary's. That's your right to believe that, but I reserve the right to believe that your understanding of liberal journalism is desperately scant. Looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree! How about we both stay away from personal attacks and accusing other editors of "not understanding" certain things, and stick to improving the article? I think that's something everybody here can agree upon. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, if you have a problem with NYT or any other source, take it to WP:RSN. Making these claims, on multiple talk pages, time and again, is disruptive. Objective3000 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, I appreciate the invitation Objective3000, but no thank you. As your talk page admits, that section is rife with political lobbyists and special interest editors. You decided to insert yourself into this discussion, and to follow me from article to article, insisting that the most liberal newspaper in the country is fair and balanced. If you have a problem with differing points of view, you can continue having that problem, but attempting to muzzle people who do not share your views is astonishingly counterproductive and a little WP:OWN problematic as well. Best to live and let live, I say. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's start with the first paragraph in my contribution - various measurements indicating remarkable high frequency of lies during this campaign. I find the measurements objective and the conclusions consistent. Does this deserve a place in this article? If not, based on what Wikipedia policy, and do you mean that it should also be removed from the summary section of this article in the Donald Trump article?

Wikipedia is largely about facts and numbers, but according WP:NPOV it should also include all "significant views" on a subject. Things that attract persistent interest in reliable sources, especially for theoretical=academic analysis, is typically considered significant in my experience. That's why what academic people says is important. (What I meant by "unusual" in the response I got was the non-objective tone.)Longhairadmirer (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

This ref: [1]

Should say 2016, not 2017. 83.251.183.182 (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Done st170etalk 18:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Costa, Robert (March 17, 2017). "GOP operatives, conservative leaders meet to thwart Trump". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 17, 2016.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

Please add a "see also" link at the headline of this section to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rallies_for_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016 so that people can plainly see the list of all his rallies. Nelagster (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Which section are you referring to? -- Dane2007 talk 19:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

White nationalists and white supremacists

Sewell: Not a reliable source. It’s one man’s extremely biased opinion in the "Special Report" section of a right-wing publication calling out "the Left" - "Bubble America" and "Bubble People", "even trannies, don’t forget the trannies" - for engaging in "a concerted semantic campaign" of "lowdown and incendiary" "anti-white politics" and "Trump-related hate and bigotry, none of it substantiated or verified". (Really? Hasn’t he been watching the news in the past 18 months or so or followed Trump on Twitter?) And at the same time, it’s perfectly OK for him to go in for some unsubstantiated and unverifiable semantic mud-slinging. Besides the aforementioned quotes, how about these: "reptile-quick post-election pivot","sour-grapes Democratic campaign communications director", "black thugs offing white policemen", "nonchalant Bubble America, with its golf courses on the ocean and private jets in the air", " Malibu and West End Avenue bullies"? On top of that, the editor threw in the "smear" quote from one of the comments to the "Special Report". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be left out, unless someone can show that at least a couple of (reliable) secondary sources have cited it.- MrX 20:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Results

Trump and his team are insisting that Trump scored "one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history". Trump in Fox interview on Dec 11, 2016: "We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College." Trump transition team on Dec 9, 2016: "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history." Numerous RS have refuted those claims, so when people come to Wikipedia looking for facts on those claims, i.e., the actual numbers and standings, shouldn't we present them? IMO, that's not POV. Maybe four comparisons were a bit much, so I didn't put the comparisons to Bush's wins back in, but the election's place in the ranking is valid and important information. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Rather than present the data, I think that what would address your concern would be a brief discussion of this apparent misrepresentation, cited to a secondary source. SPECIFICO talk 13:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments on RfC Donald Trump requested

There is currently an RfC about the outcome of the presidential election here. Participation would be appreciated. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2017

I must ask that the part referring to his populist beliefs attracting male and white voters be altered. While this is somewhat true, it is also not entirely fact. It may need to be included somewhere separately. 2601:805:8001:2680:F485:4012:B36E:102D (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also exact change requested is unclear EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Length of Key People in Infobox.

Is it really needed to have so many people in the infobox? Some of those people I had never actually heard of before. JaydonBrooks (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Campaigns for office generally involve a lot of people. When you scale up to a Presidential Campaign where you may have 50+ different "divisions", you have a lot of people involved, due to how much effort goes into one. People you may have not have heard of before, but were in Trump's inner circle. So yes, although it could be expanded down a bit. Morphdog (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Split page

I suggest the sections Relationships with people and groups and Controversies should be split off into separate articles with a summary and {{main}} link left in the article. They are taking up a lot of room and cause me, at least, problems in loading the page. Opinions please — Iadmc♫talk  18:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, the amount of content in this section seems to merit a split. Shaded0 (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, The article is too large right now and these seem like sensible splits.LM2000 (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, The controversy section in particular is unmanageable and, in my opinion, warrants its own article. -- Spizzirroj (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Considering how big the article is already. Morphdog (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I lean in support of splitting controversies, but not the relationships with groups and people. SecretName101 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Just forking out the Controversies section should be enough to make the article manageable. Per WP:SUMMARY, we should keep one or two lines for each of the issues discussed, though. — JFG talk 03:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Length

This article is far too long. I came to it to try and find something else, but was put off when I saw what was before me. I didn't fancy trying to wade my way through it.
It's over 300k in length, the banner at the beginning recommends 109k.

RASAM (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible solution for much of this article's length-issues

I propose perhaps splitting the article, with a seperate article discussing the primary election campaign, similar to how the subject of Obama's 2008 campaign has its own article for its campaign during the primaries. I propose a new article entitled Donald Trump presidential primary campaign, 2016 be created to absorb a large bulk of content currently occupiying this article. Any thoughts? SecretName101 (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not necessary. Trump's campaign style was pretty much a continuum between the primaries and the general election. I'd rather trim the fluff, as a lot of prose about campaign events doesn't pass the WP:10YT. — JFG talk 03:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Mexican immigrant characterization

I believe that this characterization was of illegal immigrants from Mexico assumed to have been "allowed to leave" by the Mexican government. The rapist comment particularly referred to the 80% rape statistic of women using coyotes to illegally cross the border. So the remark was not speaking of the entire Mexican-American population, which includes many who immigrated through legal channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.170.197.194 (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2017

The "Muslim Ban" section's wording should be changed, and all mentions of a "Muslim ban". The correct terminology is "travel ban", given that only a minority of Muslim-majority nations were included in this list. It is a politicized entry. 190.111.226.98 (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This confuses Trump's original Muslim ban ("total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States") with his later executive orders. FallingGravity 19:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Tim Nolan

@Volunteer Marek: I removed a recent section on Tim Nolan, a former Kentucky campaign official who was recently arrested on sex crime charges, saying "POV; guilt by association" and you restored it, saying "if this was some other article you'd be right, but it's relevant in this one". Pray tell, why should this article be treated differently than any other? Also, WP:NOT#NEWS. — JFG talk 02:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Because he was a presidential campaign official and this article is about a presidential campaign?
What I obviously meant is that yes, in an article such as Donald Trump, it would be UNDUE. But *this* is precisely the article for this info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Still quite UNDUE here. How does this guy's alleged sex crime in 2017 have any connection to his Trump support in 2016? This is just "poisoning the well", as you love to say. — JFG talk 03:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Cuz he did it while running Trump's campaign in Kentucky. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
So what? For this story to be relevant here, we'd have to see either a) that his actions had some influence on the Kentucky campaign, or b) that the Trump campaign bosses knew of his actions and didn't condemn him at the time. Neither a nor b is asserted by sources. — JFG talk 03:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
By the way, you violated the DS/Do not revert challenged edits provision. Please undo yourself. — JFG talk 02:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I thought they got rid of that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. Still here though. — JFG talk 03:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I think they just forgot to update the template.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, forgot or not, the restriction is still active on this article, so please self-revert. — JFG talk 03:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Well somebody else removed it. I'll let it be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Stochastic terrorism

I added a hatnote under the section "Comment about Second Amendment and Hillary Clinton" pointing to Stochastic terrorism. @Govindaharihari:, you reverted saying "Not seeing reports of that", but the linked article has four sources directly talking about Trump's comment and explicitly calling it stochastic terrorism, so I don't understand your revert. Opencooper (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly biased view on the article

The page has been seen by many to be biased, and in some sections, potentially false. Please review the information on the page and make edits if necessary. For example, the section titled "Edward Snowden" has been seen to use biased sources delivering possibly false information. Every875 (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You are going to have to be substantially less vague for anyone to pay attention. Objective3000 (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

I'd like to make an addition to the sentence "Trump was supported by other right-wing and far-right leaders in various countries, including Austria, Germany, Serbia, the Czech Republic, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy." to read "Trump was supported by other right-wing and far-right leaders in various countries, including Austria, Germany, Serbia, the Czech Republic, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy as well as the former Estonian PM and ex-chairman of the centre-left Estonian Centre Party[1]".

I think it would be important to mention this as its shows that Trump was endorsed by some centrist and centre-left figures as well.--RedElector (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: See WP:FALSEBALANCE for why this is unnecessary and, ultimately, inaccurate. National presidential candidates are expected to attract centrist endorsements. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Savisaar toetaks USA presidendina Donald Trumpi - Eesti uudised - Postimees.ee". postimees.ee. Retrieved October 1, 2016.

== Second Amendment Comment

This page indicates that Trump's statement that Clinton wanted to abolish the second amendment is 'factually false'. While it was not strictly true, people are removing my comment that many people consider it to bear a degree of truth. Clinton expressed opposition to modern supreme court second amendment jurisprudence, which has thus far only affirmed mainstream understanding that the second amendment protects an individual right to firearm ownership. Overturning those decisions would indeed in effect 'abolish' the meaning of the amendment. Again, Clinton never expressly desired to repeal the amendment, but to say that such notion is false without any context is misleading to this page's readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbrevik (talk • contribs) 15:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation error

Citation 768 is not working 22mikpau (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Russian collusion / interference

The content on this issue is all in the lede. None of it is in the body of this article. starship.paint ~ KO 01:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the body of the article (and restored the content in the lead, with some updated sourcing, now that it is in the body). Neutralitytalk 14:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Former chairman of the campaign Paul Manafort

The former chairman of this campaign, Paul Manafort, is currently in jail and on trial for conspiracy against the United States, being an agent of a foreign country, false statements and fraud. Oddly enough it isn't even mentioned in the article, despite being one of the most notable characteristics of this campaign, in terms of how much coverage in reliable sources it has received. --Tataral (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Why should it be in here? As his article says None of the charges that have been brought against Manafort are related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Um, the chairman of this entity is in prison for conspiracy against the United States. A campaign which btw. had "lock her up" as its campaign slogan. I fail to see how that's not relevant from a neutral and encyclopedic perspective. This isn't just about Russian interference in the 2016 election either. --Tataral (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
This article is not about the chairman of the campaign, that article is at Paul Manafort. "lock her up" is not listed as one of the slogans in the article, and even still it is not really relevant as Manafort is a man. You have failed to demonstrate how this is relevant from a neutral or encyclopedic perspective. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Partisan views is not a reason to omit this material and you have failed to demonstrate why it's not relevant in this article that its chairman is in jail for conspiracy against the United States, especially considering that a major focus of this entity (campaign) was the alleged crimes of its opponent. --Tataral (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I have not said anything about partisan view. The WP:onus is on you to prove that something is relevant. Crimes, alleged or otherwise, of an opponent doesn't mean we should include charges on Manafort unless it is related. This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Please read sources. Manafort's indictments are totally unrelated to his election work for Trump. — JFG talk 10:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The Trump campaign made changes to the GOP platform about Ukraine in support of Putin's wishes. Manafort worked for the pro-Russian Ukraine President, all for the purpose of promoting Putin's wishes in Ukraine, and Manafort brought that work with him into the Trump campaign, and the campaign adopted Manafort's lobby work (for which he was richly rewarded, and for which he is now on trial) as part of its appeasement work with Putin, in return for which Putin allegedly promised to help Trump win, and for which Rosneft/Ukraine promises were allegedly made, with a share of the sale of Rosneft allegedly promised to Trump if he would lift the sanctions, which were tied to Ukraine and the Magnitsky Act sanctions. One of his first acts as president was to attempt to lift those sanctions, the lifting of which was also the subject of the Trump Tower meeting.

The proven help which then came from Russia to interfere in the election for Trump is all tied together, so this content is very relevant. We have a number of good articles here on these subjects, with many RS which document this series of events and ties between Russians, Ukraine, and Putin/Russia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 11:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM you know better. We do not need random conspiracy theories here that are unrelated to the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Here's one difference between us. What I've written is straight from our articles and (there) backed by RS. You don't seem to be aware of what RS say, and call this narrative "random conspiracy theories". What I wrote is in direct answer to the subject being discussed. By explaining how all this is related to the subject of this article, I help editors to understand what is relevant to keep, and what is not. That's not FORUM, but doing what we're supposed to do on a talk page. That you don't see it that way doesn't give you license to force your opinion by hatting my very serious explanation of events and alleged connections, all based on RS. I don't write my own suppositions. One editor's narrative based on RS is another editor's "random conspiracy theories". We base our content on RS, and I base my opinions on RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
No, you are expounding your own OR and fringe conspiracy theories that are not related to the section being discussed. PackMecEng (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Duly noted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Mueller's team says there is a Trump campaign connection to the bank fraud case, according to CNN. This might warrant a mention in this article. FallingGravity 22:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That is actually an interesting article. A little bit of a stretch though. Basically a senior executive at a bank gave an override on a bank loan to get an advisor position on the campaign and hoped, but did not get, a position in the administration. PackMecEng (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Jim Comey's comments about Matthew Whitaker

You are invited to participate in Talk:Matthew Whitaker (attorney)#RfC: Jim Comey's comments about Matthew Whitaker. R2 (bleep) 21:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Mueller Report

I've started a discussion at WP:RSN about the the reliability of the Mueller Report as a secondary source for its investigative findings. R2 (bleep) 18:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Black community

The Black community section is strongly biased in favor of Trump. It seems to have little useful information. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Trump headline for 2020

I have an idea for a Trump slogin "Trump 2020 perfect vision for the future" Sound good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.188.237 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

"Trump campaign controversies" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trump campaign controversies. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Trump campaign controversies until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Mueller report didn't conclude that no crime had happened

The editor DaveFelmer edit-warred text into the lead saying the Mueller report concluded Trump had committed no crime. That is not what the Mueller report concluded.[1][2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

At the very least the source they used[1] seems WP:PRIMARY in this context; we can't use it to state something exceptional like that, especially when secondary sources don't seem to agree with the editor's interpretation or analysis of it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mueller, Robert (March 30, 2019). "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election" (PDF). justice.gov. US Justice Dept. Retrieved September 26, 2020.

"The March 2019 report issued by special council Robert Mueller at the conclusion of his investigations found President Trump, whether as a candidate or President elect, had committed no crime.[316]"

This phrasing is *strictly* at odds with what the Mueller Report actually says, as well as what our article on the Report says:

"Volume II of the report addresses obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime,[18][19][20] abiding by an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution,[21][22][23] fearing that charges would affect Trump's governing and preempt impeachment[19][22][24] and feeling that it would be unfair to accuse Trump of a crime without charges or a trial.[21][22][25] As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him",[26][27] with investigators not confident of Trump's innocence."

This appears to be clear vandalism or agenda editing. Please address it, this is an embarrassment for the encyclopedia.50.194.115.156 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There seem to be two sections for this, but yes, see my comment below. We need to rely on WP:SECONDARY sources for interpretation or analysis of what the report says rather than citing it directly; and at least as far as I can tell there aren't sources supporting the reading that an editor wanted to use it for. --Aquillion (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hostile, Biased Description.

Isaac Agam. agami@agiloans.com. The Wikipedia description of Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign is absolutely bias. Many "background" verses are clearly anti-trump. The Wikipedia description of Donald Trump 2016 campaign should be cleaned up to from interpretations. Isaac Agam Los Altos, CA96.68.156.162 (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

"Trump conspiracy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trump conspiracy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 8#Trump conspiracy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Lunacats (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Selection as Presidential Candidate by the Republican Party

As many people (like myself) outside the USA will be unfamiliar with US political party processes, please would someone knowledgeable explain how Donald Trump was selected by the Republican Party to be its presidential candidate ? I cannot see any explanation of this in the article. Many thanks for your help ! Darkman101 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RonaldTomlinson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Second Amendment Comment

This page indicates that Trump's statement that Clinton wanted to abolish the second amendment is 'factually false'. While it was not strictly true, people are removing my comment that many people consider it to bear a degree of accuracy. Clinton expressed opposition to modern supreme court second amendment jurisprudence, which has thus far only affirmed mainstream understanding that the second amendment protects an individual right to firearm ownership. Overturning those decisions would indeed in effect 'abolish' the meaning of the amendment. Again, Clinton never expressly desired to repeal the amendment, but to say that such notion is false without any context is misleading to this page's readers. Reputable sources, (National Review, Federalist), have stood by the comment.


I'm sorry but the Federalist and National Review are not reputable sources for non-biased journalism. The question is did Hillary Clinton really advocate for abolishing the second amendment (and therefore abolishing gun rights)? Facts tell us the answer is a resounding no. Clinton did advocate for moderate gun reform, but not restricting gun rights as a general topic. Gordfather69 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

Please change this short description from "Successful 2016 US presidential campaign" to "none", which is intentionally blank per WP:SDNONE. 112.204.223.162 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign/Archive_13&oldid=1221523578"