This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Misreadings and unreliable endorsement claims are BLP violations
I'm calling shenanigans: This article is most likely loaded with WP:BLP violations, with many names based on unreliable sources and misinterpretation, and now needs to be fully scraped and each source verified. This article is not a topic where unreliability is tolerable. I've now least twice removed names where the source did not show an endorsement, and I wasn't even looking very closely. A small number of users are responsible for most of the additions in this article now. I may go through and simply whack every name whose source is one I don't recognize: WP:BLPrequires that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. ... Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Anyone who thinks I'm wrong had better go through every name and start providing verifiable direct statements in very reliable sources, or I (and any other editors) have a duty to freely whack names immediately and extensively.
Users have been adding names based on gossip/fake interpretations like this for weeks, which is a violation of WP:BLP. A reminder to Ehlla (talk·contribs) and others: It's against Wikipedia policy to add claims of people endorsing Donald Trump without citing reliable sources that actually contain the person's statement that they're endorsing Donald Trump. This is a strong WP:BLP issue, it's not acceptable to use any alleged news site that happens to appear in search results and exaggerates or misinterprets someone's words as an endorsement. You are subject to blocking if you do this.
Just two examples:
Andrew Klavan was listed as endorsing, then retracting endorsement for, Trump. The citation was to his own article, which was titled "I'm Angry, And So I'm Voting For Donald Trump" but was clearly the opposite of an endorsement if one read the actual article. The retraction source was his own Twitter tweet that actually wasn't a retraction. I removed the name.
I hope this gets the point across and other users start verifying each name immediately. --Closeapple (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Closeapple: I tried for a bit, got through the first few sections. Agree most sections have 10-30% misinterpreted claims. I don't know how that compares to other pages, but yea suspect claims need better sources or removal. Also: does creating an advisory group of 60 people mean all are endorsing you? 10% of names here are from such large groups, some formed long ago. Morganaticity (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Morganaticity: I feel the same way, I think: I don't know which of those "advisory groups" are people who consented to be included in the first place, or if they ever met or endorsed Trump ever again. Not only these advisory groups, but endorsements that only include sources from 2015 or from early 2016, are shaky here, because of how many times events changed endorsements in this election cycle. An endorsement of Trump in 2015 reflects much differently on a person's reputation than an endorsement still in September 2016. There is a special footnote "a" to mark people who endorsed before May 2016, but it's underused, so it misleads the reader into thinking everyone without an "a" footnote is a recent endorsement. Also, some of these "recent" sources are just photo galleries and rehashed lists of people sourced to old endorsements a year ago. I think there needs to be an explicit mark for those who have been verified to still endorse Trump after a certain date, maybe the Republican National Convention. Maybe the best thing to do is to split off a maintenance page or separate list article for those people who don't have a verified recent affirmation of their endorsement, and then they can be returned to the main list after verification. --Closeapple (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Adding the "a" across the board would help, considering the variance. I notice academics tend not to endorse but are on advisory groups. Religious and social leaders like Grudem often don't endorse or even call out and disendorse personally, but actively support specific policies (and are still listed here as endorsers). Pols and public sports/entertainment figures tend to endorse (and to be asked whether or not they endorse) in interviews. Morganaticity (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This applies particularry with the Notable Individuals and Celebrities text. The other sections are reliable. Theoallen1 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
"David Menning", CEO of a big international Online-business can be added to the business leaders. He states to be a public Trump supporter and seems to have influence also to many US citizens in exile.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13(talk) 22:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Adam Curry no longer endorses Trump
Adam Curry mentioned that he does not endorse Donald Trump on episode 872 of his No Agenda podcast. He attempted to delete himself but was unable to, he also mentioned on the podcast. Mal7798 (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Seconded: Since this episode, and after much has come to light (the cited episode took place significantly earlier then much of the various controversies), he has shown a preference for the independents and stated as per Mal7789's comment that he does not endorse Trump. However, it might be better to move him to a section of "retracted endorsements". Episode 872 beginning at timestamp 00:11:02 . Tianmang (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Almost NO endorsements left; would it be best to just blank the page, or write "none"?
Hey team. With nearly all of Trump's "endorsers" having now abandoned the rapidly derailing Trump train, does anyone think we should blank this page, or just write "None left" under endorsements? Thanks. 24.47.198.191 (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
As funny as that sounds, there still seem to be more notable people who haven't made a verifiable retraction than have. --Closeapple (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Yup. I think those retracted endorsements finally wised-up and jumped-ship for the opposing team. Too funny. And I now think we've also finally figured-out how President Obama is now going to force himself to remain in office for the next four to eight more years, or more. While President Hillary Clinton is asleep at the controls, former President Obama will be running the office from his home along with the other old gang members. Sigh. Whatever happened to change? ---roger (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
As an outsider to the whole American election situation, I might suggest a "retracted endorsement" section. It would serve to demonstrate how endorsements have evolved over time. Tianmang (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Done - Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! . - MrX 12:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It made national headlines a few days ago when the official newspaper of the Klan endorsed Trump. Why is the paper/organization not mentioned here? Necropolis Hill (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Because no one has added it yet.- MrX 12:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It was added, but I removed it because the newspaper is not notable (i.e. it has no article). FallingGravity 17:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It is more significant than other newspapers. Also, could add Klu Klux Klan and David Duke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
That particular newspaper fails notability guidelines. Do you have a source indicating that the Klan (as an organization) endorsed Trump? An RFC has previously decided not to list Duke, he has offered praise but has repeatedly said he didn't "officially endorse".LM2000 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
We only have Trump's word on this; he also included Tom Brady, who has said he hasn't voted yet, so Trump's word isn't enough. Belichick apparently has no comment so we may not be able to find a RS to support Trump's claim. P.S. let's leave the political comments out of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Not a RS but this outside source claims that the letter was indeed written by Belichick. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Gisele(Tom Brady's wife) has said that both of them do not support Trump here. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Cf. here: Donald Trump says Tom Brady, Bill Belichick are on his team; Gisele Bundchen disagrees -- maybe it should be pointed out that Gisele's comment was made on the weekend, i.e. before Trump's statement, thus it's imprecise/misleading to say that she disagrees. Is there any report about her refuting Trump's statement (which of course would have to be made afterwards)? 93.224.109.148 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree it would be helpful to have an after-the-fact statement, but she was very emphatic(saying "NO!!") so I doubt they changed their mind so quickly. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Cf. Washington Post: "Brady, though, has faced questions about his relationship with the nominee since a “Make America Great Again” cap was spotted in his locker last year. He called Trump a friend and golfing partner, but shied away from endorsing him."
"Shying away from endorsing Trump" does not sound as if a great change of mind would be necessary. Also, when Gisele answered "NO!" (to exactly which question by the way?) -- the emphasis does not need to point to Tom Brady. 93.224.109.148 (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The question Gisele answered was "Gisele I heard you and Tom were backing Trump! Is that true??". 331dot (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the point is valid that Gisele's emphasis does not need to point to Tom Brady -- and also that it does not need a great change of mind to back one's friend. An after-the-fact statement is not only helpful, but necessary, because we can only speculate. 93.224.109.148 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
But what about Belichick? Cf. the above link to csnne.com: "CSN New England confirmed this morning that Bill Belichick did indeed drop a note to Donald Trump on Monday." So should Belichick be added? 93.224.109.148 (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that Belichick should be added, as sources other than Trump himself are stating that. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add us to the List of Donald Trump Endorsements. We are National Press.
I haven't followed this article closely, so I don't know the inclusion criteria, I trust some of the regular editors can determine whether this should be added.S Philbrick(Talk) 00:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
At #Ku Klux Klan, we discussed how the Klan's official newspaper isn't listed among the endorsements because it isn't notable. I'm not sure if there is official consensus on whether endorsers need to pass WP:GNG for inclusion, but if we did list every non-notable endorsement he received this would be an unmanageable list. The Westchester News also has no article, so I don't think it should be listed either.LM2000 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Asher Edelman should definitely be removed from the list of business leaders who endorsed Trump, and possibly placed in the list of retracted endorsements. While it is true that he made the ambiguous statement in April that Trump would be better for the economy than Clinton, he has since posted an endorsement for Clinton on his website (here).
Y2K-96 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Tony Ortega
Removed because the article cited was not an endorsement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilaeth (talk • contribs) 12:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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.
lima Bean Farmer has recently removed hundreds of entries from this article. Not sure of the exact number as I got tired of counting at 91, but my scroll bar was about 1/3 of the way down, so around 300 perhaps. Some of these edits were hasty; the first three I checked were all wrong and I have restored them. Article may need to be rolled back to earlier version. Here is the diff for the removals; it takes a while to load. To state the obvious, it seems highly unlikely that the sources were bad on 300 people. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
rolled back, no longer an issue.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13(talk) 22:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Done - 
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)