Talk:List of Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign endorsements/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tom Brady did not officially endorse Trump

Tom Brady did not officially endorse Trump. He said he support Trump run for presidency as a friend but he does not know who he is going to vote for. Trump admitted that Brady did not officially endorse him. This is February 2016.

"Football star Tom Brady hasn't officially endorsed Donald Trump for president because Trump asked him not to, the Republican front runner said Monday. "He's got sponsors, he's got all of his different things that he has to do. And I told him not to," Trump said on the "Dennis and Callahan" radio show on WEEI." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-i-told-tom-brady-not-to-endorse-me/

Tarikur (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

History and Headlines

The website at http://www.historyandheadlines.com/headlines-march-15-2016-ohio-primary-trump-vs-kasich/ has endorsed Trump. --131.123.123.163 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

David Cole doesnt seem to have endorsed

Im not sure what our standard is for "endorsement", but David Cole's article I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Don doesnt strike me as an "endorsement" of any kind. Bonewah (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimmie Akesson has not endorsed Trump

Even though Breitbart.com has reported that Akesson has endorsed Trump, the Breitbart article does not demonstrate that, and the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-europe-far-right_us_56d87abfe4b0ffe6f8e86aa7) as well as the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/15/europes-far-right-cant-decide-whether-to-love-donald-trump-or-loathe-him/) both show that Akesson has explicitly stated that he hopes that Trump will not win and that he has openly opposed Trump's presidency. Xelkman (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

this page reads like promotional material for commercial purposes-

This page is not neutral and I am disputing it's relevance and importance. As a voter and as a reader, I and many other people don't care who is endorsing what. Normally The problem is, that this page is an aggressive presentation of a particular point and is consisting, the undue presentation of minor and fringe ideas. in one section, the author claims that trumps wife (who is a non entity for all intents and purposes). "endorses" him.. this page is rife with flaws and inaccuracies too numerous to count in one minor section. Last but not least it bears repeating that this page should be taken down because of the wholesale promotion of outright false information ( Tom Brady did NOT officially endorse Trump) and the inclusion of material that is either directly from members of the Trump campaign or someone from a corporation hired to create this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.136.26 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Tom Brady is not listed as having endorsed Trump.LM2000 (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the page includes endorsements from white nationalists and Stormfront puts paid to the claim that this is a promotional piece favoring Trump. If anything, it's rife with endorsements that no Trump PR flaks would ever include.Xelkman (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC).

any and all endorsements for Trump have been welcomed by Trump himself, including the violent racists that drag and beat up those that disagree with him.

I am a second reader and user of Wikipedia that is also stating that this article is biased and not neutral. First of all, why does it merit the inclusion of what is usually a paid advertising logo right at the very top? This does not serve any kind of neutrality. Secondly Trump himself has made it evident from his very own speeches that his campaign is not to be held to the same rules in areas such as the law. Many of his "volunteers" have been bullying and violently assaulting those that disagree with him and dare to speak up. Wikipedia is no exception. Trump's own campaign publicity worker calls himself "Xelkman" because he does not want his identity known. That is because he is a Trump worker, employee or volunteeer. this is not an article, it is

Who are you? Please identify yourself. Use four tildes (~) to sign your comments here. Your accusation that I'm somehow supporting Trump is risible. Your comments here are unfounded and do nothing to improve this article. Please read the appropriate sections on NPOV tagging; you've added the NPOV tag twice without adequate detailed comments on these talk pages. I suggest you stop vandalizing this article and stop baselessly accusing people of being covert Trump operatives. Xelkman (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm another reader, and I got this impression as well. I mean really, his kids count as "endorsements?" This tells me everything about this list, it's inflated to make it look like he's got tons of important support. His kids are in business, yes, but they are first and foremost his kids, for Pete's sake. Also there are some others I'd question as "endorsements," but whatever. It's a promo page. 99.107.159.25 (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This tells me everything about this list: It shouldn't, he only has three of his children listed out of several hundred other endorsements.LM2000 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

Has Stefan Molyneux formally endorsed Trump yet? I'm neither a supporter nor a big-time viewer of Molyneaux's content, but all the content about Donald Trump on his YouTube channel seems to be him either praising Trump or attacking his opponents. Not sure if it would be appropriate to add his name, though. W ASB94 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We need an official statement saying that he endorses Trump, Stefan makes videos and I think his opinions on certain subjects change with time, maybe ask for a tweet or some official statement it would be safer and less confusing both for Trump supporters and Stefan's viewers. Ralphw (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Willis... check needed

Bruce Willis is listed under Celebrities, but this seems questionable. The citations shows him appearing on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon where he impersonated Donald Trump (wearing a Trump-like wig), but it is impossible to say if this was mocking, a basic joke, an actual endorsement, or a mix. The citation simply does not say and viewing the entire segment doesn't provide any indisputable leads. The nearest the citation comes is (emphasis mine)

The gesture may have been the actor’s subtle way of declaring his support for the U.S presidential candidate.

I guess some could be mislead by the citations section about Anthony Mackie ("In an interview with BET, the “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” actor [Mackie was in this movie, Willis wasn't] expressed his support". Later Mackie said it was a joke). Mackie's position is irrelevant to Bruce Willis. There can be no doubts that Willis supports the Republican Party (he said it repeatedly before), but we do need something better before we list him as a Trump supporter. Consequently, I have removed Bruce Willis, but do invite anyone who can provide a clear citation (not just "may" support) to add him to the list again. 62.107.209.219 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

May 4 additions

The GOP figures added since Kasich dropped out yesterday should be stricken, since their endorsements are meant for the general election, not the primary election. For example Senators Kelly Ayotte and Ron Johnson are currently listed as primary election endorsers, which is simply inaccurate. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

All new endorsements (post-5/3) must be put in general election section, not with the primary endorsements

There's a big difference. Mr. Trump's new endorsements from party loyalists after Sen. Cruz suspended his campaign are not endorsing him to become the nominee, but rather endorsing him for November *because* he is the de-facto party nominee. Sadistik (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood Endorsement

I can't find any clear indication of a Donald Trump endorsement by Clint Eastwood. The reference in the current article makes an unsubstantiated claim that Eastwood has endorsed Trump when the only facts given in the article, and the one it references, is that Trump was doing a speech for Eastwood. Given that the only available details are that Trump is doing a private speech for Eastwood, it would not be correct to say that Eastwood has endorsed Trump. In fact, after the article was written, on film, Eastwood specifically says "No, I haven't made a selection because there are quite a few of them and I think there are quite a few of them that are really good people ...". The original article was uploaded in July 2015 and the video was uploaded in November 2015. For final proof, the video says in the description that it was filmed during the first annual fall fundraiser for the Eastwood Ranch Foundation, which took place in November 07, 2015 thereby showing that Clint Eastwood has not endorsed anyone at the time the article was written. PaintingTurtle (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Painting Turtle

References

Seems dubious, best to remove.LM2000 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Holly Holm Endorsement

I might double check a few other endorsements since the few I looked at seemed either tenuous or flat out false. In terms of Holly Holm, the reference in the page says "Seems Donald Trump has another supporter" and "UFC superstar Holly Holm gave a strong indication that she's in Trump's corner" despite the fact that in the very video they were using as a reference, she said, "I don't know who I am going to vote for yet so I'm still thinking." Since she didn't know who she was voting for at the time, it would be incorrect to say that she also endorsed Trump. I would recommend removing this endorsement until a more definitive reference is found. I'm not even sure whether she is a Trump supporter since she only said that Trump "seems to gets stuff done." I feel like it is more likely that she didn't want to alienate any of her fans with a definitive answer.

References

PaintingTurtle (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Images?

I don't see any other endorsement page with images and I don't think they are necessary considering one can go to the articles for the said pictures. Images don't seem to fit in with it. Does anyone else think the same? (EDIT:I have since changed on them read a few lines down)ShadowDragon343 (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You would appear to be correct on that. Pro-Trump bias on Wiki's part? ;) W ASB94 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If not (I've seen pics on Sanders' page too), I'd say add some pics to the other pages. Have a nice day, and good on April Fool's (talk)

Just checked. Both the Clinton and Sanders endorsement pages have loads more pictures than the Trump page. Either get rid of all the pics (what would really come across as pro-Trump bias) or leave each page with its own pics. (talk)

I have grown to liking them since starting this. They make it more readable and attention grabbing than only having long lists.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

David Duke

There has been a lot of talk about this "endorsement", but according to Duke he hasn't actually endorsed him: "I’m not saying I endorse everything about Trump. In fact, I haven’t formally endorsed him."[1] If nobody objects then I'll remove him from the list.LM2000 (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead, Duke himself said he never endorsed him, only praise for some positions. ShadowDragon343 (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Duke has actually made some points of criticism against Trump (e.g. past support for Israel), and since he himself stated that he wasn't formally endorsing Trump, it definitely wouldn't be appropriate to have him listed. W ASB94 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

David Duke has stated that he has not formally endorsed Trump, but Duke has encouraged listeners to his radio show to volunteer for Trump. It's unclear to me what David Duke's actual position is, or what constitutes an endorsement. Xelkman (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I see that David Duke has actively told his supporters to vote for Trump and to volunteer for the Trump campaign. http://bzfd.it/1SvjELZ Xelkman (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Running down the sources:

1. - NBC News says that he has endorsed Trump.
2. - The International Business times claims Duke says he never "officially" endorsed, but then repeatedly in the article and the interview, both IB Times and Duke himself say that Duke supports Trump.
3. - Duke also told his radio show listeners "voting against Donald Trump at this point, is really treason to your heritage." (sources: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/david-duke-trump-219777, https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/david-duke-urges-his-supporters-to-volunteer-and-vote-for-tr )
4. - In another IB Times article, Duke now wants to be Trump's vice presidential running mate. http://www.ibtimes.com/david-duke-wants-be-donald-trumps-vice-president-former-kkk-leader-says-hed-be-life-2368200
5. - New Jersey Today also concurs: Duke has endorsed Trump. http://njtoday.net/2016/05/14/donald-trump-2/
6. - Vox concurs: Duke has endorsed Trump (and offered to be his running mate). http://www.vox.com/2016/5/13/11670520/anthony-senecal-donald-trump-butler-obama-threat
7. - WWLP News (Massachusetts) concurs: Duke has endorsed Trump. http://wwlp.com/2016/05/14/trumps-controversial-shady-associates/

So we have one IBTimes article contradicted by a later IBTimes article, but the rest of the sources I can find all agree that Duke has in fact endorsed Trump.

What further needs to be shown? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I note that @LM2000: hasn't bothered to check this talk page and has been removing sourced content falsely claiming "per talk page"... shady shady shady... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can accuse me of not bothering to come to the talk page while you post in a thread I started in February. Anyway, each person that posted here before you was either against its inclusion left no obvious opinion. Yea, some sources said he endorsed Trump. Others made it clear he did not.

Fox News: David Duke says he will vote for Trump, but denies endorsement

CNN: But Duke did not endorse Trump and said he remains untrustworthy for his "deep Jewish connections" and support for Israel

MSNBC: Duke said he never officially endorsed Trump but that he merely encouraged listeners on his “David Duke Radio Program” Wednesday to volunteer and vote for Trump

When there is a discrepancy amongst what sources say we need to work out a consensus. It seems that we have and that consensus is not in your favor. That's why you've taken to edit warring and name calling and have made eight reverts since May 6 to include this material.LM2000 (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh please, you ran off to start trolling me, created a bad-faith claim of "edit warring" and only showed back up NOW because I rightly pointed out that you weren't here to participate in an ongoing discussion. I'm the one who spent the time to do the research here. Kindly start acting in good faith for a change. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Plus, you keep trying to go to OUT OF DATE sources to back up your false information - like a CNN article from all the way back in August 2015.

Compare to the dates on articles showing that he has endorsed: WWLP at May 14, 2016. Vox, May 13, 2016. New Jersey Today, May 14, 2016. IB Times article in which Duke wants to be Trump's running mate: May 12, 2016.

I mean seriously, this matters. You can't rely on out of date information and keep trying to make the claim when the situation has changed. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Duke's praise for Trump was a big story in August and it was a big story in February. Duke denied endorsing him both times. He's still praising Trump in May and will probably praise him into the future. With two previous unequivocal denials, I don't think we can list him as an endorsement until we get unequivocal confirmation. If such a thing happens he would be listed in the General Election endorsements section as he made it quite clear he didn't "officially endorse" during the primaries.LM2000 (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The news reporting as of current time is clear that what he does and has done constitutes an endorsement. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I spent quite a bit of time going over the sources above but if I need to, I'll go through to make it even clearer.

1. - NBC News, "David Duke, the White Supremacist Who Endorsed Donald Trump" - Feb 29, 2016. link
2. - New Jersey Today reports "Several times in the campaign, Trump has failed to repudiate racist support, such as his endorsement by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke" on May 14, 2016 link
3. - Vox.com reports "First his campaign accidentally picked a white nationalist delegate in California, a decision that might be too late to take back; Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, whom Trump was previously pressured to disavow for his endorsement, offered to be his vice president this week" on May 13, 2016. link
4. - WWLP News, Massachusetts reports "and then there was an endorsement from the KKK’s former grand wizard David Duke" on May 14, 2016 link
5. - Washingtonian Magazine reports "has attracted notable levels of support from white supremacists, including former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and the white-nationalist website Daily Stormer, which endorsed him last July" on May 17, 2016 link
6. - Forward reports "Prominent anti-Semites, including former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke have endorsed the presumptive Republican nominee." on May 17, 2016 link

Now when we get to the sources where people are trying to claim it's "not an endorsement" it gets quite dubious.

1. - the IBTimes articles are contradictory. In one article March 2, 2016 the claim is made that his words don't constitute a "full endorsement", but a later IBTimes article has him offering to be Trump's running mate on May 12, 2016.
2. - a Fox "News" article that LM2000 points to dated March 1, 2016 comes from the "Campaigning" section link, which appears to have no editorial control and is just a mishmash of blog posts, video clips from Fox tv shows, and other editorial content (not WP:RS and WP:V since it is editorial). Additionally, the "article" such as it is says at the bottom "The Associated Press contributed to this report" but does not indicate what information is actually sourced to the AP and includes no other byline information. In other words - it's not reliable for use in this discussion at all. The "Fox News" source fails on policy.

Additionally, the quote claiming he "hasn't given a full endorsement" has 2 problems.

1. - a partial endorsement is still an endorsement.
2. - It's going dangerously close to trying to prefer a primary over secondary source, whereas secondary sources under policy should be preferred.

By source count, that makes SIX WP:RS, WP:V sources that state unequivocally that Duke's statements constitute an endorsement, one source that waffles back and forth, and one contradictory Fox "News" article from a section of the website that appears to fail WP:RS and WP:V.

Now if you want to include sourcing to a statement in the listing that Duke states he has not given his "full endorsement", that may be something that could be worked out in compromise wording.

Awaiting your response. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: still waiting on your response... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My question was what source(s) would be used. Your first link is NBC news, which says, The fact is, I don't agree with Donald Trump on Israel and other issues involving the Jews," Duke told NBC News on Monday. "That's why he doesn't have my full endorsement. That's the only source you've presented that seems particularly authoritative (Vox? NJ Today? What was the basis of choosing #2-7)? This isn't a decision that's going to be made based on raw quantity of sources. Also, brevity. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

First problem with your perspective: the showing of multiple sources was to establish the consensus in the coverage itself, which clearly exists that Duke's actions and statements constitute endorsement.

Second, once again you haven't addressed the point. You keep going to a claimed quote by Duke, which would be a primary source, whereas the secondary sources - including the very NBC article - state that Duke's actions and statements constitute endorsement. See also the headline, Who Is David Duke, the White Supremacist Who Endorsed Donald Trump?. Under wikipedia policy, whether or not Duke uses WP:WEASEL words at some point, we are obliged to follow the WP:RS, WP:V reporting from secondary sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources, even ones we frequently cite on WP, frequently use clickbait headlines and then refine the text in the body of the article. Which is why we don't cite just the abstracts of journals, let alone the headlines of articles. "Weasel words" is a WP MOS guidance; Duke it not required to follow it. VQuakr (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

add that phil robertson previously endorsed ted cruz ! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3573234/Duck-Dynasty-patriarch-Phil-Robertson-says-ll-Donald-Trump-despite-endorsing-Ted-Cruz-January-ll-enthusiastically-him.html Abc1893 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if necessary. I would imagine a few of his endorsers previously endorsed Cruz or Kasich, etc. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:34, 20 May 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 · ctb) 06:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Gowdy endorsement

Trey Gowdy, Representative from South Carolina, has endorsed Trump. Please add him to the list as soon as is convenient. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.196.254 (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Martin Shkreli

I'm removing him, he has denied making the endorsement.[2] LM2000 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Klu Klux Klan?

...or did they withdraw their endorsement? And no, I'm not talking about David Duke, although that is another subject on this page. --RThompson82 (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Problematic listing

This list, and the other 2016 presidential campaign endorsement listings, is problematic. Consider, no previous election cycle has such listings on WP. It is prone to UNDUE because it only presents the endorsements. E.g., what about people (Republican and non-Republican) who have not endorsed a candidate or refused to endorse the candidate of their party? And how about the inherent SOAPBOX nature of the listing? IMO all of these endorsement listings should go to AFD. – S. Rich (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I see lists such as this going back at least two presidential election cycles, see Category:United States presidential election endorsements.LM2000 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Problematic article

This list, and the other 2016 presidential campaign endorsement listings, is problematic. Consider, only a few previous election cycle have such listings on WP. Each list is prone to WP:UNDUE because it only presents the endorsements. E.g., what about people (party and non-party) who have not endorsed a candidate or refused to endorse the candidate of their party or come out against the nominee? And how about the inherent WP:SOAPBOX nature of the listings? IMO all of these endorsement listing articles should go to WP:AFD. – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 04:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I oppose the existence of this sort of article(as who supports him is notable not only now but in the distant future) I actually came here to ask if there was a page listing the opposite of this- those who have specifically said they will not endorse him or not vote for him(Charlie Baker has publicly said so, for example). 331dot (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Separation of primary and general election endorsements

Can the Donald Trump primary and general election endorsements be separated like past presidential candidates? I see this with Hillary's wiki election articles as well as other republican candidates. The Independent Greek 100 (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "previously endorsed" information

The user @The Independent Greek 100: has removed all references to whom various endorsers had endorsed before endorsing Trump. [3] I believe this information should be restored, as it provides important historical information which gives a clearer picture as to the endorsement. It is not an 'error' as claimed by the editor, nor is the accuracy of the information at issue. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see information about people who endorsed Trump but rescinded their endorsement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:600:AB32:302B:A76E:282:21C0 (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC to sort out this mess

There is no consensus to include the information that David Duke has endorsed Donald Trump's campaign for the Presidency of the United States. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content, the information should not be included:

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.

When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.

Since no reliable sources were listed in the RfC, this close is without prejudice against a new RfC that lists reliable sources to justify the inclusion.

Cunard (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see discussion above, reviewing the available newsmedia sources as well as the question of outdated sourcing contradicted by current news coverage.

The question at hand is: Should the article contain the information that David Duke has endorsed Donald Trump's campaign for the Presidency of the United States? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support as RFC creator - I believe that it should, all current newsmedia coverage says that Duke has endorsed. The relevant policies are: WP:RS, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• No support - Duke has complemented him, but has said repeatedly that he's not endorsing him, formally. Therefore, unless it's a formal endorsement it shouldn't be included. CrashUnderride 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• No Suppport - He has offered him high praise since August but has denied "officially endorsing" him whenever asked.LM2000 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• I guess I would like to hear what sources would be used. I just removed the statement from the article, because the source used in text quoted Duke saying "...That's why he [Trump] doesn't have my full endorsement." That doesn't seem like remotely adequate sourcing to include such contentious content in a BLP. VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• support The sources in the previous section show a clear consensus as of March 2016 in the news coverage that Duke is endorsing Trump. Using sources from last august is unhelpful and misleading. We should also consider the most recent coverage from <a href=https://limaohio.com/opinion/182317/los-angeles-times-a-white-nationalist-for-trump>LA Times</a> which says "Trump was also slow to disavow an endorsement from KKK leader David Duke." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoseHouseCoogsHouse (talk • contribs) — WhoseHouseCoogsHouse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• No support. This is a BLP and there is no evidence that Duke has fully supported Trump in any way. I could not find evidence that he's campaigning for Trump, or appearing on news shows supporting him. It appears to be more of an attempt at 'pot stirring' than actual support because when questioned at the time, Duke didn't take the opportunity to offer full support. In addition, at the time, David Duke was on the record with his anti-semitic statements/viewpoints. At the time, I did happen to see a Morning Joe show where the talking heads speculated that since Trump's daughter is Jewish and her husband and three children are Jewish, that Duke knows the controversy/harm he brings to Trump by suggesting he's supporting him without fully doing it. SW3 5DL (talk)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Duke

David Duke is now promoting a "Trump / Duke 2016" candidacy on social media, indicating he wants to be Trump's running mate. Does this count as an endorsement? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Why should David Duke's endorsement be included when Donald Trump has repeatedly denounced the endorsement? Should at least be crossed out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.167.188 (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

He's been quoted as urging people to vote for Trump. That's not an endorsement? --RThompson82 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No it's not, per consensus, see #RFC to sort out this mess.LM2000 (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Jim Webb

According to the sources provided on the page, Jim Webb did not endorse Trump. He said that he would vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton before Clinton secured the nomination, but that only means that Trump is his preference between those two candidates. Without further clarification from him, the possibility that he will vote for a third party or not vote at all cannot be ruled out. BillyJack193 (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's a dubious addition. Best to remove it.LM2000 (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

List is a mess, needs to be more concise

This list is a huge and sprawling mess. I propose that we either:

1. Break it out into primary and general election endorsements as suggested by several users, including an earlier section on this talk page or
2. Clean it up by removing instances of multiple references to the same endorsements. The list of references is really too lengthy!

I don't have enough time or interest to do option 1. I would be willing to go through the article and remove instances of two or more citations to the same endorsement. My criteria would be to keep the more NPOV reference, with a preference for preserving references that used citation templates (rather than bare URLs), in order to cut down on link rot.

In case anyone has strong preferences in favor of, or against either option, I will just leave this here for a few days. If I don't get any response, I will work on option 2.--FeralOink (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Putin

I linked to the previous discussion from when the endorsements were listed at Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 in the "Low bar for endorsemnets" section, that old discussion is here. Consensus at the time was that Putin didn't qualify. The Guardian reports that Putin has clarified that his comments were not an endorsement. In December, ABC News seemed to debate whether it was an endorsement, a Trump spokesperson recognized it as praise but not an endorsement.LM2000 (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The Clinton article lists several dozen foreign leaders whose comments are not any more endorsement-like than Putin's. john k (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Need a clear definition of "endorsement"

Does an individual have to explicitly say they "endorse" Trump to be listed, or do they just have to say they "support" him or are going to vote for him? For example, the source for Steve Forbes is an interview where Forbes was asked point blank if he was publically endorsing Trump, and Forbes responded with "I'll be supporting him."

Whatever particular standard is used doesn't matter much, but I think whichever one is used should be made explicit (both for this page and the Clinton one) to avoid endless discussions of who should or shouldn't be listed, and also to protect against bias (whether real or perceived). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReverendDave (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert Kraft discussed his friendship with Trump. Did not endorse politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B01:D120:359E:A036:A215:EDEC (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Does Viktor Orban really supports Trump?

Bertalan Havasi (PM's press agent) said : ″Meglehetősen leegyszerűsített újságírói következtetés, hogy a magyar miniszterelnök kiállt volna az egyik amerikai elnökjelölt személye mellett.″ It means Orban only supports Trump in migrants-and counter terrorism policy, especially against Democrats, and clearly not his personality.

"Én nem vagyok Donald Trumpnak a kampányembere, sose gondoltam volna, hogy fölmerül majd a fejemben az a gondolat, hogy a kinyílt lehetőségek közül mégiscsak ő volna a jobb Európa és Magyarország számára."

Orban said he never tought Trump would be better, but if we think in favor of Europe and Hungary. The whole speech was about terrorism and migrants, and not the american elections. This was just a short opinion. 212.92.3.180 (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation, removed. Morganaticity (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood Endorsement (2)

Now that Clint Eastwood has given an interview to Esquire, his position on Trump has become clear or at least clearer. However, other articles are quoting the interview out of context. Although Eastwood says, "I'd have to go for Trump … you know, 'cause she's declared that she's gonna follow in Obama's footsteps," he also says, "I haven't endorsed anybody." This kinda follows the current discussion of what counts as an endorsements, but I feel that although he has given his personal support to Trump, it should not be included in this endorsement page because he directly said that he hasn't given an endorsement.

References

It's similar to the David Duke RfC, Duke offered support to Trump but made it clear he didn't endorse and consensus ultimately decided not to list him here. This is a list of endorsements so it doesn't make much sense to list people who specifically say they aren't endorsing him even if they support him in other ways.LM2000 (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed, Eastwood's new quote seems clear. Morganaticity (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sean Combs

Sean Combs aka Puff Daddy, only said, “Donald Trump is a friend of mine, and he works very hard.” The quoted part of the interview is only contrasting Donald Trump with Luscious Lyon, the fictional mogul from the show Empire. This should not be considered an endorsement, not just because the statement was limited to friendship, but also because the interview was in regards to entertainment rather than politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaintingTurtle (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, he complements him but there is no clear statement of a desire to see him as president.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-endorsements

This is just an idea but...might it be a good idea to have a list (probably best under a separate article, I'm not sure what title would be best) for people who one would normally expect to endorse a republican candidate automatically and didn't? People like the Bush family? Blythwood (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to have a list, as a separate article or as part of this article, of "people who one would normally expect to endorse a republican candidate automatically and didn't". Such a list would be inherently subjective and require WP:SYNTH. Trump is a populist Republican. Bernie Sanders is a populist Democrat. There are a lot of establishment Republicans (and Democrats) who will not vote for a populist member of their political party. Consider the neoconservatives--e.g. William Kristol and Robert Kagan--who have repeatedly disavowed support of Trump and publically indicated a preference for Hillary Clinton. Just because those two are neocons and traditionally vote GOP, their interests in nation building and multinational trade agreements are less likely to be realized with Trump than with Clinton. Partisan allegiance is less important to some people than others, so it is impossible to make a judgement call about whom one would "normally expect" to endorse a Republican candidate (or a Democrat, for that matter). On a personal level, I find the topic intensely interesting, Blythwood. Please don't take my reply as a rebuke. I just don't think that we could make a defensible encyclopedic article about it.--FeralOink (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"Prominent Republicans who have publicly refused to endorse Trump" does not seem subjective. john k (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

A list titled, ""Prominent Republicans who have publicly refused to endorse Trump" is different than what was suggested earlier. Your suggestion does not have any implication about who should do something. If it were limited to prominent GOP who don't endorse, it could be done objectively, using the same headings as this list to establish our criteria for prominent. --FeralOink (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood:, @FeralOink: Explicit public letters of opposition are unusual, and that forms a basis for an initial list. Data I've seen:

• Public letter of opposition from 121 GOP national security leaders, March 2016
• Public letter of opposition from 50 GOP officials, August 2016
• List of prominent Republicans pro & con, The Atlantic, updated Aug 7. Morganaticity (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• List of republican opposition, CNN, August 2016

Agreed, Morganaticity, about that list of 50 GOP officials who do not support Trump, constituting prominent Republicans who do not endorse Trump. The source is the New York Times, which remains the paper of record. While the New York Times had publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders as their preferred candidate for president in 2016, the New York Times also has a public editor/ombudsman who recently (this past week) openly questioned the suitability of Clinton as opposed to Stein, Johnson or Trump as a presidential candidate in this election, so I think we can still consider the New York Times as an NPOV source here. War on the Rocks is kind of blog-ish, although they do a decent job of presenting varied views, and have a large readership, so I find that to be an acceptable NPOV source as well, although less so than the New York Times. Be careful with The Atlantic, as their articles vary widely as opinion pieces versus reporting. Regardless, you have two, possibly three decent sources, so I withdraw my prior objections, as long as the section is titled "Prominent Republicans who do not publicly endorse Trump" instead of something like "people who ought to endorse Trump but don't".--FeralOink (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

FeralOink, fair point on the Atlantic. I saw a similar summary (though only opposition) via CNN, added it. Here are compressed lists of people from those sources: User:Morganaticity/sandbox. I'm not sure where it would go in an article like this. There's also a distinction to be drawn between "do not publicly endorse" and "publicly do not endorse"; the letters of opposition are a step further. Morganaticity (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We are not looking for "NPOV sources," we are looking for reliable sources. Reliable sources are perfectly well allowed to have their own, non-neutral POV, and generally do. Ian Kershaw, for instance, is among the best possible sources for our article on Adolf Hitler, but he has very distinct opinions about Hitler which disagree with those of other historians. There is absolutely no requirement that any source itself be neutral on the subject, but rather that it be reliable. The New York Times is a reliable source, and would be a reliable source whether or not the public editor made an ass of himself in the manner you describe. The Atlantic is also a reliable source, whether or not it employs writers who express opinions about things. The standard you seem to be advocating is bonkers. john k (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood:, @FeralOink:, @John K: - I don't know how to add it to this article or if this is the right place, but I have a list of major GOP politicians and officials who have publicly opposed, roughly 200 in all. Morganaticity (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That looks good. It needs to be wikified. I'd say it could be its own article, given that the topic of the extent to which Republican figures have not endorsed Trump has been a subject of some comment in the media. john k (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@John K: Wikified. I'm not sure where to put it or how to make an article out of it, however. Morganaticity (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Disavowed endorsements

Can we get rid of this section? There's no WP:RS for Stephen L. Gunn's endorsement or disavowing and consensus is to not list David Duke per #RFC to sort out this mess.LM2000 (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. These sub articles of political candidates are magnets for this crap. I keep removing the Serbian Radical party endorsement, which is already listed above by its founder. --Malerooster (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Mark Levin

Mark Levin has only said he will vote for Trump, not a full blown endorsement and he treats Trump in the article announcing it as if he's the lesser of 2 evils. I just wanted to add this to the talk page because he keeps being re-added here. Levin has been removed from the republican opposition page however.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about lead picture at Donald Trump

You are invited to participate in an ongoing talk-page discussion about the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Martin Shkreli

It was reported he endorsed in May,[4] he quickly clarified "Only Trump with 'gun to my head'".[5]LM2000 (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing military endorsements

Is there a reason the 88 generals list is not contained here fully?

for example: Jerry Johnson, Harley Hughes, etc.

please explain, or may i add them all? including further endorsements (the list is now up to 165)

thanks.

source for 88 list: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/88-retired-u.s.-generals-and-admirals-endorse-trump Phantom147 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to include them all, I don't see why not. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

oh well thanks, i thought for some reason they weren't here because of some reason, i will try to include each and every one, thanks! Phantom147 (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries! I also read somewhere that 17 medal of honor recipients recently endorsed him too. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Are they not all here? I didn't even check that! I will check and add them too. I will be doing that in about 10 days (don't have time to go over almost 200 names right now ha ha), if you want to do it yourself sooner I wouldn't mind.

Oh and BTW, I think it is appropriate to add the "Medal of Honor recipient" to each of the ones this applies to. for example, Leroy Petry didn't have that mentioned. I added that right now. I will go over the list, if any of them are here I will check for that too. Phantom147 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a possibility the medal of honor recipients are actually included in that list, but I was given no hint and this was announced on a later date. If I have the time I may add in a couple of individuals from the source you cited. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Mother Jones and ISIS

An IP has added a bunch of white supremacists and ISIS. ISIS is sourced to Foreign Affairs and Business Insider who report:" It's unclear whether ISIS leadership openly advocates for a Trump presidency. Experts have expressed skepticism about this and noted that the group seems to talk about President Barack Obama more often than they talk about Trump." The white nationalists are sourced to Mother Jones, a left leaning publication which probably isn't reliable in this case. Should these be removed?LM2000 (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think the Mother Jones source is potentially reliable, but it doesn't support most of these edits. Just because the leader or former leader of a certain organization supports a candidate does not mean that the organization does. agtx 19:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the ISIS material, based on your comments, and added a host of other sources supporting the well-known and obvious facts that Trump is endorsed by every white "nationalist" organization in the country. Who exactly do you think they're voting for, Jill Stein? This is really a childish complaint, and these endorsements are as well sourced as any other on the page. The only difference is that Trump's supporters don't want them here, and are trying to censor encylopedic knowledge to suit their personal preferences. I vehemently oppose that. 24.47.198.191 (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have some sort of ideological agenda. Your description of these "endorsements" as "well-known and obvious facts" very clearly reveal that. As I've stated before, members or leaders of an organization endorsing a candidate does not equate to the organization itself endorsing one. Your comment regarding who they will be voting for is irrelevant and purely speculation, as even if they professed their intent to vote for Trump, it should not be ruled an endorsement. Marcus.savage.0 (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

TO AGTX, please read the source material more carefully. If you did, and were as punctilious about your reading of sources as about your interpretation of the rules, you'd see that not only the former leader endorses, but so does the current. You are really splitting hairs here. There are dozens of sources where the KKK indicates its support. By your view, we'd have to delete every organization on this list because only "individuals" act, not groups. This is not the place for a debate on methodological individualism in the social sciences; the Klan has clearly enough endorsed Trump according to a number of relaible sources, which is the barometer we go by here, not by empty legalisms meant to purge the encylopedia from well-sourced, well established information of value not only for voters but for future readers, simply because some of our editors "don't like it." Since you care so much about policy, please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or whatever it's called. Cheers.24.47.198.191 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The personal attacks are not necessary. I am, for the record, so far from being a supporter of Donald Trump that it would make your head spin. However, there are some problems with your edits, which I'm happy to discuss with you in a civil manner. To start, it is difficult to say that the "KKK" exists as a national organization in 2016. To say that the "KKK" supports something—without a source that specifically says that—is problematic. The edits you're making also have a WP:SYNTH problem, in that you are synthesizing information from various sources to support a conclusion. That's not how it works on here. As far as individuals and groups are concerned, they act differently all the time. To take an obvious example, just because Donald Trump takes a certain position does not mean that the GOP also necessarily takes that position (which I'm sure Paul Ryan is thankful for). That's why when we say that a group takes a position, we need a source that says that the group took the position, not an individual who may or may not be speaking on behalf of that group. agtx 20:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I think that these white supremacist organizations probably do (or would) support Trump, but that doesn't mean we can say it on Wikipedia without sources that actually state the facts you're trying to add. Simply hinting at or implying the facts is, as I said above, not enough. agtx 20:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have an ideological agenda in that I do not think that Donald Trump's Hitlerian coalition of klansmen, racists, white supremacists neo-nazis, foreign dictators, tyrants, coal barons, oligarchs, despots, autocrats, goose-steppers, fascists, white nationalists, despots, anti-democrats, anti-semites, authoritarians, high-school dropouts, oil tycoons, military juntas, troglodytes, neanderthals, fawning sycophants, nativists, xenophobes, homophobes, boot-lickers et. al should be allowed to destroy public knowledge of the well-known facts reported in every paper in this country that Trump has been endorsed by nearly every white supremacist organization and every reigning blood-stained, iron-fisted ruler in the world today. This is not the time or place for ontological questions about whether the KKK "exists"; newspapers are reporting that the KKK, its present leaders, and its former leaders and every similar organization in the known universe have told their followers that "voting against Trump would be treason to your white heritage" "volunteeer for Trump today", "he is one of us", "he is the great white hope" etc ad infinitum. The attempts to conceal these plain facts are a pathetic abdication of your responsibilities as an encylopedist, a collector of knowledge. . 24.47.198.191 (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this post is clear enough evidence that any content you submit shouldn't be taken seriously. Marcus.savage.0 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• The IP as well as the IP in this discussion are likely socks of Kingshowman.- MrX 20:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MrX. Disengaging. agtx 20:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Que? Whoever this "King" is of whom you speak, he sounds quite noble. 24.47.198.191 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

In any event, whoever he may be, and whoever I may be, I must humbly request that everyone obey the First Rule of Wikipedia: Comment on Content, not Contributors. See that you do. 24.47.198.191 (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't mean others can't post their suspicions that you are a sock, as long as they are able to support said suspicions. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it appropriate at this point to remove the various white nationalist organizations he listed as endorsers, as they each come from the same set of sources? I've already made clear my reasons as to why I don't think these should be listed. Marcus.savage.0 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@24.47.198.191: There's that sense of humor that we've so come to expect from you. XD - MrX 20:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes Marcus, these have been added and removed repeatedly even before this episode. The load of sources are signs of WP:SYN, as agt said earlier, just because some members of a group have supported Trump doesn't mean an entire organization officially endorsed him. These will have to get consensus before they're returned to the article.LM2000 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2016

The "Tila Tequila" endorsement under "Media personalities and socialites" should be removed because its source is an unrelated article in which she talks about Hitler and Nazi Germany, not Donald Trump. Thank you. Lucky4242 (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Mlpearc (open channel) 22:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2016 - I want to add to newspapers

* ''[[New York Observer]]''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://observer.com/2016/04/in-the-republican-primary-donald-trump-for-president/|title=In the Republican Primary: Donald Trump for President |work=[[New York Observer]] |accessdate=September 24, 2016}}</ref>

* ''[[New York Post]]''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nypost.com/2016/04/14/the-post-endorses-donald-trump/|title=The Post endorses Donald Trump |work=[[New York Post]]|accessdate=September 24, 2016}}</ref>

Obama moma (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as explained above these are for the Republican nomination not the Presidential election - Arjayay (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Exclusion of citation by Trump of endorsement: Disagree

It may take a small addition to the introductory sentence -- "... and citation by the candidate and campaign of the endorsements" (which fits well with all the citations of the endorsements here) -- but I disagree with the exclusion from this article of the citation of the NICES endorsement by the candidate. The citation in the debate is related, in every aspect of its existence, to this article. It's why endorsements are tracked and listed. The endorsement -- including the mistake the candidate made: 'ICE' not 'NICES' -- has received the attention he gave it in a major national forum. I've considered as an alternative, since the exclusion, starting a separate section in this article or in the debate article but think, ultimately, that my original edit was the most efficient and appropriate place for it in the encyclopedia. It's part of the 'life' of the one endorsement. Swliv (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2016

Vladimir Putin should be on this endorsement list: https://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/putin-endorses-donald-trump-for-president 67.161.114.58 (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done, see Talk:List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016/Archive 1#Putin.LM2000 (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Low bar for Endorsements

I note that my inclusion of Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin as endorsers has been removed. At the same time Paul Ryan has not indicated that he endorses Trump, merely that he will vote for him. What exactly is the criteria here? Jp421 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, 2 minutes for my update to be removed, but an hour and a half for nobody to answer this question. This leads me to believe that this is an intensely political page, where Trump moderators remove anything that does not support their story line. This brooks investigation. Jp421 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Of the first 14 references to Endorsers, I find only one (Johnson, the 14th) who uses the term "Endorse", the rest say they will support or vote for him, many leave themselves wiggle room according to the references. Let's have a look at the International "endorsers", which is where my beef lies. Jp421 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

See this discussion from the Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 article. The consensus there was to not list Putin because praise doesn't equal an endorsement. North Korean media, not Kim Jong Un, has praised Trump, we cannot list him unless he actually offers an endorsement.LM2000 (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I will note that this same criteria is not applied to all comers. If it were, the list would shrink by half. Jp421 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably. Two users in the thread I linked above said "You have to outright say you support them and would like for them, and them only, to win". Maybe that's a low bar and up to interpretation. Rudy Giuliani said he would vote for Trump and he got added to this list. Then Rudy said that while he would vote for him he would not endorse, so we removed him. When he was pushed in an interview, he finally endorsed, so we listed him again. Had he never said his vote didn't count as an endorsement he probably wouldn't have been removed in the first place. Some media outlets has claimed repeatedly that David Duke endorsed Trump when he praised him, even though Duke himself has repeatedly claimed that he has not. It seems that everyone has a different opinion on what an endorsement actually is. Best to just go by WP:BRD. If someone disputes an inclusion then we can argue its merits on the talk page.LM2000 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Saying that you would like them and only them to win is your definition of endorsement, LM2000. Dictionaries all agree the definition is: : to publicly or officially say that you support or approve of (someone or something). Impy2101 (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not my definition, it's just something that seemed like a makeshift consensus in the thread I linked to.LM2000 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Senator Ron Johnson's definition of an endorsement is sure to cause trouble here.[6]LM2000 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

While Ice Cube said positive things about Trump in an interview, he is not listed as endorsing him anywhere that I can find - is there any actual evidence for a Cube endorsement? 96.246.248.73 (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding international endorsements, I notice the DPRK Today endorsement was removed. It read, in part, "The president that U.S. citizens must vote for is not that dull Hillary -- who claimed to adapt the Iranian model to resolve nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula -- but Trump, who spoke of holding direct conversation with North Korea," - but it was removed as "praise" not "endorsement." I think it is clearly an endorsement, and relevant. I won't get into an edit war, but I think the edit should should be reinstated. 63.231.237.45 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The article claimed as a reference for an endorsement by the Polish American Congress does not include an endorsement of Trump, and in fact this article says: In an email statement sent to Radio Poland, the Polish American Congress said: "The Polish American Congress does not endorse/oppose candidates for elected offices." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.158.184 (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources list that Rocky Suhayada, head of the American Nazi Party, is supporting Trump. Weather it is repudiated or not this is newsworthy. Instead my line was delete. Why?Muckinello (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary list vs Trump list

It appears that Hillary's list includes newspaper endorsements for both primary and general elections but this one contains just general. Shouldn't both lists have same standards?BillVol (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's is also supposed to be general elections only, according to the note that's there now. If any of the ones listed are primary instead of general, then feel free to remove them from that page. Weaselfie (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Need to correct Scott Adam's note.

The list says that Scott Adams endorsed Trump. He did not - he DID predict a Trump victory. If you look at Scott Adam's Wiki page it says he endorsed Clinton in JUne 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.169.173 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Asterisks

I've converted the asterisk (*) notation to proper endnotes. Use {{efn|name=a}} to link entries to the explanation in the Notes section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop adding Primary newspaper endorsements to this page

I've had to delete the New York Post and New York Observer endorsements 3 times; they are clearly endorsements for the Republican primary, not for the general election. How can we stop these from being added? Since this section changes relatively slowly (at least for now), can all such edits be approved by an editor? Erniecohen (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like someone added Santa Barbara News-Press back on — which as Ernie said, only endorsed Trump in the primary.216.250.232.21 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

New York Post and New York Observer were added again, so I removed them. Santa Barbara endorsement appears to be for president / the general, so I left it there. Weaselfie (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It still looks like the News-Times only endorsed Donald Trump in the primaries—the only endorsement on their site is dated June 2, and any articles in Politico, etc. link back to that same June 2 endorsement. Even the SFGate article linked to doesn't provide anything showing that they endorsed him in the general, and it also says that the National Enquirer, New York Observer, and New York Post also endorsed him, which implies that they used this very Wikipedia list in its research. I say it shouldn't count.Butterboy (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Again, the primary endorsements masquerading as general endorsements are back, with additional footnotes mentioning that Trump was the presumptive nominee at the time. This is complete nonsense. Can an editor please do something about this? I suggest just locking changes to this section, and requiring that any change be reflected with a corresponding change to the wikipedia article on 2016 presidential election newspaper endorsements, which will also keep the pages in sync. Erniecohen (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, as evidence that the Santa Barbara endorsements were for the primary, the cited page also endorses Tom Del Beccaro, who lost in the primary. Erniecohen (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Santa Barbara News-Press endorsement was made after Trump became the presumptive nominee. Also, the source was published on September 26, long after the end of the primary. Also, the source for the Santa Barbara News-Press treats it like a general election endorsement, and it also mentions the National Enquirer, New York Observer, and the New York Post, appearing to also treat them like general election endorsements. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Santa Barbara News-Press endorsement is dated June 7, the day of the California Republican Primary. It also endorsed Del Beccaro, who is not even running in the general election, and so cannot be presumed to constitute endorsement for the general election. What was published on September 26 was an SFGate article that claims these other endorsements for Trump, but given that the SFGate list happens to coincide precisely with what was on the Wikipedia list at the time, and given that the New York Post and New York Observer endorsements were very plainly written to indicate that they constituted primary endorsements only, it's almost certain that the list of endorsements was simply copied this information from this wikipedia page. Erniecohen (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

In the case of the National Enquirer, which doesn't really play by the usual rules of newspaper endorsements, I don't think the footnote indicating that Trump was the presumptive nominee is necessary; their editorial was entitled something like "Why Trump Must Be President".Erniecohen (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I nominate replacing the list of newspaper endorsements with a pointer to the wikipedia page Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016, to eliminate what will be a barage of synchronization issues.Erniecohen (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Zhirinovsky

I would strongly support removing him from the list of politicians endorsing Trump. Upon closer scrutiny, this source presented [7] (is it even WP:RS?) does not support this inclusion.--Paul Keller (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

All of the sources should be reviewed. For example, the source supporting a Scott Garrett endorsement does not at all mention an endorsement, only that they are appearing on the same party slate. Brianga (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Scott Garrett there in the list or absent from there doesn't make any harm - seeing Zhrinovsky with his picture though can be very unsettling. Which is the likely reason he was re-added.--Paul Keller (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I quickly checked, and for example, according to this source, "Nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky and pop singer Philipp Kirkorov have also endorsed Trump in Russian media interviews". My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• However, I think it is indeed very strange that endorsement by Zhirinovsky was included, but endorsement by Putin was not. There are many sources like that one. My very best wishes (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a source! Thank you MVBW! Is there more relevant to follow to "Donald Trump’s presidential bid can count on 'at least some backing from Moscow."??? The problem is, I'm in the habit of not liking to waste my remaing time in case of cartel media, should the intro be completely uninteresting. Paul Keller (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lokalkosmopolit/Archive. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

Jeff Fortenberry is listed as being from Nevada in the list of redacted endorsements, he is from Nebraska.

TheDoctor- (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikinews?

Isn't this more news than something Encyclopedic? Maybe transwiki this to Wikinews and delete here? Michael Ten (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Who has endorsed (or retracted their endorsement) a political candidate is of encyclopedic interest, not only to us, but to future readers. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is something that is of extreme importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hatch Act Forbids Certain Endorsements

The Categories as they now exit highly suggest that current official governmental officials and/or their offices endorse the candidate.

"The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of individuals principally employed by state or local executive agencies who work in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants." From: Political Activity and the State and Local Employee, prepared by U. S. Office of Special Counsel, December 2005 See: https://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/tb/hatch_act.pdf

With the exception of "Retired US military personnel," some entries in categories and subcategories do not consistently identify the individuals as former officials. A more accurate Category heading would be, for example: 1.1 Former U.S. federal government officials 1.1.3 Former Independent agencies and commissions

Subcategory "1.1.1 Former Vice Presidents and other federal Cabinet-level officials does identify the former status, whereas "1.1.2 Federal departmental officials" does not. Inconsistency throughout the article contributes to confusion and inaccuracy.

With certain exceptions, the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.A. 7324 see: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2010-title5/USCODE-2010-title5-partIII-subpartF-chap73-subchapIII-sec7324) (see also:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939) forbids such political activity by certain Federal and State Officials and Federal Employees. To be more accurately reflective, at a minimum, the Federal Categories should be entitled and headed as "Former."

In 1940, the law was expanded to cover state and local employees whose salaries are paid, in part, by federal funds or whose duties are connected to federally funded activities. See: https://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/committees/CL121000pub/newsletter/200911/knapp.pdf

See also: Political Activity and The Hatch Act, Department of Defense, Standards of Conduct Office http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/defense_ethics/resource_library/deskbook/hatch_act_ppt.pdf

M.B.D. (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I concur with this in fullTheoallen1 (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Retracted endorsements and statistics

The presentation of retracted endorsements is confusing, partly because the prior endorsement is removed rather than flagged. Better to leave the original endorsement in place with a link to the later retraction.

However, it's generally really hard to get a clear idea of what is going on because there is no easy way to see how it relates to time. Statistics for retractions over time seem really important. (The other endorsement pages need some statistics, too.) Shanen (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Kelly Ayotte – In response to this edit and again this one (which didn't offer any rationale for the change), Kelly Ayotte should not be included as a retracted endorsement since an endorsement was never given to begin with to be retracted. There's a precedent that a statement of intent to vote for a candidate is not the same as an endorsement (e.g. George H.W. Bush's intended vote but non-endorsement of Hillary Clinton), something Ayotte made clear on Aug. 17: "There's actually a big distinction: Everyone gets a vote, I do too .. And an endorsement is when you are campaigning with someone .. While he has my vote he doesn't have my endorsement".--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

"an endorsement is when you are campaigning with someone"

Hulk Hogan endorsed Trump, yet I don't see him on the campaign trail stumping for Trump. An endorsement is inherently a declaration of who you're voting for. Ayotte stated she was voting for Trump. Ergo it's counted as endorsing her party's candidate. Rusted AutoParts 03:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan has been vocal of his support for Trump on social media even declaring he wanted to be his running mate, his campaigning in a sense, which doesn't necessarily mean going on the campaign trail and attending rallies. An endorsement in the most basic sense is a statement of a desire to see the candidate holding office and their politics in an effort to encourage others to do the same, and the fact that the subject very clearly stated her intent to vote wasn't an endorsement is the basis of why it shouldn't be included. Statements like "Candidate X is bad but Candidate Y is worse, so I guess I have to vote for Candidate X" are statements of intent to vote but certainly not clear-throated endorsements. Like I stated above, George H.W. Bush stated his intent to vote for Hillary Clinton but no reliable source has referred to that as an endorsement.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Because Bush himself never officially said anything, it was someone saying he told them. Then his spokesperson denied/not fully confirm the endorsement, rendering it dubious, so it's ineligible for addition. And armchair support doesn't mean too much. John McCain very begrudgingly endorsed Trump, but didn't do a lot to aid his campaign. Same can be said for Paul Ryan. So it's doesn't really matter how the person words it. If they state they intend to vote for Trump, then it's inherently endorsing and can be included. But it doesn't matter as much as Ayotte is no longer voting for Trump. She's redacted her intent. Rusted AutoParts 04:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, voting and endorsing are not interchangeable terms, the key difference being an endorsement is public support of a candidate and their politics, a vote is support (however tepidly) in the privacy of a voting booth. Other than answering the question of who she intends to vote for she never offered any public support, and clearly stated she wasn't making an endorsement. McCain and Ryan didn't do a lot (being the key word) but they did offer clear unambiguous endorsements.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

And most reliable sources also echo the fact that she was not making an endorsement [8][9][10], claiming that she did delves into the reaches of original research.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Shanen: my view is we should remove the endorsement from the main section and put the retracted endorsements in the new section. – S. Rich (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The difference between Kelly Ayotte, John McCain, and Paul Ryan is as follows. Kelly Ayotte announced her vote, but not support, and then announced support for Trump. While voting for Trump is prima facta evidence of endorsement, it is not absolute, so she is not listed on this page. Instead, on the other page, Ayotte is listed as (withdrew intended vote). John McCain retracted his endorsement, so the standard usage applies. Paul Ryan has not, so on this page, he is still listed as a Trump supporter. I am not sure about the other page, however.Theoallen1 (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer that the retractions be put in the main section but that we explicitly note retractions in the following manner: (Retracted on [October 8]).Theoallen1 (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I moved Wayne Grudem to the retracted list but it was reverted, despite WSJ coverage. Is there a different standard of notability for being listed as retracted than for being listed in the first place? Morganaticity (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I would request that Lisa Murkowski be removed from the 'retracted endorsement' section, as her condemnation of him this weekend is her first official position. In interviews (e.g. https://www.adn.com/politics/2016/10/08/u-s-sen-lisa-murkowski-in-interview-said-decision-on-trump-was-instantaneous-after-seeing-video/) she explicitly notes that she never endorsed him. Whilst she belongs on the page of Republicans who have criticised/condemned Trump, placing her in 'withdrawn endorsements' wrongly implies that she ever endorsed him. 82.33.230.34 (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. The subject clearly stating they're not making/never made an endorsement is an instant disqualification for either category.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The standard for un endorsement is two parts. First, there must be an endorsement (which must be directed towards Trump). Second, there must be a retraction. For example, although Paul Ryan did state he would not support the nominee, he has not un-endorsed Trump. The same standard exists on the other page as to whether to say "withdrew endorsement". When a person un endorses Trump, they are moved to the category retracted endorsement, and not deleted outright. However, someone who never endorsed Donald Trump would not be listed on this page.Theoallen1 (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-endorsements, revisited

Above, the subject of non-endorsements was discussed, but no action was taken. It needs to be revisited. Omitting non-endorsements entirely - especially those of past Republican presidents - fails to portray the topic accurately and fully, and borders on a violation of WP:NPOV. It would be like, I don't know, having an article listing the health benefits of sugar without anywhere mentioning the countervailing views. Any other thoughts? Brianga (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right. This is the page to summarize publicly expressed views by notable people and organizations. These views could be more or less positive/negative - it does not really matter. According to this, for example, The Atlantic "has made only two presidential endorsements in its 159-year history: one for Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and one for Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. The third comes Wednesday afternoon, when the magazine posted an editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton for president and dismissing Donald J. Trump as “the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.”". Is that relevant to the subject of the page? Yes, certainly. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Brianga: @My very best wishes: Agreed. Explicit disendorsements of a candidate (from within a party) as dangerous or unqualified seem rarer than endorsements; a first in the era of party conventions. I wiki'ed those who made explicit disendorsements as of late August, though there have been more since. Could someone with experience in political articles suggest how to summarize or include that? Morganaticity (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

We are actually adjusting these endorsements. It may be appropriate to create a new article for endoresments after the video came out on October 7.Theoallen1 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent letters of disendorsement: 13 former GOP federal officials, and 10 former nuclear launch officers. Morganaticity (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thune

Not sure how we should handle this apparent retraction of a retraction. If you call for him to drop out then say you're still voting for him, does your endorsement retraction stand? JFH (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Similar statements can be googled for Fisher, Byrne, and Garrett. --JFH (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Good question. Definitely not an endorsement; but does it count as a retracted endorsement? For now, I've commented those four out, leaving them off both lists. Morganaticity (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

If someone says this, this should be treated as if they are still endorsing Trump and not be placed in the retraction comment. However, leave all sources in place for the retractions and the re-endorsement.Theoallen1 (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Rosss Cameron

Australian politician turned commentator Ross Cameron is a Trump supporter (including after the Billy Bush controversey) [11] [12] [13] however I'm not sure to which category he fits. He is a former Minister in the federal Australian parliament (not party leader), but now a commentator (and one time co-host) for Sky News Australia. Does he belong in the international politicians section or the media/celebrity section? I'll leave it to an editor with more experience with this article to add him here. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2016

The Waxahachie Daily Light has endorsed Donald Trump. (http://www.waxahachietx.com/news/20161017/wdl-trump-for-potus). This should be added to the section listing newspaper endorsements.

Jonmaustin (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The Waxahachie Daily Light does not seem notable enough to be included in this list. Yes, they have endorsed Trump but seeing as they do not even have their own article already, WP:NN. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 16:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)