Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

"Criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."

The lede currently states: "...and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.'". The actual quote from Trump in the source(s) is: "They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”

The statement in the lede was originally inserted with the qualifier "predominantly". My concern with this qualifier is that according to a dictionary, "predominantly" means "mainly" or "mostly", which I think overstates his reference to "many". I removed "predominantly", which had the effect of implying that he was referring to all illegal immigrants from Mexico (which I think is even less accurate). This was my attempt to make the statement closer to Trump's actual quote (which uses the qualifier "many"). However that has been reverted.

I believe the current version in the article is inaccurate and contentious. I'm requesting further discussion on this.CFredkin (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Cherry picking. I falsely "corrected" it but had to reverse myself after checking the sources.--TMCk (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, we use what he said in June, not later in July.--TMCk (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not following your statements. Can you elaborate?CFredkin (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

See my edit summary here.--TMCk (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the actual initial quote:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
--TMCk (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm good with the version currently posted.CFredkin (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess not b/c I made another mistake. Corrected now.--TMCk (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that you're back to reverting my edit, the current version matches his June statement (which you posted above) even less.CFredkin (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

How about you propose a version you'd accept (and is not based on Trumps later comments but the critic he received)?--TMCk (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually I'm not convinced we should include a quote at all. I also don't agree with the notion that we must use the earlier quote. However, if we're going to include a quote, it must accurately reflect Trump's actual statement.CFredkin (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, you posted Trump's quote from June above. Here's his quote from July, which the content currently in the article is based on:
“What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”
CFredkin (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

And here is my existing proposed version:
"...and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as, in many cases, being 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.'"
CFredkin (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's another proposal which matches Trump's quote even more closely:
"...and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as being 'in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.'”
CFredkin (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. As explained, you cannot pick a quote from weeks later after "the damage" was done, responded to and characterized. As for the quote, it's actually not "his quote" and we can remove the quotation marks as to not mislead. (add) And remove the "etc.".--TMCk (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't pick the quote.CFredkin (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

4 Reliably Sourced Proposals for New Sections for Article that the Article misses

Hidden material from a blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive

1) US Chamber of commerce claims Trump election would cost U.S. 3.5 million jobs due to tarriffs, trade wars http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/business/us-chamber-of-commerce-donald-trump.html?ribbon-ad-idx=2&rref=business&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Business%20Day&pgtype=article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.203.237 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 2) Trump's Alma Matter, Wharton College takes unprecedented step of condemnation of alumnus http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/us/politics/wharton-donald-trump.html?_r=0 Also, make sure the article reflects that Trump attended Wharton as an undergraduate only, and that Trump has no graduate education, unlike all prior presidents (hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.203.237 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 3) Supreme Court Justice condemns Trump, plans to flee country and claim political asylum in New Zealand http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.203.237 (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 4) Trump's Climate Change Denialism (this is the most embarassing omission from the article presently I would say) According to widely reported and discussed public comments by candidate Trump, climate change is a "chinese hoax." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/science/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy-kevin-cramer.html http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/22/this-is-the-only-type-of-climate-change-donald-trump-believes-in/ http://fpif.org/trumps-climate-change-denial-already-complicating-paris-climate-deal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.203.237 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 1-3, Strong Oppose not related to Trump's campaign, tangential at best. Inclusion of such is a WP:COATRACK. 4, meh, although something tells me there is more to what he has said than just this one quote. Interesting that this proposal is coming from an anonymous IP address. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC) In what way is it "tangential" that the US chamber of commerce has analyzed Trump's trade proposals and have released public statements during Trump's campaign that these policies would lead to 3.5 million Americans losing their jobs? In what way is that a "coatrack"? And if you had actually read the sources on 4, you would see that Trump has been "extremely consistent" on his denial of the reality of climate change, according to no less than the NY Times. Practically every time that it snowed last winter, there was a Trump tweet to the effect of "How can climate change be real if it is snowing?'" What is in fact tangenitial and completely irrelevant here are your comments on my use of an ip address, as if my contributions are less worthy than yours because you signed up for an account (I advise that you comment on the content, not the contributor) and your unsupported (and demonstrably false) hunch that "something tells me there is more to what he has said than this one quote." On the contrary, there is not just "one quote" but dozens of similar quotes to the one which politifact verified. This is arguably the issue that Trump has flip flopped on least during the course of his campaign-- Trump has waffled even upon his notorious signature proposals to ban the practice of Islam and deport Hispanics back to their home countries en masse, but on his denial of the reality of climate change ("I think there's weather) and opposition to a carbon tax Trump has been entirely unequivocal (this is the conclusion drawn by the NYTimes). He consistently claims that climate change is a Chinese invention "made by and for the Chinese to make American industry non-competitive". As for 2 and 3, I'll agree that these are not important enough to write a whole section on these topics, but I see no reason readers from the future might not want to know that candidate Trump was condemned by fellow alumni of his notable alma matter, nor that a sitting Supreme Court Justice suggested Trump was dangerous and she might leave the country were he to be elected. I see no reason adding a sentence reflecting the sources on these topics would be a "coatrack." It rather seems to me that you are merely objecting because of "I don't like it" and you don't really have any policy-based or content-based reasons for your opposition. In the future, please kindly refrain commenting if you are simply going to report your hunches without making any verifiable claims, cite irrelevant policies without explaining their relevance to the material at hand, and try to smear my helpful suggestions via innuendo about my posting from an IP address, which as you know, is perfectly kosher. Finally, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but "Meh" does not constitute an argument. Have a wonderful day.47.16.203.237 (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC) By "Meh" I meant that I did not view it as contentious as the other proposed edits, and was not voting one way or the other. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands

Are there any editors who are interested in helping to expand the Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Text for Lead

(Redacted) comments by blocked user per WP:EVADE.

Can we go ahead and strike this as WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POV? DaltonCastle (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

PAC

Closing this discussion which has gotten personal; let's start over and stick to discussing article content.

User:Rockypedia So you agree that this edit doesn't belong in the Stop Trump section, but you restore it there anyway. What's the rationale for that?CFredkin (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Stop cherry-picking words. I said it belongs in the article, and it could be moved from the Stop Trump section. To expand on my opinion, I'll say this: we'd need consensus that the Stop Trump section should only include info about conservative groups. I don't know that that's the case, nor do I see evidence that the Tiny Hands PAC is not a conservative group (they claim to be, at the very least, bipartisan). All of this ignores the bigger picture about CFredkin (talk) that I feel should be addressed. Any editor that takes a look at his edit history can see he's devoted to removing any information about Trump that he sees as negative. There's no attempt to create an encyclopedia in his edit history, only a constant push of a particular POV. I'd also call attention to his talk page history; there's voluminous deletions of other editors calling him out for edit warring in that history. I do believe he should be at least temporarily banned from editing Trump material. Rockypedia (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC) I understand you're frustrated that I'm impeding your relentless drive to add negative POV content to this article. However that doesn't excuse your bad faith claim that the PAC should be included in the Stop Trump section. The Stop Trump section is a conservative movement and is a sub-section of the Conservative Movement in the article. The PAC is focused on trolling Trump with a call for him to release his hand measurements. That's not a serious organization and it's certainly not conservative. Also your suggestion that content should be included under the conservative movement section unless proven that they aren't conservative is preposterous.CFredkin (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Your contention that the PAC is not serious is a blatant lie. They registered with the FEC, they've paid for and aired commercials on TV, and they've received significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Your attempt to dismiss that sourced info is a poor attempt to hide your own edit history, in which you only erase anything you consider negative about Trump and anything or anyone related to his campaign. You're not here to build an encyclopedia and that's obvious to anyone that looks at your edit history. It's disgraceful and it flies in the face of what this website is for. Keep it up and I'll make it my mission to ensure you're blocked from editing any topic related to Trump and his campaign. Rockypedia (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC) That cuts both ways. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Does it? I originally got involved with this editor strictly because I noticed his edits were all removing material from this page, and all the passages being removed were passages that could be construed as negative, if one happened to be a Trump supporter. I'm personally against white-washing on Wikipedia, regardless of whose negative info is being removed. Furthermore, restoring deleted info on political pages is far from being the only thing I do here. If you're trying to hint otherwise, I suggest you back up your cryptic comment by stating how much of my editing on Wikipedia has to do with Donald Trump, and how much of it is in other topics. My edit history is available for anyone to look at, as you know. I'll proudly put it up as neutral when compared to CFredkin (talk) anytime. Rockypedia (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC) You got involved with this editor by blatantly ignoring policy and restoring your POV content in excess of the 1rr rule in effect on this page. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid to be used to attack political candidates because you happen not to like them.CFredkin (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Rockypedia, please leave personalities out of it and stick to discussion about improving the article. What do you want added? What do you want deleted? What justifies your position? That's what this talk page is for. If you have a problem with another editor, either keep it to yourself, or take it to an appropriate forum - if you think your case is strong enough to avoid a backlash. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC) MelanieN (talk), I refuse to let lies posted by CFredkin (talk) on this talk page that attack my character simply stand without response. To wit: he accuses me above of "blatantly ignoring policy and restoring your POV content in excess of the 1rr rule in effect on this page" - but then as "proof", he links to a spurious action that he himself created, and then HE HIMSELF WITHDREW after it became apparent that he was simply slinging mud in the hope that the mere appearance of impropriety would further advance his agenda! If your warnings are good enough for me, why is he allowed to continue to smear me on this talk page? Why is he still allowed to edit this article, given his obvious bias, and numerous edit warring violations? He contributes nothing. He creates nothing. He's only here to attempt to erase as much info on Donald Trump as possible that he construes as negative-leaning. It's obvious from his edit history. When you look at it, what conclusion do you draw from it? Rockypedia (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC) "why is he allowed to continue to smear me on this talk page?" If anyone is doing any smearing on this talk page, it's not CFredkin; it's you. It's true that CFredkin's edits all tend toward support of Trump and of Republicans generally; I have spoken to him about that myself, more than once (this is not new with him). But having a POV is not illegal if he follows Wikipedia policies, which he does: he respects consensus, he respects the 1RR rule, and he discusses additions, deletions, and changes on the talk page; in fact I would say he is much better about that than you are. I am warning you again to stop your starting-to-be-disruptive personal attacks on this talk page, and get back to discussing what should be in the article. I am going to hat this discussion before anyone gets into trouble, and let's start over with the discussion about the PAC. --MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

New Trump-Pence Logo

Would logo from website be okay to use in Wikipedia? Inspector Semenych (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure. It is on his official website. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that they quickly yanked that widely-ridiculed logo. Have they replaced it with another one? --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean the "copulating" one?--TMCk (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You said it; I didn't. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, I was "just saying", not saying it is so. It's just what I heard on the internet, you know? Don't distort my words... :)) --TMCk (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, well, if you heard it on the internet, that makes it true. We all know that. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. According to this reliable source, the logo was a one-night stand. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Lovely :) --TMCk (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Found a source.--TMCk (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, so that's what's in the infobox now, so we're good. Calling it a "logo" is a bit of a stretch, but I guess that's what it is. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump pseudonyms

Given the discussion above re: "John Miller", I figured I'd note the creation of the Donald Trump pseudonyms article. All are invited to help expand/improve. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Side bars

For some reason, User:FabulousFerd remove the sidebars template:Populism sidebar and template:US 2016 presidential elections series twice by now. The first time with as argument "remove excessive and unnecessary infoboxes in the lead". The second time with the comment "just the {{Trump Series}} sidebar is enough". In my opinion, both removed sidebars are relevant, so I challenge the removal. The Banner talk 21:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you decided to start a discussion here. Well, like I said, there were many sidebars and they were invading the body of the article. The template:US 2016 presidential elections series, for example, is only relevant when it is in the lead; but it was in the body of the article, in which case it should be related to the section it is in. I think they should be removed, but if anyone else thinks they should stay, then it's OK. FabulousFerd (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why it should be relevant to the section where it shows up? Can you imagine that the actual place where a sidebar shows up, varies with the size of a screen and the size of the text as chosen by a reader? The Banner talk 21:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

All sidebars to be restored in the lead, I say. We cannot delete relevant material, just because it 'invades the body of the article', as User:FabulousFerd has it. User:The Banner is correct in pointing out that readers should be able to manage the graphical rendering of the article by adjusting the size of their window and font. This should not be an issue for editors to consider. Gaeanautes (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Long list of sources

Reddit contributors have compiled this list of press coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This could be useful for editors, but keep in mind it's strongly weighted anti-Trump (remember WP:BLP still applies here), and some of the sources don't quite measure up to Wikipedia's quality standards. Bottom line: research carefully. FallingGravity (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Trade agreements

I'm not clear on which free trade agreements Trump opposes. A cursory glance at the article showed only:

1. a mention in a list in the lede
2. one sentence later on
3. a link to newspaper article

On the other hand, Trump is quoted as saying he's for "free trade". (It's not clear to me how he's using that phrase.)

Is Trump for higher or lower tariffs on imports, say, from Mexico? Is he definitely planning to take America out of NAFTA?

Or is it just "disadvantageous" deals he opposes? If so, what provisions would he drop or change? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, the phrasing is unclear. It implies that Trump opposes free trade when in fact he merely opposes some of the so-called free trade agreements although it is not clear which ones or what he would do about them. TFD (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not hard to tell which ones he opposes: a few weeks ago he compared the TPP to "the rape of our country" and called NAFTA “the worst trade deal in the history of the country”.[1] According to the same reference, he says he will either renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from it. He says he will withdraw from TPP, which has not yet been ratified. So that's clear. What isn't clear is in what possible sense he is for "free trade"; he talks more like a protectionist. I'd be OK with deleting that phrase. --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

They are not actually "free trade" agreements as the term is normally understood. TFD (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then is it okay if I delete the word free from free trade? I'd like to say that he opposes certain trade agreements. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources cited say free trade, I would stick with what the sources say. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, unc, this issue transcends a minor wording change. The broader question is what Trump's views are, on international trade. Is he for free trade, meaning unilaterally dropping all barriers to imports into the USA - even if other countries don't reciprocate? Is he for "fair trade" (however he defines that term), possible meaning he's for free trade in general - but not with countries that don't "play fair"?

Way too much to be settled by changing "free trade agreements" to "trade agreements", but it still needs to be addressed. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Rather obvious that he is against free trade as he has repeatedly stated that he would apply tariffs to companies that don't do what he wants. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Tweet

Why is there no mention of Trumps proclivity to "tweet". It is a major method of his personal response to the press that he choose to use on an almost daily basis. His use of Twitter is a groundbreaking tactic in the POTUS election cycle. If just for historic reasons it should be mentioned. Buster Seven Talk 13:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I can see the dozen or so mentions of twitter in the article and the "Twitter controversies" thread. But no mention of Trumps use of tweeting as an important way to communicate with his followers and detractors "in his own words". He is single-handedly creating a new way to electioneer. And what about the whole Kizhr Khan episode and Trumps twitter response. Doesn't that deserve mention? Buster Seven Talk 13:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Khan family mentioned  Done Buster Seven Talk 22:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr. & Mrs. Khan section

I have reduced this section for weight and neutrality and left essentially what was said by both men.[2]. The reader can draw their own conclusions. The editorial type comments from Politico/NPR, etc., create undue weight. This is to avoid someone later coming in and then adding supporting comments in favor of Trump, the subsequent slow edit wars that will occur despite the page restrictions, and all the other drama that entails. This is still about a living person at the end of the day, and WP:BLP guidelines still apply, no matter how emotional/controversial the political press makes this out to be. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Mostly legit, although the fact that the criticism came from "the whole political spectrum" needs to be mentioned as that's very significant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems best, given this is a BLP, to keep this between the two men. That's just going to invite more rebuttals and the section gets out of proportion. I've added Mr. Khan's statement on MTP when he was asked about Trump's subsequent written statements. here. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This is about his presidential campaign. The fact that he's being criticized by members of his own party is very very significant and notable. Since that can be well sourced, it's not a BLP issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Marek. It would be absurd (and, frankly, inexplicable) for us to omit the fact that he has been criticized by many prominent members of his own party. That's part of the necessary context. And I have no idea what bearing BLP has on this particular point. Neutrality^talk 05:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Then it will also necessarily have to include comments from those who disagree with Mr. Khan and are defending Mr. Trump. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you can find some that are not campaign surrogates and are not on the Trump bandwagon, it might be best to present them here before inclusion. Buster Seven Talk 06:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, nobody except cranks and paid staffers appears to be defending the remarks denigrating the Khan family. See WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE. Neutrality^talk 14:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's an article about the campaign, so his campaign spokesmen can certainly be quoted here. I don't see anything in WP:RS that says we can't use what Paul Manafort has said for Trump, or what Joel Berensen says for Hillary's side of things on this. That said, Buster Seven makes a good point. It would be best to write up something and present it here first for others to comment and contribute to. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I undid a portion of your edits, because some of the context is crucially important to the topic of this article - Trump's campaign.

In regards to User:Neutrality's comments, if surrogates or paid staffers statements' are covered in secondary sources, and this coverage is extensive enough, then we could possibly include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, Yes, I think so, too. And I think it would be appropriate to add an Obama quote on this. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, SW3 5DL, IMO the original version was much better. You now have a lot of quotes from the two men, but with no context to show why they matter or how big a deal this became. The national reaction is the story, even more than what they said. This was the original version, as written/modified by five editors. This is the version you replaced it with. Both have six sources, but their approach is very different. I invite others here to compare them and see which approach they prefer - for weight, NPOV, thoroughness, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I wasn't judging your edit in any way. I do think adding in what Mr. Khan and Mr. Trump said help clarify the situation as well as giving due weight to their words/positions. But it wasn't a criticism of your edit.SW3 5DL (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

SW# 5DL, you didn't just "add in what they said". You also totally removed any reference to the public reaction to what they said. The section is pointless without that context. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried to address that without completely reverting SW3 5DL's edits. Can you compare the present text (hopefully it won't get arbitrarily reverted in the next few minutes) with the original? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Looks good. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I am also good with this version. Nice merge of the two approaches. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Khan family

I've removed this section of the article until there's consensus on the language. I object to the recent removal of Trump's comment to the effect that Khan "looks like a nice guy". I also object to the 3rd para as undue.CFredkin (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Put it back please. This has received significant coverage since the Democratic Convention. Trump saying that Khan "looks like a nice guy" is trivial at best. What does it have to do with anything?

Nothing in those four paragraphs is WP:UNDUE given the extensive coverage of nearly every detail of this controversy. A little trimming for concision may be warranted though.- MrX 23:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's sort of laughable to claim undue weight in this setting. We're talking about a few paragraphs (out of a massive, sprawling article), about a heavily covered incident. I mean, are you asserting with a straight face that we should have extensive coverage of The_Donald subreddit (as we do now), but none of this incident and its fallout? I would strongly encourage you to restore coverage of this incident; if you feel the language can be improved, please do so, but to remove it entirely is inappropriate, and a continuation of previous inappropriately partisan and policy-defying behavior on your part. MastCell ^Talk 23:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Not including Trump's remarks mischaracterizes the tone of the interview. I'm not the only editor here who has argued in favor of its inclusion. And I actually think both the third and fourth paras are undue.CFredkin (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MrX and MastCell. If you feel like the wording can be improved, that's one thing. But to remove it entirely is not appropriate. You should self-revert. Neutrality^talk 23:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How about working toward a consensus on the wording?CFredkin (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@CFredkin: You can properly characterize the tone of the interview without quoting his unfiltered thoughts which frankly make him sound silly. - MrX 23:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I put it back. This is the sort of a revert that makes one question the WP:AGF guideline. It's obviously meant to be WP:POINTy and disruptive, and also it's an attempt to WP:GAME rules. Stuff like that will wind you at WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

But since we're here; as MastCell points out this article is pretty sprawling. Is this incident notable enough to have an article of its own? I'm sort of borderline on that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, VM, I was about to do the same. We have enough of a consensus here - in particular, you made a nice merge of the two approaches to the section, so that it now includes the extensive quotes from both men AND the section about the massive reaction to them which is what makes the story worth mentioning at all. CFredkin, your removal was inappropriate, because the paragraph has been extensively discussed here (a discussion in which you have not up to now taken part). And we have differed on how to approach the article, but the version you deleted nicely met the objections of most people and can be considered to have consensus. One person's objections do not void consensus. If you want changes in the section, please discuss them here. Personally I am fine with restoring the "nice guy" sentence and in fact I did restore it earlier when someone deleted it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I left in the 'nice guy' sentence. I didn't delete it. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it was before your version. (I was sure you would have included the "nice guy" quote in full.) I am going to re-add it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see the discussion in the section above, which I guess is my mistake. However the statement by Trump in the initial interview to the effect that Khan "seemed like a nice guy" completely changes the tone of the discussion. It doesn't support the narrative of attacks by Trump from the outset, which is I guess why it keeps getting pruned.CFredkin (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually I have re-arranged the sentences in the article so that they are in the order he said things: first "nice guy", then "she was silent", then "lots of sacrifices." --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This controversy is so widely covered that it obviously should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes., I agree. I went back and added in Trump's full quote in response to Stephanopoulos' question, "What have you sacrificed?" Having the full quote and the mention he made of his work on a Vietnam Veteran's memorial in Manhatten makes clear exactly what he said. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Support among Russian and Persian Jews

Where shall we add his support among Russian Jews and Persian Jews? Perhaps in the "Religious community" subsection?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That might belong to page Russian Americans if supported by reliable opinion polls. But this opinion is not really supported by anything. My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere. The first link is an anecdote about one "senior center in Brooklyn" and the second link is an opinion piece — i.e., not encyclopedic, as no real conclusion can be drawn. Neutrality^talk 14:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Neutrality. Not appropriate for this article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

President Obama calls Donald Trump "unfit to serve"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/president-obama-donald-trump.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&src=trending&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Trending&pgtype=article

Was he addressing the millions of unemployed Americans under his presidency?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, this is not useful. Objective3000 (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think he was addressing Republican members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Buster Seven Talk 13:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Buster is correct. But I don't see any place for it in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, agree. @Zigzig20s: this page is under ArbCom sanctions. That includes comments made on the talk page. I'm not judging, just FYI, but an Arb might see that question as not helpful. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"Fitness of Presidency" in Controversies section?

With the extraordinary declarations of unfitness for the presidency by Obama [3][4] and by Romney [5], we really should have a section on this controversy. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was just reading about Obama's comments. But controversy sections are dodgy in BLP's. Obama and Romney are politically motivated. This might just be another variation of #NeverTrump. Added: I've since read more of what Obama has said. I think a comment by a sitting U.S. President is relevant here. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't. In this case the president is speaking as a partisan. His comments may well be taken more seriously than those of other partisans, but still I don't find much place in this article for arguments from supporters of his opponent. It might be more relevant to have a paragraph about people from his own party who have questioned his fitness for the presidency, but those are mostly in the past and are all pure opinion anyhow. Unless it becomes a bigger story in the future, for example with supporters withdrawing their support because of this issue, I don't think we should include it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If we were to include the quote in an article somewhere, people may see that and add many, many others to it. So now I'm going to say no to the inclusion of the quote, unless notable consequences happen because of it. Plankton55 (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Notable Consequence #1...Rep.Hanna (NY) declares his support for Hillary Clinton. Buster Seven Talk 16:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Notable consequence #2: Meg Whitman, Republican fundraiser and former Republican candidate for governor of California, says she will support Clinton because Trump is a "dishonest demagogue" and a "threat to democracy". --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Somebody added a lengthy quote of Obama's comments to the Donald Trump article. I removed it. IMO if this material is to be included anywhere, it should be here at the campaign article, not in Trump's biography. Above I said it should not be included, but I see that Reliable Sources are describing Obama's call for Republicans to withdraw their support, and his description of Trump as unfit for the presidency, as "highly unusual and almost unprecedented"[6] so maybe this is a bigger deal than I thought. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely it should be added here. I don't think it needs to be lengthy, but definitely clearly state what Obama said. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have consensus here to add something, but there have been so many other threads (welcome to the 2016 presidential campaign) that it's kind of gotten lost. I will post some proposed wording in a new section. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Notable consequence #3: Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#The list Down-ballot candidates begin to respond and take action. Buster Seven Talk 14:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

A reliable source?

As Donald Trump Incites Feuds, Other G.O.P. Candidates Flee His Shadow. Candidates going their seperate ways. Now there's a story that needs to be told. Does it fit any of the threads that already exist or should a new one be created?. Buster Seven Talk 21:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It sounds biased to me. It sounds like a talking point from the DNC, to distract us from their problem with the Bernie Bros after their convention...Zigzig20s (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a perfectly reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

How about this one. Buster Seven Talk 23:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As is this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a story to be told here, but this isn't it. This kind of analysis, which a lot of the media is doing this week, is likely to be overturned next week when the polls shift as they always do this time of year. But I do think we may want to find some way to list (facts, not analysis) the growing number of congresspeople who say they do not plan to vote for Trump. (Three Four so far by my count: Richard Hanna, Charlie Dent, Scott Rigell, and Adam Kinzinger.) This is unusual for a presidential election. I'm not aware of any such list of defectors on the Democratic side, or on either side in previous presidential elections. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely get the list going - in the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it looks like the DNC is trying to drive a wedge where there isn't one. By the way, Trump just posted a picture he took with Reince Priebus today. They're united. There's no discord.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a moment ago you seemed quite particular about ensuring the reliability of sources, but now we're supposed to accept your assertion that a photo that Trump took with Reince Preibus is a reliable source of evidence that there is no discord within the Republican Party? It must be quite a feat to reconcile those two views. How do you do it? Graham (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that the United States' newspaper of record doesn't qualify as a reliable source? Graham (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources are obviously reliable (WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument). The only question is whether this meets WP:DUE. Because this is fairly unprecedented it should be mentioned - albeit briefly - in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is significant that the GOP has not fully united behind Trump. Obviously someone who runs against the GOP establishment will alienate some of them. TFD (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's undue. Four attention-seeking congresspeople as opposed to millions of Republican voters and the rest of the party. Ridiculous.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The millions of republican voters are not running for office, 24 candidates in the Senate and 435 in the house are. That reduces the ratio just a bit. Under 1% but it might grow in the next 90 days. Let's see what happens. Buster Seven Talk 02:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

And it's unprecedented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Politico "Insiders to Trump: Drop out". We should be ready for this, though the majority of "insiders" say that he won't drop out, even if the majority of Republian "insiders" say that he should. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, many people believe HRC should drop out, too. But we shouldn't turn Wikipedia articles into attack pages. I really think we should spend more time editing about Trump's policies, not gossip.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s. You might give this a look. Its more than just gossip. Buster Seven Talk 03:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I changed the section called "Republican letter of condemnation" to "Opposition from Republicans," and added the list of incumbent Republicans who say they will not vote for Trump. So far two senators and four representatives. I can't say for sure that it's unprecedented, but I can't personally remember anything like this. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"condemnation" sounds POV to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Then you'll be happy that I changed it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We should add/restore "some".Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The list

1. - Richard Hanna R-NY (retiring), will vote for Clinton [7]
2. - Adam Kinzinger R-IL, will vote for a write-in or not vote [8]
3. - Charlie Dent R-PA, will vote for a write-in [9]
4. - Scott Rigell R-VA (retiring), will vote for Gary Johnson [10]
5. - Lindsey Graham, Senator-South Carolina [11]
6. - Mark Kirk, Senator-Illinois, will vote for a write-in [12]
7. - Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) [13] (added by Smallbones)
8. - Congressman Bob Dold, R-IL, [14] (added by Buster7]
9. - Senator Mike Lee, R-UT, Why he can’t embrace Trump (added by Buster7
10. - Senator Ben Sasse, R-NV, Early anti-Trump voice (added by Buster7)

Support among Israeli Americans

Where should we add referenced content about his support among Israeli Americans please? Also the fact that his campaign is leveraging pro-Trump Americans who live in Israel.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe it would go under "People and Groups" and I would support the inclusion of that. There are also "Immigrants for Trump" "Hispanics/Latinos for Trump" "Coal Miners" for Trump, etc. I think the groups and people who support him are relevant to a campaign page. . SW3 5DL (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't include. This is one story in a minor publication, and it does not support your contention about "support among Israeli Americans" in any way. For one thing it is about American citizens living in Israel; I don't think the term "Israeli Americans" is a correct description of them. More important, the story offers no facts, just competing opinions. The Republicans say most of this group will vote for Trump; the Democrats say most of them will vote for Hillary; there is no story here. And I disagree with SW3 5DL about including every little group that calls itself "(fill in name of demographic) for (fill in name of candidate)". There are thousands of such groups. Some are huge; some are small; some are just one person with a facebook page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The JTA is not a "minor publication". The article explains that many Americans who live in Israel, or Israeli Americans, are registered in swing states, which makes this even more important to add to the article. The Democrats are another kettle of fish. But this article is about Trump's campaign. His campaign is leveraging Israeli Americans; we should mention that, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Any estimate on the number of ethnicities, religions, countries, and other groupings that exist? How about golfers? Sorry if that sounds snide. But, it would only be notable if it was something like Democratic Senators, or some other group where this would be surprising. And, I wouldn't suggest that either. Objective3000 (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

All good points, of course, because we don't want a laundry list. But particular groups seem of interest especially as they all relate to things he's said and you'd expect them to be the last people supporting him. He wants to be build a wall with Mexico and yet there are Mexican-Americans who agree with him. He wants to limit immigration to legal, vetted immigrants only, and yet Immigrants are for him. He wants to limit/temporarily ban Muslims from countries with terrorist issues, and yet there are Muslims who are for him. It's been said his credibility with the Jewish community has been called into question, and yet there are Jews supporting him. It's an interesting cross-section of people. I don't think it should be an indepth examination of all this, but a para that mentions various groups as examples and notes the contradictions, as reliable sources have done, seems appropriate. At least, I think that's what ZigZig20s is getting at. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, of course there are members of every demographic group supporting both candidates. Even if a particular demographic is 95% for one candidate, that still leaves 5% supporting the other. (Remember Trump pointing out "my African American" at a rally?) That does not make the 5% (or 10% or 20%) newsworthy. And if we tried to cover every such group we would overwhelm the article (as well as making ourselves look somewhat ridiculous). This kind of thing is covered in "demographics of supporters" and polling sections. If a particular group is reported to be 80% supporting Trump, anyone can do the math to realize that means 20% are not supporting him. As for the proposal that led off this section, there is nothing in the article linked here that is worthy of inclusion. It just says that U.S. citizens living in Israel are being courted by both campaigns, and both sides claim they are likely to get the most votes from that group. There is no there there. --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, my only point was the dichotomy of opposing/supporting within the same groups. I'm not advocating for it, just pointing out that it is interesting. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This group is more accurately described as U.S. expatriates in Israel. If there is signicant coverage of the campaign for Americans abroad then it could be mentioned but this seems minor. There is no reason why some Jews should not support Trump but in any case only becomes important if mainstream media give it prominence in their coverage, which they have not. TFD (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I would add that the only polling data presented in the article found 28% support for Trump and 38% for Clinton. So, is this suppose to be another group not supporting Trump? In any case, the article is dated with little data. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree...there is no story here. The article provides no quantitative information that adds to our article. If it is intended to give credence to improving support for Trump it misses the mark. If secondary sources pick up the theme, that's a different story. Buster Seven Talk 07:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"The Republicans estimated 85 percent of Americans in Israel will vote for Trump.".Zigzig20s (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course they did. And the Democrats said that number is "wildly exaggerated" and that "most American Israelis favor the Democratic nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton". What do you expect them to say? And "a March poll by the Israel Democracy Institute think tank found that most Israelis prefer Clinton to Trump". And none of this is worth arguing over or adding to the article. The only other coverage I could find about this subject was this piece in Haaretz (which by the way does not support your thesis). One story in the JTA and one in Haaretz does not constitute significant enough coverage to warrant inclusion in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we should have a subsection about his overwhelming support among the Israeli, Russian and Persian Jewish communities (see related topic above). But I agree with you that we need to find more sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

---

We cannot pluck a few groups (particular small groups) out at random. If we include this, we would be essentially obliged to, as a matter of weight, to include material about reactions from other American minority groups, e.g.:

African Americans: Samantha Neal, Only 1 Percent Of Black Voters Support Donald Trump: The GOP presidential nominee polls at a record low among a demographic key to winning the general election, Huffington Post (August 5, 2016); Michael Kranish, Trump's courtship of black voters hampered by decades of race controversies, Washington Post (July 20, 2016).

Asian Americans generally: Chris Fuchs, Republican Diversity Coalition Plans Trump Election Strategy, NBC News (July 5, 2016); Hanna Trudo, Trump polls miserably among Asian Americans, Politico (May 23, 2016).

Japanese Americans: Ed Pilkington, Japanese American internment survivor hears troubling echoes in Trump rhetoric, Guardian (May 28, 2016).

Vietnamese Americans: Elizabeth Lee, Some Republican Vietnamese Americans Say No Vote for Trump, Voice of America (March 13, 2016), with accompanying video piece.

Arab Americans: Don Gonyea, Michigan's Arab-Americans Respond To Donald Trump's Anti-Muslim Rhetoric, NPR, All Things Considered (December 11, 2015).

Cuban Americans: Patricia Mazzei, Will Donald Trump drive Miami Cuban Americans from GOP? New poll says yes, Miami Herald (May 2, 2016)

Puerto Ricans: Elise Foley, Puerto Ricans Are Streaming Into Florida And They Aren't Exactly Fans of Donald Trump, Huffington Post (July 7, 2016).

Chinese Americans: Chris Fuchs, Attracted by Immigration, Education Policies, Some Chinese Americans Stump for Trump, NBC News (May 26, 2016); Kate Linthicum, Meet the Chinese American immigrants who are supporting Donald Trump, Los Angeles Times (May 27, 2016).

Greek Americans: Mary Harris, GR Poll: Most Greek-Americans Are with Her, Greek Reporter (July 27, 2016).

Jewish Americans: Michael Wilner, On Trump, Jewish voters not taking the bait, Jerusalem Post (July 22, 2016); Ron Kampeas, Where 17 Jewish Conservatives Stand on Donald Trump, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (May 8, 2016).

Sikh Americans: Murtaza Hussain, Sikh Americans Fight for Civil Rights in Donald Trump’s America, The Intercept (March 14, 2016).

Quakers: Marc Fortier, Group Plans Protest Outside of Donald Trump Event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, New England Cable News (December 9, 2015).

Neutrality^talk 19:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

My personal view, to be clear, is that we should apply weight: i.e., the extent of treatment in this article should reflect the size of the group and the extent of the coverage: so we would cover African Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, Asian Americans, etc. in some detail, but limit coverage as to individual subgroups or smaller groups. Similar, we should discuss Christian, Jewish, and Muslim reactions in some detail, but limit, e.g., coverage from Zoroastrians or Zen Buddhists. Neutrality^talk 19:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The JTA article suggests Israeli Americans are registered in swing states. I think this gives them more weight. Republicans traditionally don't fare well with African Americans, so it may be undue. Hispanics cannot be seen as one group: there are documented and undocumented Hispanics. We would need to make sure the polls don't include undocumented Hispanics (who, inevitably, would be opposed to his policies); they don't get to vote, so shouldn't be included. It is interesting to note that Chinese Americans support him (despite his views on climate change and manufacturing).Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we have a subsection about a tiny group (I hope), white supremacists. Why are they given more weight than Israelis?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Because of the extent of the coverage, obviously, is greater, due to the extensive controversy surrounding the Trump campaign and white supremacists. That is rather apparent to all. Neutrality^talk 19:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's undue. He disavowed them. And they are a tiny minority.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You're entitled to your view, but we are not obligated to accept your ipse dixit. Neutrality^talk 20:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements seems like a valid subheader. That could include endorsements by elected officials, other celebrities, and perhaps fringe figures if there's a lot of coverage. Under fringe figures there are different kinds. We should have broad coverage as to endorsements generally, but limit coverage as to individual subgroups or smaller groups, like fringe figures (including white supremacists).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements go here: List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

My concern is that it's a distraction, as not only has he disavowed them, but they are completely irrelevant in today's political landscape. Americans who live in Israel, however, are registered in swing states, which means they will have an impact on the election results.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzag20s, you keep saying that ("they are registered in swing states"). Here's the problem: In every country in the world, some of the Americans living there are registered in swing states. According to your article, in Israel the "swing state" voters amount to less than 10% of Americans living there (an estimated 30,000 out of 300,000 to 400,000). We have no data whether that is more or less than in other countries. This "swing state" argument adds nothing to your claim of weight, and your constant repetition of it is approaching disruptive. Meanwhile, what argues against your claim of weight is the lack of coverage of these claims by additional sources. For that matter they are not even verified by any other sources, some of which say the opposite. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Only one thing establishes weight: "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Reliable sources may be biased or wrong but it is not our role to correct them. TFD (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As a general rule that's true, but the words "reliable" and "biased" are in tension. Certainly a source is not very reliable if it has a reputation for bias on certain matters. I'm just replying in general terms to TFD without addressing any particular sources or matters.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias is inherent in all news coverage, even if it is factual, because the reporters will chose what stories to cover and what emphasis to provide. However, we expect that the facts will be accurate. For example, one could write about the contents of the DNC emails while another could write about how they were obtained. Both accurately reflect facts, but one shows the DNC as a villain, while the other shows it as a victim. Whatever weight a sources provides between the two narratives, even if it is equal, it is a bias. Wikipedia policy requires that articles reflect the same weight as reliable sources, which means articles will reflect the same bias as shown in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The pertinent guideline is WP:BIASED which says:

“ When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..." ”

. That guideline includes useful wikilinks to related guidelines.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

IOW bias and reliablity are not in tension. There are of course some biased sources that deliberately misstate facts, but then there are neutral sources that do not fact check. TFD (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Things don't seem that simple, TFD. It's probably unnecessary to have an extended discussion about it here, but as indicated above a biased source may merit inline attribution, and also verifiability does not guarantee inclusion of biased material. Doesn't the policy on undue weight refer to viewpoints rather than undisputed facts? If undisputed facts are publicized or suppressed by a biased source, I'm not sure we're required to publicize or suppress them accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We're veering off topic. There should be more reliable sources about his support among Israeli Americans, in the Israeli press. Are there Wikipedians who speak Hebrew willing to do a search for us please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality determines how both opinions and facts are presented. (See Balancing aspects for facts.) Note too that we report facts about opinions. (E.g., x said Trump would be a great president, not Trump will be a great president. We can verify that x something, we cannot verify that what he said is true.) Determining which facts and opinions should be presented in a news article is a matter of judgment and depends on the the perspective of the writer. Neutrality requires that we reflect the judgment that appears in reliable sources. For example, "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Reliable sources spend more space discussing Trump's ratings among women than they do discussing his ratings among Americans living in Israel. That is the reason we emphasize the one over the other. It is not because we have determined that one is more important than the other, but because reliable sources have made that determination. While you and I agree that reliable sources are correct in this matter, that is not a policy based reason. The only valid policy based reason is that is what reliable sources have determined. In some cases you or I may disagree with what opinions and facts reliable sources emphasize. But we cannot correct that. TFD (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I'm sure we could find many more reliable sources in the Israeli press. This really needs to get covered because of the swing states situation. Haim Saban will not be happy but--it is a fact.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we should not do that. Because if it receives little or no attention in U.S. and international media, then weight says to leave it out. This article is not about how Israelis view the Trump campaign. Incidentally, the Israeli articles illustrate media bias. Israeli media are more interested in people in their country who support Trump than are media in other countries. Similarly, Mexican media is more interested in border and trade issues. TFD (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a very brief mention about this Israeli stuff would necessarily violate balancing aspects for facts, but it may well violate the consensus policy because there doesn't seem to be much support for including it. After all, there is not zero discussion of this Israeli stuff in reliable sources, and therefore zero discussion of it would not be necessary here. Personally, I do not support inclusion of the Israeli stuff because it would open the door for stuff from lots of other countries, whereas this is a U.S. election. I would definitely support putting the info into an article about International reaction to the 2016 U.S. election campaign, which could be linked from this article. We should not be engaged in wiping away factual information from Wikipedia, per WP:Preserve.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the international reaction. They are US citizens, who are registered in US swing states, but they live in Israel. We can certainly cite more sources in the Israeli press; we don't have to cite only US sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got it backwards, it seems. You've cited the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) which is not a US source. Cite some US sources and you would have a stronger argument for inclusion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, Jewish Telegraphic Agency has headquarters in New York.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We certainly can cite reliable sources from anywhere. But it is not an issue of reliable sources, it is an issue of weight: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." If the only coverage is in Israeli news sources, then it has no weight in the "body of reliable sources" and they are just "isolated" news reports. TFD (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This is WP:UNDUE. It would be as if the Asheville, North Carolina article told us that Eleanor Roosevelt once stayed there for a weekend, citing a contemporaneous source from a local newspaper. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not undue. Israeli sources are not marginal or "isolated". US sources are not superior. We can cite in several languages as long as the sources are reliable, and the content is significant.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please find a mainstream US, Japanese, or European source that discusses the significance of this. Nobody has argued that Israeli sources in general are isolated or marginal. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

What is isolated is the "news coverage." The news coverage is isolated to Israel and not covered in American, British, Canadian, German, French, Russian, Afghani or Nigerian media or media in any other country that is not Israel. BTW weight works both ways. It also keeps out lots of negative stories that have received little or no coverage. TFD (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The JTA is based in New York City.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It is. But it is dedicated to providing news of interest to the Jewish diaspora. Anyway this discussion has become pointless. I have provide the relevant policy. If its applicability to this issue is crystal clear at the moment, no amount of discussion will change that. TFD (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No, we just need to find more sources, that's all. But articles in Globes would be perfectly valid.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig, why not start a new section in this article about international reactions or international aspects? The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article as appropriate. Alternatively, you could start a section about minority groups using the links that Neutrality provided above. But just focusing on one tiny group alone is probably not going to get you very far.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig, before you add anything about this to the article, you need to find sources that actually support your claims. You have repeatedly asserted here, as if it were fact, that "the voters in Israel are from swing states" and "they overwhelmingly support Trump". But those assertions are not supported by the source you keep citing. According to that source, only a small fraction of the Americans in Israel are from swing states, and the claim that they support Trump comes from the local Republican chairman. I have linked to at least one other article, the one from Haaretz, that contradicts almost everything in your article. Until you can figure out how to read a reference and report what it actually says, your suggestions are not going to be taken very seriously here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)