Talk:R/The Donald/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC on definition in lead sentence

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.

---

Should the lead sentence define and identify this forum community as alt-right?

• Relevant WP standard: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." (WP:BEGIN.)
• High-quality evidence: Search results for The_Donald alt-right, BBC. "Sorry, there are no results for The_Donald alt-right." Search results for The_Donald AND alt-right, ABC News. "...a popular subreddit".
• Related discussions: The last three above (July 2017); "Lead content" (December 2016)
• Related article: Reddit. "/r/The_Donald, a community supporting the politics of Donald Trump"

Notices posted at WikiProject Internet culture and WikiProject Donald Trump. 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 01:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. [Support] I strongly support maintaining the description as accurate and appropriate. I'm not sure what alt-right means other than "internet supporters of Donald Trump", which is exactly what this article is about. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
2. [Support] including this somewhere, not necessarily in the lead, and probably as a matter of opinion, not a fact. I am simply looking at sources, and some of them do support the statement. For example, this tells: "posting it to Reddit’s largest alt-right community, r/The_Donald", etc. There are other sources claiming the same. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused - the headline of that Vox article calls the forum "right-wing." They call it alt-right a little lower down the page but lead with right wing. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In that article, Romano calls it "right-wing" 2 times and "alt-right" 15; in her next article, 4 times and 9; in her weekly review, 1 time and 0. Her weekly review would probably be the most authoritative. It looks like she's more "partisan" than "disinterested" when writing about Trump. The publisher (Vox Media) may or may not have an ideological agenda. Let's try to find a more objective source for this information. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Let's stick to concrete information here. Also, the highest-quality mainstream sources don't describe it as alt-right. Dervorguilla (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
2. [Oppose] The article currently only has one sentence about the 'alt-right' and that says it is "connected to the alt-right". This isn't the same as being defined as 'alt-right', which is what is suggested here. Alt-right is such a nebulous thing anyway that it is pretty much used as a catch-all term for anybody or anything vaguely right leaning to the point of being almost meaningless. Use right wing instead, or nothing. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
3. [Oppose] The forum's association with the alt-right should be expanded upon in the body of the article and should be mentioned in the lead, but not the lead sentence. There are certainly enough reliable sources to expand upon the forum's association with the alt-right, or at least the view that it is associated with the alt-right, but flatly describing it as alt-right in the lead sentence is not appropriate. Cjhard (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
4. [Oppose] The only sources where subreddit was described as an "alt-right" community was from this Vox article and this Mashable article (in that particular article, it seems that "alt-right" and "Trump supporters" are used interchangeably, especially when they described the subreddit as having "Alt-right Donald Trump supporters on Reddit" while primarily identifying it as "arguably the largest Trump subreddit community".) Other sources do not describe "/r/The_Donald" as an alt-right community. However, per the method brought up by Cjhard, reliable sources have connected alt-right members to the subreddit, such as this brief mention of Milo Yiannopoulos's involvement in the subreddit in this NBC article. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose I'm not seeing the availability of good sourcing to support this claim. In fact the headline of this Vox article calls the forum "right-wing." Additionally, in this source the subreddit "Mr. Trump" is self styled as alt right, but not The_Donald. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose - by WP:LEAD and WP:BEGIN, one starts with definition of topic, not with conclusions about the topic. Third para of lead looks like where nature is mentioned. That should have an article subsection it's describing though ... right now it's not explanded on later so seems just a claim. Markbassett (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose – There is no question that the forum includes alt-right members, but there is also no identification of the forum with alt-right members, and moderators do not condone advocacy. It's even difficult to define what is alt-right and who is or is not part of that movement. On the other hand, this forum's subject is clearly defined as Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 05:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• This community is most widely known for posting a Trump-CNN meme, less widely known for supporting any particular ideology. Also, none of the most trusted news sources describe it as alt-right (although a lot of the less trusted ones do). --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree with your claim that it is most widely known for a Trump-CNN meme. It had wide coverage before that happened. [1] [2] [3] Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I question whether most people have heard of Moneyboard Motherboard, FiveThirtyEight, or Business Insider. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC) 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No, yes, and yes for me. Agree with Power~enwiki. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• When this article was initially created, there were only 13 sources. However, there were many notable sources used including CNNMoney, NBC News, Forbes, and The New York Times. These sources covered the subreddit when Trump had his AMA on the subreddit, or even before that. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• The risk of WP:RECENTISM is extremely high, here. Any claims of what the sub is most widely known for should be supportable over a longer time-period than just the last two weeks. I'm tempted to point out Motherboard (not "Moneyboard") is part of Vice, which I bet most have heard of. That's missing the point, though. The popularity/editor familiarity of a source is not a particularly good way to assess due weight or reliability. ...reputation for fact-checking and accuracy doesn't mean "editors have heard of it". It means a reputation in the appropriate circles, typically journalistic/academic. Is it covered and reprinted by its colleagues? has Poynter covered it? CJR or other graduate programs? Have its journalists won a Pulitzer or one of the various Edward R. Murrow Awards (if so, which one?) Trying to use a popular opinion survey, like Pew Research above, is only superficially helpful. That survey's function was never to determine accuracy! Reliable outlets often have good professional reputations and non-existent or negative reputations among general readers. The Pew survey supports that point as much as anything else.

If we're trying to figure out how closely this subreddit is linked to the ideology, trying to triage sources by how well-know they are is no better than trying to divide them into left-wing vs. right-wing. Both are different ways editors can put their fingers' on the scales. This has to be more nuanced, or else this issue isn't going to get resolved to anyone's satisfaction. That's why this is a consensus model, not a vote. This is also why brigading is so destructive to the process. It magnifies distortions towards the popular opinion to create false-consensus. Grayfell (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC

@Grayfell: Just a week ago Poynter "covered" CNN, regarding its dispute with this subreddit community. ("Ask the ethicist: Did CNN blackmail a pro-Trump Reddit troll?") The ethicist's judgment: "I don’t think CNN intended this as blackmail, but […]"

Also, WP doesn't ask its editors to "assess" a particular journalist's or newspaper's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" "in ... appropriate ... journalistic [or] academic" circles. Reputation is famously ephemeral; and RS is a guideline, not a policy. But two of our three core policies do advise us to use mainstream sources:

OR § Reliable sources: "In general, the most reliable sources are: ... [4] magazines...; [5] mainstream newspapers." V § SOURCE: "Editors may use material from reliable nonacademic sources, particularly if it appears in a respected mainstream publication. These sources include ... [5] mainstream newspapers."

The mainstream means "the thoughts, beliefs, and choices that are accepted by the largest number of people". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 23:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I specifically asked you not to ping me.

Are you serious? WP:V, a policy, also specifically calls for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It's a couple of paragraphs up from the part you quote to me to support your point. Did you actually read the page you quoted? Things like this make me wonder if you're sincerely trying to discuss this or not.

Cutting-off the rest of that Poynter quote is selective and misleading, which is ironic when quoting a journalistic ethicist:

I don’t think CNN intended this as blackmail, but in the painfully polarized political climate of 2017, it’s easy to see how the unfortunate wording in the story could be easily misinterpreted, and it’s not surprising that defenders of the president or critics of CNN would seize on it as an implicit threat.[4]

There's a lot there, and it's pretty mild on CNN. "Unfortunate" and "misunderstanding" are hardly damning, while your use of scare quotes and reddit-friendly url-shorteners shows your dripping contempt perfectly. Where in all of that is the phrase alt-right? Nowhere.

Learner's dictionary is intended for English-learners. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but it's not, itself, a 'mainstream' dictionary. This kind of proves my point. Stacking references onto references to try and prove that popularity is King is drifting very, very far from building an encyclopedia. It's not what the letter or spirit of policy suggests. Wikipedia doesn't use popularity alone, because we try to be neutral and accurate. Popularity doesn't always correlate with those things. We don't validate popular ideas regardless of how correct they are. And we don't elevate trivial details to prime importance because the outlet is well-known among Wikipedia editors. If we have a reliable source saying something significant, we should consider using it. Basing content strictly on popularity is not what a good encyclopedia should ever knowingly do. We don't spread lies or ignore accurate information just because the best source is too obscure. If reliable sources support that this is an alt-right website, then we should trust those sources and figure out how to use this information. You're free to think that it doesn't belong in the lead. If you want to make the case that a single parenthetical mention from the middle of an article in a more popular source does, you need to make that case based on something other than a self-selected choice in which dictionary supports your interpretation of a word that is used a few times in the documents explaining some policies. Good lord. Trying to make this into a bureaucratic issue over a page that says in general and rule of thumb isn't going work at all. It suggests you're scanning the page to find what supports your existing point, rather than attempting to understand the gestalt. Grayfell (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Learner's Dictionary definition is supported by Webster’s Unabridged. "mainstream. 1. Having, reflecting, or being compatible with the prevailing attitudes and values of a society or group... prevailing applies to what is predominant or widespread beyond others of its kind or class."

It's true that "WP:V ... specifically calls for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". (My error.) In a sense, though, WP doesn't ask its editors to assess a source's reputation -- to make a critical analysis of it. As far as we're concerned, the general public determines its reputation. "reputation. 1. The estimation in which a person or thing is held, especially by the community or the public generally." Dictionary.com Unabridged. "reputation. 2. The estimation in which one is generally held; the character commonly imputed to one as distinct from real or inherent character... Reputation usually suggests the commonly circulated and accepted judgment of one's character." Webster's Unabridged.

We especially shouldn't base ideologically contentious material on sources that "have good professional reputations and ... negative reputations among general readers". This can lead to unneeded NPOV disputes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop editing your comments after they have been responded to. Striking a mistake is one thing, but this edit adds content in an ambiguous way that causes confusion and alters the tone and meaning of my response after it has been made. You said one thing and I responded to that as it was written.

Again, highlighting specific parts of specific definitions proves nothing other than your own personal preference. Being compatible with the prevailing attitudes and values of society is not another way of saying "a large percentage of people have heard of it". Cycling through dictionary entries like this can be satisfying, but it's ultimately pointless for proving a useful point. Switching to another word, and then highlighting an entry in another dictionary, shows a selective, non-neutral choice for how you believe this word should be interpreted while it ignores other, equally valid ones. Which community holds these sources in high regard? This is an international encyclopedia, so should it be the global community? The Americans surveyed by Pew in early 2014? (Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it)? Should it be the community of Wikipedia editors? No. It should be the academic and journalistic communities that are familiar with these outlets. These are a more neutral and reliable for making this judgement.

Wikipedia strives for accuracy, not just regurgitating what's popular. BESTSOURCES calls for the "best and most reputable authoritative sources". That means that we, as Wikipedia editors, need to assess the authority of sources. If you believe popular is a proxy for authoritative, try adding Weekly World News to bat as an authoritative source on chiropterology and see how far you get. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(←)
How can editors determine which are the "best and most reputable authoritative sources"?

"reputable. Enjoying good repute ... <the most reputable newspaper of a hundred years ago>... repute. The character or status commonly ascribed to one; the popular opinion of one." (Webster's Unabridged.)

"Reliable sources checklist provides a ref vetting method." (WP:RS, Tools.)

WP:RSVETTING essay (condensed):

• Does the author or publication have standing [=authority] to address the material? Is the subject within their area of competence or expertise?
• Where does the author fit on the continuum ranging from "utterly disinterested reporter" to "complete polemicist" [=advocate of a partisan cause]?
• Is the publication known to have an effective fact-checking operation?
• What's its circulation? A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and a greater likelihood of employing top-tier people.
• Does the publisher have an agenda?

About fact-checking

Most large magazines employ fact-checkers. Most newspapers don't.

Newspaper editors expect reporters to check their own facts, and they fire them if they don't. Newspapers have an incentive to worry about facts since people generally buy newspapers based partly on the paper's general reputation for veracity.

To determine a news outlet's general reputation for accuracy, see the Trust Levels of News Sources table above. (In this context, to trust means "to rely on the truthfulness or accuracy of". Webster's Unabridged.)

WP:SOURCE & WP:STICKTOSOURCE policies: Reliable authorities (by type) (implied)

Mainstream newspapers [daily] < Journals (not peer-reviewed) < Magazines [weekly or monthly] < Books < Journals (peer-reviewed)

--Dervorguilla (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC) 20:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

---

There seems to be a consensus against having alt-right in the lede sentence. How about including it in the sentence "The subreddit has been criticized by news outlets of hosting conspiracy theories, and hosting content that is racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or white supremacist"? Power~enwiki (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: 1. The particular dispute we're discussing is so ideologically contentious that it led to serial reverts; let's give people time to respond. 2. I find nothing at TPG that should discourage you from opening a new section about your suggested addition (it's specifically not a proposal about the lead sentence). --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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.

Related discussion

A related discussion is taking place at Talk:Donald_Trump#Primary_topic_of_.22The_Donald.22. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Content that is white supremacist.

The lead says The subreddit has been accused by news outlets of hosting conspiracy theories, and content that is racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or white supremacist. This gnaws at me when I read "white supremacist". It just doesn't sound right. I changed it to "white supremacistic", but I'm not sure if that is a word. Well Wiktionary lists it, but that's a piece of 💩. That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, both are strange. I get what you mean, but 'supremacistic' seems more distracting to me than 'white supremacist'. Even typing it feels like a mistake. I think words that are "(rare, nonstandard, misconstruction)", as Wiktionary puts it, should be avoided when possible, but it's a judgement call. Part of it is also that 'racist' would typically cover 'white supremacist' making it read as redundant. In this case, the white supremacist content is specifically singled-out by sources, so this would reasonably need to be emphasized here in some way. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fix it. Please :) That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Spreading racism? x2

Yeah so as the other guy said below, the sub is actively ageing racism. I posted two direct posts from there as proof - bigger than any opinionated secondary sources. I'm sure a compromise can be made, if not I'll try to talk to someone about this. It really does seem one sided to me. Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC) User was blocked as suspected WP:SOCKsock

This was a typo it was meant to mean 'actively' not ageing Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC) User was blocked as suspected WP:SOCKsock

As in the sub is AGAINST racism Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC) User was blocked as suspected WP:SOCKsock

Example posts aren't the right way to go about this. Wikipedia strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources (encyclopedias are tertiary sources). Forums (like reddit) are WP:UGC, and are not reliable in most cases. How /r/The_Donald's participants describe themselves and the forum are not neutral for this content either, and Wikipedia has specific guidelines for how to be neutral. I would sincerely like to see any reliable sources which discuss the sub's opposition to racism, if they exist. Even so, this isn't a simple issue, and the lead already explains that pretty well. Grayfell (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Groups that actively promote fascist rallies are racist. The mods of r/the_donald promoted a fascist rally. The sub actively supports racism. If you actually believe it doesn't, that's probably because you're either ignorant of what racism actually is or you're a racist yourself. Facts don't care about your feelings.72.181.99.6 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Intro bias

The intro gives the impression that the forum tolerates racism and anti-Antisemitism. That's disputed. Can someone add the fact that under 'Rules', the site has a policy for 'Racism and Anti-Semitism', stating, "Racism and Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated. You have been warned."? No where in the article is that fact mentioned. Winners Aren't Losers (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? We can't cite /r/The Donald itself, because that would be either original research or, if we're considering them a source, an unduly self-serving claim under WP:ABOUTSELF. --Aquillion (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This source does not explain how /r/The_Donald is racist

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/what-is-rthedonald-donald-trump-subreddit

I've looked through this source that accompanied how this subreddit is accused of racism, however, nowhere in the article are they able to explain how it is racist. They claim they use "coded-talk" that white nationalists use but the source they provide doesn't have any sources to back-up what they are claiming. Archer Rafferty (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't require sources to "back up" their claims. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

??? I recommend rereading what you just typed there. Unsourced claims are fraudulent and when being used to try and prove a point are worthless. Unless you have a new source with evidence to back-up their claims please stop reverting my edit. Archer Rafferty (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Mother Jones is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. We don't require sources to justify their rationale for statements they make because they are reliable in their own right. That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Lord help us if Mother Jones is considered reliable. We may as well trust 1970s Pravda then. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That makes literally no sense, how is a source automatically reliable, unrelated. Fact is your source has no evidence to back up it's claims. Also it's not even Mother Jones you're using as a source, you do know your own source right? Archer Rafferty (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You have now crossed the 3RR threshold. I posted a caution on your talk page. Suffice it to say, please read the warning and revert your edit yourself. Otherwise I'll ask an admin to examine this and you will probably end up getting a short block. Please read WP:RS and you will see why we take reliable sources at face value. If you disagree with my assessment that MJ is reliable, I can show you where to get more opinions. But you really need to revert yourself first. That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright call an admin. Because ONE, your source is NOT reliable with ZERO evidence to back up the claims they are asserting. TWO, your source is NOT MOTHER JONES so that's either a blatant lie from you or you're just ignorant of your own source. Archer Rafferty (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If I were in your shoes, I'd A) revert yourself to avoid getting a 3RR block and B) post on WP:RSN asking for other opinions about Vice.com and your assertion they need to back up their reporting. You are violating two key tenets of Wikipedia which are WP:EW & WP:BRD. That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

More sources were added in to that line. I have also added some detail in "Online media reception" where Washington Post connected the subreddit's moderators to racist subreddits. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

These articles are absolutely not evidence of racist content. These are opinion pieces. This subreddit has a history of heavy-hand banning of anything perceived as racist materials User:nBob20 —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that state racist content has appeared on the sub. These are not editorials. Which sources do you think are opinion pieces?That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@The man from Nantucket: - All of them. The forum rule #3 is no racism or antisemitism is strictly enforced. The editorializing largely originates with the political opinion that opposing open boarders immigration is racism. Additionally, the forum is attacked by people who post racist content. The forum just recruited assistant admins to weed out people who do this. Primary source citations for the forums anti-racism policy are numerous and well documented in the forum admin's stickies. The citations and article text should not focus solely on one side of a dispute and both the accusation and the denial should be included with citations to avoid inserting a POV. KSci ^(talk) 14:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So because a rule exists, it's always followed? Anyway, that's not even the point. Look, you clearly have no idea that racism even exists in the world if you don't think r/the_donald is racist. Yes, r/the_donald is LESS racist than the Daily Stormer. No, that's not a high bar at all, and things other than explicit nazism can be racist, I'm sorry.

The mods of that sub stickied a post promoting UNITE THE RIGHT, a fascist rally that resulted in a deadly neonazi terror attack. And bofore you try to wriggle out of this one: Yes, Unite the Right was very explicitly organized by fascists for fascists and fascist recruitment. It was not conservative. It was fascist.

Just because r/the_donald tries to cover up their racism with dog whistles and knowing winks doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sorry, but facts just don't give a damn about your feelings, snowflake. r/the_donald is racist, and that's simply a fact, whether or not you have the spine to admit it to yourself or the knowledge to understand what's actually happening right in front of your face.

PROOF: https://web.archive.org/web/20170806002037/https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6rsng3/unite_the_right_in_charlottesville_next_week/ 72.181.99.6 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Honestly this entire conversation is disgusting. The above editor is obviously a biased individual with a personal grudge against the subreddit, and he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. In no way is r/the_donald racist in anyway, and you can't provide a single example that proves otherwise. In addition, no matter how many times these people scream and squeal about it "not mattering," the fact remains that racist behavior is against the rules and said behavior is instantly removed if it is posted. Stop trying to promote this hogwash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.64.17 (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

More information to be covered in "Russian propaganda" section, viral thread on r/FuckTheAltRight

I think some of this content should be added to the section on Russian propaganda as it seems pertinent:

• Broderick, Ryan (24 September 2018). "Reddit's Largest Pro-Trump Subreddit Appears To Have Been Targeted By Russian Propaganda For Years". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 25 September 2018.

Thoughts? --Bangalamania (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek mentioned it a couple days earlier. There are also few other stories about this which are mostly derived from the Buzzfeed story. I dunno. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

/r/ in article title

My understanding is that subreddit names do not include the /r/. That is just part of the URL indicating that what follows is a subreddit. Similarly, a Web site like example.com/countries/france suggests that France is a country, not that /countries/france is a country. Should this article therefore be moved to The_Donald? The same applies to various other WP subreddit articles named in this way. Equinox ◑ 00:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Feb 15 tweet

Today Trump tweeted a video made by the_donald user /u/carpedonktum who had previously won a meme contest run by Alex Jones. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1096485376087097344

Is it notable enough for the article? Heres the original Reddit post from a week ago. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/anr9fl/the_state_of_the_democratic_party_hurting -68.199.199.199 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please identify a reliable secondary source (e.g. a news article) that discusses the tweet. R2 (bleep) 18:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I found many sources, including The Verge and CNN. However, none of these articles discuss the discuss /r/The_Donald subreddit. CNN doesn't even discuss Infowars. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I couldn't find a single news story linking the tweet to /r/The Donald (or Reddit, for that matter). 68.199.199.199, without such a source, these events appear to be off-topic. They might belong in an article about Carpe Donktum. R2 (bleep) 01:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"accused by mainstream media outlets"

I'm bothered by the phrase "accused by mainstream media outlets" in the lead section and believe it violates our neutrality policy, and specifically the provision that says, "Avoid stating facts as opinions." Reliable media outlets generally don't make accusations. If these are accusations by editorial boards or columnists, then we need better attribution. However if these are in fact statements made in news articles, then we can and should drop the weasely language and state the "accusations" in our own voice, i.e., "The subreddit has hosted conspiracy theories and content that is racist, misogynistic, antisemitic, and white supremacist." R2 (bleep) 18:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the cited sources I notice that they don't verify the content. However I'll bet that there are sources cited elsewhere in the article that do verify the content, so for now I'll tag the sentence. R2 (bleep) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I have added some sources for the content, though I didn't go too deep and the NYT source is an opinion column. Many sources that make these claims that are not part of the "Big Six", so at the very least it is factually incorrect to state that these criticisms are limited to the mainstream media. I think that the "mainstream media" modifier itself is a charged phrase, and its use should be supported by sources. Shimunogora (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Inquisitr analysis regarding russian propoganda

Reference nr 110 points to a so-called analysis that just turns out to be a blog post. I don't believe this source is up to standards, as there is no third-party analysis, it is merely a breakdown of unrelated facts that erroneously jumps to the conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.213.64.42 (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Link between this subreddit and the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally/murder

The_Donald heavily promoted the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, especially with a post stating that their beliefs "happened to align" with the neonazi ones. I believe this page should mention the events that unfolded there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.13.246.60 (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

They didn't heavily promote it. They stickied it for about 2 hours and then deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.188.200 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It was never promoted it was outed as a false march that had nothing to do with Trump actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dgrunge (talk • contribs) 13:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2019

The news does not describe it slanders with malicious lies the users of the sub reddit to ascribe all supporters of Donald Trump as Racist bigots when in reality it is the opposite. 3dgrunge (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand Attacks

Source (Motherjones) does NOT specify sufficient information or examples of TD users promoting anti-muslim ideals in order to justify the killings. Only one example is given, and it does not support this notion.

Furthermore, even if true, posters to a particular subreddit do not define said subreddit unless the posters in mention post content that is agreed upon and upvoted by the rest of the sub's community. This goes for any community. A comment hidden at the bottom of a post at -100 karma does not define a subreddit. Consensus of ideals does.

Continuing, Motherjones does not provide an image or a link to any of the comments used as examples. They cannot be found in order to provide either proof that they existed, or context in the case that they did (such as karma count).

Request section to be modified accurately.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/03/reddit-new-zealand-shooting-islamophobia/

--71.83.64.17 (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this edit should be carried through. I would like to add that a comment with -100 karma is a direct indicator that the subreddit's members do NOT agree with the comment. Although I would like to approve the edit now I am not able to because of the ongoing "edit war" and would like to have consensus before doing so. WallabyWombat^{Let's Talk!} 02:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the messages had widespread approval or disapproval has no bearing on the claim made, which is that such messages were disseminated on the subreddit. Additionally, this is based around the assumption that downvotes are indicative of ideological consensus or agreement of the message, which is not necessarily the case as Reddit redditquette indicates is not the intended purpose of upvotes/downvotes. Attempting to decipher the intention behind the downvotes is not only unrelated to the factual content of the statement, but would be pure conjecture. Shimunogora (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all, The claim states that "users of TD posted messages justifying x." This comment is clearly (it isn't even debatable) made without identifiers in order to enforce the narrative that the entirety of the subreddit supports antisemitism, which is false. If you so strongly believe the argument you're making here, then I push the solution to add the additive "some" before "users" in order to clarify that it is not the entire subreddit, but a small few. In addition, the sidebar of the subreddits rules should also be included: "No Racism and Anti-Semitism. Racism and Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated. You have been warned." The subreddit itself bans any speech of sorts. Your thoughts?

In addition, your comments on the reddiquette are incorrect, based on the reddiquette itself. It states: "Vote. If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it." By their own description, votes and downvotes attribute the right for a community to quell or support defining ideals that shape a subreddit. I challenge you to argue this, and to state specifically where you believe it to show that votes do not indicate approval within a subreddit. 71.83.64.17 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No, still nowhere does it state that downvotes/upvotes do not indicate ideological consensus. The users may have well agreed with the sentiment, but thought that such content was off-topic given the context of where that particular comment appeared or what it was in reply to. The burden of proof is not on me to prove that upvotes/downvotes are not part of an ideological consensus, it is on you to prove that they are (which you have failed to do so). You missed the larger picture: Even if redditquette stated that you should upvote/downvote depending on whether or not you disagreed with something, it would be impossible to figure out the intent behind the upvotes or downvotes, so I say we leave it 100% factual as it is: such messages were posted. "Some" could be added, but that same modifier would have to be added to nearly any claim in the article regarding the actions of its users and would be entirely superfluous. To add on to this, rules do not prevent messages from being preemptively posted in the first place—what the rules are is moot regarding the existence of the posted messages. If we deleted from Wikipedia all actions that have been against the established rules, the historical section of the site would be neutered. Shimunogora (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

(No idea why you are harping on "anti-semitic ideals" when both our text and the source are about anti-Muslim hate)

Upvoted 50 times, FYI. (link, archive)

Not that that matters, as we care what reliable sources say (and Mother Jones is a reliable source), and don't need them to show their homework as PeterTheFourth says; nor are their claims very extraordinary considering Trump's own rhetoric on Muslims. TBH, if you've ever visited the subreddit for more than a few minutes, you cannot doubt the level of anti-Muslim vitriol. Just the other day I looked at it for two minutes and saw people praising the beating of Muslim children after Sri Lankan bombings with "deus vult" and "Good, beat the fuck outta them." etc (all quite upvoted comments). Again, the only thing that matters is what reliable sources document, I'm just pointing out that it is absurd to doubt the statement "justified the shooting and violence against Muslims" if you've ever visited the subreddit. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all, such a poor example does not a sound basis make. A 50 karma post (On a subreddit with 700,000+ subscribers) where the posting user has been banned and deleted, half of the comments are removed, part of the remaining commenters are arguing in contest, does not provide evidence that an entire subreddit supports a notion that "The muslims deserved it." This is asinine and foolish. The subreddits rules themselves condemn hate speech of any kind against any ethnicity, group, or race. It's also worth mentioning that you're conflating criticism of a religion with suggested violence against it. Even the HUGELY upvoted post of an ASTOUNDING 47 upvotes does not "justify" violence against Muslims. It does not imply that innocent worshipers deserved to be executed in any way, shape or form. The only implication is the criticism of the prescribed violence in the religion itself.

Additionally, your wayback link works - however it does not contain the comments you've suggested, nor does it allow you to visit said page.

Secondly, accepting information from ANY source (no matter how reliable) without backups, citations, or screenshots is poor practice. I would advise against doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.64.17 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Biased Summary

The summary ends with "The subreddit has been described by mainstream media outlets as hosting conspiracy theories and content that is racist, misogynistic, islamophobic, and antisemitic.", which is true. However members and moderators of the subreddit have asserted that it is not racist or antisemitic both in individual posts and on the subreddit wiki. I attempted to add the counterpoint in, with a reference back to the community's wiki page on which it states "No racism or Antisemitism", but my edit was deleted. I do not understand why; and I feel very strongly as though the page now reads very biased. "— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murandin (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Vice citations and quotes

As per WP:RSP:

There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice magazine or Vice Media websites, including Motherboard and Vice News. It is generally regarded as more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics.

This seems to indicate that, while there is no overwhelming consensus in the community regarding Vice as a whole, they are generally not considered WP:RS for political topics. Given this is an article about a political topic, are there any extenuating circumstances that should override the established precedent? If not they should probably be removed. WookieInHeat (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention is that in the case that you removed, Vice is not being used to support any factual statement, but is being used for opinion, and the standard required for a piece to be usable for opinion is going to be lower than for statements of fact. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I do see that Motherboard/Vice is being used elsewhere for factual content; I would suggest bringing this up at WP:RSN if you are concerned (RSN is specifically for individual cases of determining source reliablity) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If this were an article about a celebrity I might be concerned about that. But given that this is a political topic, do you have any response to my question above? Thank you WookieInHeat (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect what Galobtter is saying is that you're more likely to gain a consensus at RSN than you are here, so you might as well go to RSN straightaway. I personally don't know enough about those outlets to come to any conclusions about them at this time. R2 (bleep) 23:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliability is contextual and depends on the source being cited. Which specific use of it do you object to? If your objection is to using it for its opinion, that's really a WP:DUE issue rather than an WP:RS issue (I think they clearly pass the WP:RS threshold for opinion.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

On Talk:Call-out culture you said "Things should only be included when there's secondary non-opinion sourcing indicating that they're important to understanding the topic", think we should apply same standard here.Sourcerery (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That was in reference to examples, which raise serious WP:SYNTH issues because they don't themselves say anything about the topic (and are therefore a serious risk for editors trying to make an WP:OR point by laying them out in the form of an argument.) With opinion-pieces directly discussing the topic, I do feel it's good to avoid using too many of them or relying on obscure or tangential opinions; but using a few high-profile, representative opinion pieces to illustrate reactions to the subject is normal. You can see that the current Call-Out Culture article nearly consists of nothing but such reactions. I think that state is a bad thing, and was a reason to remove some of the more obscure or tangential ones, but I wouldn't remove such reactions entirely - instead, it needs more non-opinion sources to discuss the topic and not just people's reactions to it. That's not a problem here, where the reactions section is a much smaller proportion of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

/r/AskThe_Donald/

that is another page that is related to /r/The Donald somebody might want to put it in the article https://www.reddit.com/r/AskThe_Donald/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike10dude (talk • contribs) 10:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Editors note that most news articles exclude the leading slash for subreddits. In the absence of a style guideline, we defer to common usage. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 06:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

---

• /r/The_Donald → R/The Donald
• /r/AskHistorians → R/AskHistorians
• /r/IAmA → R/IAmA
• /r/science → R/science

– Aside from the fact that most Reddit user refer the subreddits like this move request, most media recently after Reddit quarantined The_Donald refer to the subreddit like this (search "the donald"). Hddty. (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support I'm a little dubious about the claim that this is the most popular style on Reddit itself (I did an analysis of Reddit comments which referred to subreddits about a year ago, and at the time leading slash was the most popular style), but it does seem to be the most popular style in news coverage, which is more relevant. With a quick search of Google news for the term "subreddit", I found 1 article with a trailing slash, and 4 without: [5], [6], [7], [8]. (Also, there are some sources that just say "the AskHistorians subreddit", "the science subreddit" etc. though obviously those aren't good article title candidates for various reasons). Colin M (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I think linking subreddit without initial slash is more popular after this change in 2015. Hddty. (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - r/changemyview already follows this format. If for some reason this move request fails, then it would probably be appropriate to add a leading slash there.- Axisixa T C 03:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, BrandonXLF just moved this article from /r/changemyview to r/changemyview earlier this month. Brandon, would you like to comment here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support, for reasons above. In addition, when speaking about a subreddit, it’s more common to say “r slash (name of subreddit)”. WildChild300^Talk 23:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The convention of naming boards goes beyond Reddit. I acknowledge that recently, mass media attention to /r/The Donald has converged to calling it "r/The Donald". However, I see this as misnaming by media sources which have no history of discussing this sort of content and which themselves have not settled on any planned or published manual of style. 4chan is an example of a website which is comparable in popularity, age, and notoriety to Reddit, and the convention when discussing boards there is to name them with the forward slash as in /b/ and /pol/. Instead of setting a rule based on recent trends for one media cycle of one board of one platform, we should seek to apply the more general and accepted style for this general situation for this class of websites. I am unable to identity any published manual of style whatever the case, but my feeling is that /whatever/ has been the preferred style for 15+ years. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• In the sources I listed above I deliberately avoided any articles talking about /r/The_Donald, and still found that 4/5 used no leading slash, so I don't think it's fair to say this is "one media cycle of one board". Colin M (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The naming format used by 4chan is entirely irrelevant to a discussion about reddit, a completely different website. A review of recent uses of subreddit naming styles at [9] and [10] supports the "r/whatever" style. ST47 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support dispite the fact it would make the R in the Url capitalized, it's better than a double slash. I also support replacing all mentions of subreddit to the new format in all articles. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 18:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.