| Revision as of 00:25, 10 August 2015 editCharles Edwin Shipp (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,059 editsm →His campaign team: His campaign team?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:22, 5 January 2025 edit undoMuboshgu (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators376,756 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2024 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Skip to talk}} | |||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
| {{American English}} | |||
| {{BLP}} | |||
| {{afd-merged-from|One people under one God|One people under one God|20 October 2018}} | |||
| {{discretionary sanctions|topic=ap|style=long}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|1= | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=mid}} | ||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=Yes|American-importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=top |trump=yes |trump-importance=top}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Copied|from=Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016|from_oldid=705229724|to=Political positions of Donald Trump|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=705229642}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{American politics AE|1RR=no|Consensus required=no|BRD=yes}} | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Tan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| |algo = old( |
| algo = old(365d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign |
| archive = Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| | counter = 13 | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Section sizes}} | |||
| {{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=90 |units=days}} | |||
| == Shift focus to neutrality == | |||
| Requester suggests the article author used bias. Critic, criticism or criticized words are used 92 times. Suggests a shift of focus from opinion to fact, with less speech quotes, which will be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2024 == | |||
| {{Edit semi-protected|Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign|answered=yes}} | |||
| Please change the date where he is recorded as being declared the presumptive nominee to May 3, 2016. | |||
| Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/2016_Indiana_Republican_presidential_primary | |||
| Also, if you look up “Trump may 3 2016,” you’ll see portraits of Trump at an election night event in Manhattan with his family members, giving a speech. ] (]) 22:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> This was already verified by citations in the ]. Thanks. ] (]) 23:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Cambridge Analytics == | |||
| ''In addition, UK big data voter opinion influencer Cambridge Analytics was hired by the Trump campaign in 2016. '''In March 2018, it was revealed through undercover footage that Cambridge Analytica used seductive women to entice a rival candidate while secretly videotaping the encounter. The firm also sent impostors who acted like wealthy individuals only to give them bribes.''''' | |||
| == FEC Form 2 == | |||
| This section should be removed or at least heavily reworded. An ''unrelated'' controversy with a consultancy firm shouldn't be in the ''Branding'' subsection of an article about a presidential campaign. Not every controversy with every consultancy firm hired by a campaign is noteworthy. | |||
| Trump has filed FEC Form 2, 22 June 2015. See ]. --] (]) 18:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| In addition- that's comparatively minor for the firm and was not widely reported on. There are actually much more relevant controversies. Possible campaign finance law violations and how the firm acquired Facebook data used in the campaign. ] (]) 05:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == On the inclusion of all significant viewpoints == | |||
| The problems with this page are comparable with the problems expressed in the tag, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." It is particularly important for articles on present-day politics to include important sentiment(s) from all sides. For the sub-categories, Trump is often the only one sourced, and the opinions of Trump's critics are often given misrepresented and/or. A good example can be found in the paragraph about the remarks on illegal immigration in his candidacy announcement speech, which the article simply says drew criticism from his "opponents." This suggests that the only people who criticized his remarks are people who had biases against him from the start; if this were the case, Trump himself would not have been on record saying he didn't expect the resulting backlash to be as severe as it was. In truth, the remarks made him many ''more'' opponents than he had previously had. ] (]) 05:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you have something specific that needs to be addressed? Based on what you've written, I can't decipher what your complaint is. Whatever it may be, ] is NOT what are describing--of that much I am certain. So, you'll need to help us zero-in on whatever it is that you think requires attention, or we'll have to pull your tag. (Actually, we should probably pull it anyway, as it is clearly inappropriate.) ] (]) <span style="font-size:smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding ] comment added 06:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :: Hello ], I believe ] is especially complaining about this bit, bolded-emphasis added by myself: | |||
| <blockquote><blockquote> | |||
| During his announcement of his candidacy, Trump made a statement regarding illegal immigration '''that prompted reactions from his opponents, as well as from proponents who defended his remarks.''' He stated in part, "." In the days following, several businesses and organizations - including NBC, Macy's, and Univision - cut ties with Trump over his comments. Defenders of Trump's remarks on illegal immigration have included presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Congressman Steve King, and various families of victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. For his part, Trump has defended his comments, cited news articles to back up his claims and made illegal immigration a major issue in his campaign. | |||
| </blockquote></blockquote> | |||
| :: Macy's obviously cannot and ought not be lumped in with "Trump's opponents" (aka other presidential candidates competing against Trump in particular , and the proponents of non-Republican-political-parties including Democrats in general). The paragraph is unbalanced, because although it talks neutrally about the controversial statement, and gives a reasonably-neutral quotation of the controversial statement... it then goes on to give one sentence of vague criticism ('several businesses cut ties'), and one sentence-fragment saying vaguely that 'his opponents reacted' to the statement. Everything else is positive. There is nothing specific I see that terribly *wrong* with the positive stuff; it appears to be backed by sources. I would suggest that some of the positive-parts are improperly vague: does Ted Cruz ''100%'' agree with Trump? does Steve King ''100%'' agree with Trump? the prose here implies as much, but that may not be the case (wikipedia should clearly reflect what the sources say -- and avoid implying something the sources do not explicitly say). | |||
| :: But we cannot omit the negative coverage. When I do a search for <code>trump announcement immigration rapists "good people"</code>, the ] that turn up are very-negative, mostly-negative, pretty-close-to-neutral, somewhat-positive (Santorum & Guiliani need to be added to the paragraph... but note well they cannot be lumped in as "defenders" of Trump per their own multi-faceted-statements) and mostly-positive. Right now, what is in mainspace doesn't reflect ALL the sources. | |||
| :: There is a particular flaw with the boldfaced bit in the paragraph; from the interview with Costa, as reported by HuffPo, we learn that Trump blamed "Democrats and enemies" for blowing up one paragraph of his announcement-speech into a controversy. Now, it is okay for wikipedia to state that ''according to Trump'' the controversy over the statement "prompted reactions from his opponents" but it is NOT okay to use wikipedia's voice, and state flat out that the statement "prompted reactions from Trump's opponents" without attribution nor qualification... thereby implying that Trump's opponents were the ''only ones'' who reacted. See ] and also ]. We can and should give Trump's position, and Trump's reaction to the backlash. But we have to give it as Trump's, not as wikipedia's. | |||
| :: Most seriously, the paragraph mentions the businesses-cut-ties stuff, but otherwise ignores the mostly-negative and very-negative press coverage (see list of samples above). Those very-negative and mostly-negative ] also need sentences in this paragraph (my suggestion would be one sentence about criticism by other Republicans and one sentence about criticism from liberal&Democratic groups and then a summary-sentence that sums up the list of groups that have criticized the controversial stance which roughly parallels the "defenders" sentence), otherwise we have an ] problem. ] (]) 14:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Full edit summary == | |||
| === another announcement-speech quotation, the "no-bicycle-races" campaign promise === | |||
| I tried to provide a long edit summary for my recent (and possibly controversial) removal of a sentence about Trump's support among minority Republicans, but it got cut off around 3/4 through. As such, I thought I'd provide the full summary here: | |||
| ] added something about this back in mid-June, but it was deleted, and I can understand why (looks very random when taken out of context). But appearances can be deceiving, and in this case bicycle races *are* worth mentioning methinks, per ] best-quotes-list by ]. Here is a rough-draft that I put together: | |||
| {{quote|Removed sentence "Trump had a persistently high popularity among Republican and leaning-Republican minority voters". None of the four cited sources explicitly or even somewhat back up this claim. One source is a poll that shows Clinton leading among minority voters, but doesn't specify the views of minority Republicans specifically. Another is about the National Black Republican Association endorsing Trump. The third is about a group of black pastors endorsing Trump, while the fourth has a Trump advisor talking about how much Hispanics love him, but then notes that "One national poll this fall had Mr. Trump’s unfavorability among Hispanics at a death-rattling 82 percent." Together, none of these citations support the stated claim.}} ] (]) 14:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| During his announcement speech, Trump said he would keep ] from acquiring ]s, and criticized ] for the current status of ]; Trump also criticized Kerry's judgement outside the political realm, in particular breaking{{when}} his leg (at age 72) in a ], following which Trump made a firm ] never to race bicycles himself. | |||
| ] | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 24#Support for President Donald Trump by white Americans}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 20:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This is too long, and may need to be cut down, but I'm not sure how far we can cut it down ('as simple as possible but no simpler') yet still manage to explain to the readership the context of the no-bicycle-races remark. I do think the quote helps give the flavor of the Trump candidacy; it is funny/zany/flamboyant, yet at the same time cuts to the heart of one of his important campaign-issues (it really matters who the president picks to put at the negotiating-table with other countries). As for placement, the no-bicycle-races stuff belongs in the Announcement section, either immediately after (or perhaps merged with) this existing sentence: "In the speech, Trump also pledged he would fund Social Security, not cut it, renegotiate U.S. trade agreements, oppose federal Common Core education standards, and complete the Mexican border fence and make Mexico pay for it." | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 24#Trump campaign controversies}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 20:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 24#TrumPAC}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 20:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Trump' campaign announcement deserves its own article == | |||
| p.s. I also would suggest adding more context to the 'make Mexico pay for it' portion, since that sounds non-sensible until you understand that Trump is planning on using illegal/undocumented immigrants to supply the labor, and subsequently deporting them, then via diplomatic channels trying to extract the cost imposed by those deported, from the government of Mexico. Not as good a sound-bite, but this is an encyclopedia so we should try and stay a bit more formal/educational. ] (]) 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: I added a couple sentences about this to mainspace, after I found a cite for Kerry's accident; he wasn't in a ''bicycle race'', that was a bit of poetic license on Trump's part, but Kerry did break his leg in May'15. I haven't tried to clarify the make-mexico-pay-for-it-portion yet. ] (]) 05:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I know not everything deserves its own article, however; I believe with how iconic his announcement was with coming down the escalator in Trump Tower, as well as his speech, and how that was the springboard for essentially a whole new era in America, it definitely deserves its own article. ] (]) 00:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==General election polls not yet relevant== | |||
| Unanalyzed general election polls are not yet relevant, are misleading, and amount to ], since they do not contain running mates. The one listed showing Hilary is not really relevant at this point. ] (]) 20:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. We have an article for Republican polling, and that is available in the template and series box. Mention of polls at all on preliminary campaign articles is not only irrelevant, but no encyclopedic. '''] ]''' 20:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, and actually, some polling shows combinations of Trump and one of the other Republicans as possibly beating Hilary and a running mate. What's more Hilary hasn't been nominated.] (]) 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Well she hasn't been nominated yet, although she is quite likely to receive it. But the fact she is the near-guarantee like Nixon in ')0, the polling is inherently flawed. '''] ]''' 20:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I {{u|That Coptic Guy}} left on your talk page. You didn't listen. That's unfortunate. This is getting disruptive. – ] (]) 00:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Another Democrat could still enter, Hilary has problems.] (]) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree with what you've said regarding his editing habits; however, on this one I think he has a good point. Trump's 2015 campaign announcement has received plenty of coverage independent of his campaign itself, and over a long period of time: I believe it meets ] and is worthy of discussion as a standalone article. ] (]) 02:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2024 == | |||
| :Don't forget Bernie, he's polled competitively in several of the early states. ] (]) 03:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Polling-data is encyclopedic, as long as it is handled properly. Almost every ] article I read about Trump specifically mentions that he is doing well in the polls. Wikipedians should not use our own logic (for instance, reasoning that since the polls in question didn't include veeps, therefore they are not REALLY worth noting), we should reflect what the sources actually say, per ]. It is perfectly fine for an article about a presidential candidate, to talk about how well that candidate is doing in nationwide/swingstate polls relative to other Republican candidates (if the reliable sources talk about such things), to talk about how well that candidate is doing in nationwide/swingstate polls relative to other Democratic candidates (if the reliable sources talk about such things), and to talk about how well that candidate is doing (relative to others) in their fundraising/endorsements/staffers and so on and so forth. It is NOT original research, to quote some article in ] which discusses the hypothetical matchup of Trump versus Hillary, and mentions ] polling-data on that hypothetical. That is the *opposite* of original research. (It would be original research if, ''extrapolating'' from the Politico/Quinnipiac datasets, using a spreadsheet on my own, ''I'' were to come up with some claims about how well the S.Palin/D.Trump ticket would fair against the M.Obama/H.Clinton ticket during the 2020 elections... since absolutely *none* of '''that''' particular hypothetical has been discussed in Politico, nor polled by Quinniapiac.) Just because something is in the future, does not mean wikipedians can refuse to include it, in our articles. ], means, if the ''sources'' are talking about the future, then wikipedia can summarize what they said, in a neutral tone, no problem whatsoever. Otherwise, logically, we could just delete all this 2016-election stuff, ], right? ] (]) 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Right: polling is relevant ''as long as it is handled properly'', which means dismissing polls that really don't mean anything. As has been pointed out already, it is not possible to conduct a meaningful general election poll because we are still a full year from selecting the running mates. Thus, polls concerning the general election are merely "noise", basically just space-filler material. And no, not encyclopedic. ] (]) 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Doing some research on specific sources turns up these sources (see greenbox). That's just the top few hits from googling for <code>trump hillary poll</code>. I'm sure there are more. Now, I fully realize, hypothetical head-to-head nationwide polling is inherently flawed; it ignores the electoral college, it ignores the winner-take-all nature of swing states, it ignores veep-picks, it ignores the next 15 months of campaigning / scandals / zingers / gaffes / commercials / endorsements / momentum / etc. But it is ], and cannot be omitted from wikipedia, because wikipedia has to stay neutral per ], and reflect what the sources say per ]. See also, ], this stuff is critical to what 'being encyclopedic' means. I don't find polling-data-summaries listed at ]. Are we just talking about different things, here? Here is a reliably-sourced sentence I think belongs in the article. | |||
| {{collapsetop| suggest a specific sentence, that summarizes the candidate-relative-polling-numbers, for Trump-vs-repubs and Trump-vs-dems }} | |||
| ::::* {{cite web |url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/04/fox-news-poll-new-high-for-trump-new-low-for-clinton/ |title=Fox News Poll: New high for Trump, new low for Clinton |author=Dana Blanton |date=August 04, 2015 }} | |||
| ::::* {{cite web |url=http://nypost.com/2015/07/30/trump-surges-in-new-poll-while-hillary-sinks/ |title=Trump surges in new poll while Hillary sinks |author=Marisa Schultz |date=July 30, 2015 |quote= In a head-to-head matchup among all voters, however, Clinton beat Trump, 48-36 percent. But she trailed Bush, 44-41, a sharp turn from May, when she handily topped him, 47-37. }} | |||
| ::::* {{cite web |url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/politics/donald-trump-poll-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush/index.html |title=Poll: Bush, Trump rising nationally for GOP, but both trail Clinton |author=Jennifer Agiesta |date=July 1, 2015 |quote=Clinton, though, continues to lead all GOP candidates in head-to-head general election match-ups. ... Looking ahead to the general election, Clinton continues to hold significant leads over Bush (54% Clinton to 41% Bush) and Christie (56% Clinton to 37% Christie). She has also opened up wide leads over Rubio (56% Clinton to 39% Rubio) and Walker (57% Clinton to 38% Walker), as those two have slipped among independents. Clinton's clearest advantage, however, is over Donald Trump, 59% say they would vote for Clinton if the 2016 match-up were between her and Trump, 34% say they would back Trump. }} | |||
| ::::* {{cite web |url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/07/14/usa-today-suffolk-poll-republicans-donald-trump/30102255/ |title=Poll: Trump leads the GOP field but falters against Clinton |author=Susan Page and Erin Raftery |date=July 14, 2015 |quote=Donald Trump has surged to the top of a crowded Republican presidential field, a USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, but the brash billionaire is also the weakest competitor among the top seven GOP candidates against Democrat Hillary Clinton. ...in hypothetical head-to-heads against former secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic nominee. Bush, the strongest candidate against Clinton, lags by four points nationwide, 46%-42%. Trump trails by 17 points, 51%-34%. That's a wider margin than Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (down 6 points), former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (8 points), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (9 points), Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (10 points) and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (13 points). }} | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign|answered=yes}} | |||
| :::: Do you disagree that these specific newspapers and television networks count as ] of information about political contests, ]? Do you disagree with my interpretation, that they are in fact publishing scientifically-gathered polling data, from wiki-reliable polling firms? Obviously, we need to summarize what is being said (not list every blow-by-blow percentage), and we need to phrase the overall summarization of those factoids neutrally (not copy the POV attention-grabbing headlines), but that is hardly difficult, right? If the sources reported something, it means that something was ], and that something thus belongs in the relevant wikipedia article. These secondary sources are reporting material that, ], belongs in this specific article. Something like: | |||
| For the "Praise for authoritarian foreign leaders", I would consider adding this about Assad: | |||
| :::::: * '''As of July 2015, Trump moved into first place in polls of Republican voters, when asked their first-pick preference for the Republican nominee in 2016; however, in hypothetical nationwide head-to-head polling data amongst all registered voters regardless of party affiliation, as of July 2015 Trump was behind the likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by double-digits, with approximately five other Republican candidates faring than Trump better by this metric.''' (Or we could do it graphically, like here. They have versus-Clinton charts for Trump, Bush, Cruz, Huckabee, Walker, Rubio, Paul, Ryan, Christie, albeit not yet for Carson for some reason, nor for any of the other repub candidates whom aren't polling in the top-ten-tier nationally amongst repub voters.) | |||
| :::: Once we have numbers for August, we can add another sentence; once we have numbers for September, we can do it again. We record the history of the polling-numbers over time, not merely because it *is* the proverbial footnote in the history books, but because the trends will show how the campaigns are faring, relatively speaking, to each other (intra-Republican and also intra-major-party). We already have an article with blow-by-blow polling data, but *this* article needs some polling-data-summary-sentences. As an aside, same exact reasoning applies to all the other campaign-articles, where such data exists, and secondary sources have reported on it... I note that only 8 of the 17 repub candidates actually *has* been polled against Clinton nationally per huffpo, because the polling firms haven't bothered with several candidates who have very little shot of being the repub nominee (plus have been skipping Carson ... or maybe that's a temporary bug in the HuffPo server and his chart is just down for repairs). | |||
| {{collapsebottom}} | |||
| :::: Anyways, long story short, merely linking to the polling-data-articles in not enough. There are headline-stories about how Trump is doing in the polls against other repubs, against dems, against specific demographics, in approval-rating, in could-support, and so on and so forth. The history of his polling-data (relative to other presidential candidates) is definitely a topic for this article. By way of contrast, we have a separate article on endorsements, and this article links there, but this article also has a collapsed list of ''nearly all'' of the endorsements. We also need either a graph, or a one-sentence-per-month summarization, or a collapsed-copy, of the polling data ''about Trump'', since that polling data is proven to matter, by the wiki-reliable sources that keep publishing about it. ] (]) 22:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Trump has praised ] ] multiple times. During the ], Trump stated that he didn't like Assad, but also praised him, ], and ] for their fight against ISIS.<ref>https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-praise-russia-iran-assad-criticism-229546</ref> The ] condemned Trump, calling him a "liar".<ref>https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-assad-isis-debate-2016-10</ref> In the October 16 debate, he stated that Assad is "much tougher and much smarter" than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.<ref>https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-assad-tougher-and-smarter-than-obama-and-clinton-2016-10</ref> ] (]) 19:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==SSM=== | |||
| :{{partly done}} We try to avoid using Business Insider as a source for political content due to concerns about quality/reliability, but I've added the first sentence with the Politico citation. ] (]) 22:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] - | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| {{quote|TRUMP: Look, it's an issue that been determined by the Supreme Court. And frankly, you know, I'm about jobs; I'm about making the country great. I would have liked to have seen the decision differently. And you have another decision ObamaCare, which is a disaster given to us by John Roberts who was appointed by Bush who was pushed by Jeb Bush.}} | |||
| == Should Trump's 2015 announcement get its own article? == | |||
| Changing statement - he hasn't said "Christian views on marriage" -- ] (]) 09:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I argued this above but wanted to make it a standalone post. Trump's campaign announcement is unique compared to other campaign announcements for the lasting coverage it received: It meets ], imo. ] (]) 22:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == His campaign team == | |||
| : I don't think his campaign announcement is independently notable from the campaign itself. What more needs to be said outside of that three-paragraph section? – ] (]) 00:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| What else can be said about his campaign team? He certainly doesn't need any 'advisors'. | |||
| Headline-1: '''Trump strategist Roger Stone off campaign, dispute whether fired or quit''' | |||
| * http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/08/trump-camp-says-it-has-fired-infamous-strategist-roger-stone/ | |||
| QUOTE: "A top political adviser to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is off the campaign, but both sides dispute whether he was fired or quit. A Trump spokesperson said early Saturday that high-profile adviser Roger Stone was fired. “Roger wanted to use the campaign for his own personal publicity,” the spokesman told FoxNews.com. “He has had a number of articles about him recently, and Mr. Trump wants to keep the focus of the campaign on how to Make America Great Again." However, Stone said later in the day that he quit, citing in part Trump’s “provocative” battles with the news media, politicians and others." -- ] (]) 00:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. | |||
Latest revision as of 00:22, 5 January 2025
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | One people under one God was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 October 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 was copied or moved into Political positions of Donald Trump with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Shift focus to neutrality
Requester suggests the article author used bias. Critic, criticism or criticized words are used 92 times. Suggests a shift of focus from opinion to fact, with less speech quotes, which will be more appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the date where he is recorded as being declared the presumptive nominee to May 3, 2016.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/2016_Indiana_Republican_presidential_primary
Also, if you look up “Trump may 3 2016,” you’ll see portraits of Trump at an election night event in Manhattan with his family members, giving a speech. 2604:2D80:7A87:EA00:F8A3:496F:CDD4:490 (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Done This was already verified by citations in the article. Thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Cambridge Analytics
In addition, UK big data voter opinion influencer Cambridge Analytics was hired by the Trump campaign in 2016. In March 2018, it was revealed through undercover footage that Cambridge Analytica used seductive women to entice a rival candidate while secretly videotaping the encounter. The firm also sent impostors who acted like wealthy individuals only to give them bribes.
This section should be removed or at least heavily reworded. An unrelated controversy with a consultancy firm shouldn't be in the Branding subsection of an article about a presidential campaign. Not every controversy with every consultancy firm hired by a campaign is noteworthy.
In addition- that's comparatively minor for the firm and was not widely reported on. There are actually much more relevant controversies. Possible campaign finance law violations and how the firm acquired Facebook data used in the campaign. ArguedOyster (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Full edit summary
I tried to provide a long edit summary for my recent (and possibly controversial) removal of a sentence about Trump's support among minority Republicans, but it got cut off around 3/4 through. As such, I thought I'd provide the full summary here:
Removed sentence "Trump had a persistently high popularity among Republican and leaning-Republican minority voters". None of the four cited sources explicitly or even somewhat back up this claim. One source is a poll that shows Clinton leading among minority voters, but doesn't specify the views of minority Republicans specifically. Another is about the National Black Republican Association endorsing Trump. The third is about a group of black pastors endorsing Trump, while the fourth has a Trump advisor talking about how much Hispanics love him, but then notes that "One national poll this fall had Mr. Trump’s unfavorability among Hispanics at a death-rattling 82 percent." Together, none of these citations support the stated claim.
Loytra (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
"Support for President Donald Trump by white Americans" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Support for President Donald Trump by white Americans has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 24 § Support for President Donald Trump by white Americans until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
"Trump campaign controversies" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Trump campaign controversies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 24 § Trump campaign controversies until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
"TrumPAC" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect TrumPAC has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 24 § TrumPAC until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Trump' campaign announcement deserves its own article
I know not everything deserves its own article, however; I believe with how iconic his announcement was with coming down the escalator in Trump Tower, as well as his speech, and how that was the springboard for essentially a whole new era in America, it definitely deserves its own article. Vinnylospo (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I saw the note That Coptic Guy left on your talk page. You didn't listen. That's unfortunate. This is getting disruptive. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with what you've said regarding his editing habits; however, on this one I think he has a good point. Trump's 2015 campaign announcement has received plenty of coverage independent of his campaign itself, and over a long period of time: I believe it meets WP:GNG and is worthy of discussion as a standalone article. Dingers5Days (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2024
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the "Praise for authoritarian foreign leaders", I would consider adding this about Assad:
Trump has praised Syrian President Bashar al-Assad multiple times. During the October 9 debate, Trump stated that he didn't like Assad, but also praised him, Russia, and Iran for their fight against ISIS. The Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently condemned Trump, calling him a "liar". In the October 16 debate, he stated that Assad is "much tougher and much smarter" than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. 217.180.201.178 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Partly done We try to avoid using Business Insider as a source for political content due to concerns about quality/reliability, but I've added the first sentence with the Politico citation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
References
- https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-praise-russia-iran-assad-criticism-229546
- https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-assad-isis-debate-2016-10
- https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-assad-tougher-and-smarter-than-obama-and-clinton-2016-10
Should Trump's 2015 announcement get its own article?
I argued this above but wanted to make it a standalone post. Trump's campaign announcement is unique compared to other campaign announcements for the lasting coverage it received: It meets WP:SIGCOV, imo. Dingers5Days (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think his campaign announcement is independently notable from the campaign itself. What more needs to be said outside of that three-paragraph section? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class 2010s articles
- Mid-importance 2010s articles
- WikiProject 2010s articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class Elections and Referendums articles
- WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Mid-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class United States Presidents articles
- Top-importance United States Presidents articles
- B-Class Donald Trump articles
- Top-importance Donald Trump articles
- Donald Trump task force articles