Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:06, 5 June 2016

Citizen Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 December 2015 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.

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: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page 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. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 30 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Pepper Spray Incident

The question posed: "Should this article include coverage of the pepper spraying incident at a Trump rally in Janesville, WI on March 29, 2016?"

The clear consensus in the RfC is "no". Cunard (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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

@Drmies: Drmies can you provide an explanation for your terse and confusing edit summary here? There appears no BLP violation as no name is given, and the actual police report is one of the sources along with media coverage. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Such a police press release is not a reliable source, and the relevance of the incident(s) to the Trump campaign is unclear at best. I agree with Drmies that it should be removed. Huon (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The police press release is companion to a WP:RS, CBS News. Are you ignoring that? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What Huon says. I cannot explain why it would strike you as confusing; it's terse because it's short and because I am somewhat disappointed to see a serious article be loaded with highly questionable material and insufficient sourcing. Also, discretionary sanctions apply on BLPs and on American Politics since 1932. Well, they don't apply since 1932 of course. Please edit conservatively, and edit war in moderation only. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's confusing because with no names of the involved, the BLP policy appears not to apply, and because you claim it is "innuendo" when the instance is covered by CBS News and the police are seeking a suspect. I cannot see how these match logically. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is a fairly unequivocal policy, I think, and it doesn't say anything about mentioning names or not. Note: I've nominated the corresponding fair-use image, File:Trump Protester Pepper Sprayed Following Sexual Assault At Rally (Janesville, WI, March 29, 2016).jpg, for speedy deletion per WP:F5 as the image is now unused and I do not believe a consensus exists for the information with which the image is paired to be included in the article. —Nizolan 22:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, I hate to get all adminny about this, but "innuendo": what this looks like is that someone is adding every bit of nasty news they can about Trump's campaign to smear him and his campaign. And BLP. So let's be adults here and not pretend we don't know what's going on. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:BLPCRIME applies to the subject of the article. While I would, by extension, avoid mentioning any names of the people involved, this incident is being widely covered by reputable news organizations. It is obviously related to Trump's campaign. There remains the question of editorial discretion as to whether it is significant enough to include in the article.- MrX 22:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the word Drmies is looking for is WP:COATRACK. - MrX 22:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, related yes, editorial discretion yes also: thank you. BLP applies everywhere. Coatrack--no. I had found the words already: innuendo, smear. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I added a few sentences about this incident before I saw this in the talk page. Feel free to remove it if there is a consensus to do so. It reads as follows: On March 29, during a protest outside a rally in Janesville, Wisconsin, local police reported a 15-year-old girl was groped and, following an altercation with the suspect, was pepper sprayed by another individual. A 19-year-old woman was hit with the pepper spray during the same incident MrVenaCava (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's funny because that's basically the wording I'd left, but that's what Drmies was not very kind about.

I mean, it's covered by CNN, CBS, NBC, Int'l Business Times, Australian news , New Zealand news , British news ... if it's not a notable incident being on international news, I don't know what would make it notable.

@Drmies: - I would appreciate an apology for being accused of "innuendo" and "smears" and "adding every bit of nasty news they can" (seriously, look at my contributions to the article, it's precious little compared to the article size) and the snide "let's be adults here and not pretend we don't know what's going on" too. I don't think it's tremendously civil of you to attack my motivations. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say anything about it being the subject of the article or not either, for good reason: BLP applies to everything we write about living people. —Nizolan 06:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nizolan: WP:BLPCRIME states "For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." We can argue whether this sentence refers to the subject of the article, or all living people in general, but it doesn't matter because the information that you removed doesn't mention anyone's name. This type of overly-broad application of the BLP policy is one of the reasons the Politics 1 and 2 Arbcom cases were brought in the first place. - MrX 12:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: "Subjects" refers to the "subjects" being written about. I'm not seeing the ambiguity here. There's a reason the very first sentence of the BLP page says the policy refers to "information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page", with that emphasis on the "any"; see also the template at the top of this page. You might want to look more closely at that diff, by the way—I didn't remove any information, notwithstanding my reservations on including the information in the article; I merely added the word "allegedly" so that it wasn't worded as a factual statement. —Nizolan 12:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I also note that in neither of those Arbcom cases did any of the decision relate to the BLP policy, in Politics 1 it isn't (as far as I can tell) even brought up in the main page of the case, and in the second case Collect (whose enforcement of BLP was the subject of complaint) was not sanctioned. I may be wrong, but I don't see anything in those cases that would militate against a firm adherence to the policy.

My BLP-related concern is that, as an editorial judgement, I don't believe we should include an allegation of sexual abuse which is only relevant to the article as one among a whole host of widely-reported incidents at Trump rallies. WP:BLPCRIME says explicitly that we should be even more careful when we are talking about persons who are not public figures, so the fact he's not the subject of the article would seem to make it more dubious, not less. And whether the name is mentioned or not seems to me to be just one factor rather than a decisive factor here, the "Trump supporter" is a particular person whose name is given in the references. —Nizolan 12:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I referenced the wrong case. The correct one is Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others#BLPs.- MrX 12:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

" the "Trump supporter" is a particular person whose name is given in the references. " - It seems that maybe you didn't even read the sources @Nizolan:? Police are still looking to identify the individual and no name has been released.

"Authorities are looking for one person in connection with the alleged sexual assault and another in connection with the pepper spray. Police released an image Wednesday of one individual in connection to the alleged incident, but they did not specify which alleged crime the person was possibly connected to." - CNN Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The alleged groper is already identified per this earlier source that was used in the article in the first place.--TMCk (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Last Updated Mar 30, 2016 1:10 PM EDT" - At yesterday, the name was not in that article. And WP:BLPCRIME still does not say that we shall not link to news reports.

The news coverage also shows that other Trump supporters were shouting things like "n****r lover" at her. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: I said the name was given in the sources because I read it in one of the citations last night. There's no indication that the "Last updated" applies to the name, since that's just a general note for the entire article. No need for the finger-pointing at other editors. —Nizolan 16:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE It appears the man is taking pains to present himself to the media, and therefore WP:BLPCRIME lacks relevance (if it even did before and I don't think it does, see below) since he is self-promotionally attempting to be WP:WELLKNOWN.

Overall, attempting to appeal to WP:BLPCRIME on the basis that SOURCES may identify an individual seems to be pushing the limits and/or misrepresenting the policy deliberately. The article already has numerous similar incidents reported on:

• September 3rd 2015 - perpetrator and victim both named in article and source
• March 10 2016 - perpetrator named in article and source
• March 12, 2016 - man accused of rushing stage is identified by name, and in source
• March 19, 2016 - article does not identify man by name but NBC source does.

Quite frankly, to try to suppress adding basic coverage of this most recent incident on the basis of a specious and unjustifiable and inconsistent appeal to a policy that does not apply is beyond pedantic. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

How about coming back if and when the guy or the girl or both of them are being actually charged (with assault)?--TMCk (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's just silly. If we take your misinterpretation of the policy seriously, we should just delete the entire section on the violence at Trump rallies, even though it's reported internationally and highly notable. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about policy at all. Please be more careful when reading.--TMCk (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC

As there appears to be a problem determining a consensus I am filing a request for comment. Should this article include coverage of the pepper spraying incident at a Trump rally in Janesville, WI on March 29, 2016? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - the incident is internationally reported, notable, relevant, and the listing is consistent with other incidents listed in the article section. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Leave out for now. If there is something to it and it stays in the news it can be revisited.--TMCk (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Leave out for now. I'll leave aside the issue of whether including the sexual assault claim is dodgy on BLP grounds, other than noting my continued concern on that front (thank you MrX for the Arbcom cite—I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but will do so), and stating for the record that contrary to claims above I haven't attempted to remove the claim from the article and don't intend to do so myself barring clear consensus.

My concern is essentially that we need to exercise editorial judgement here. It's a general maxim with article creation that accuracy does not confer notability. I believe, like our notability guidelines in general, this also applies in some form within articles: we don't need to include every incident on this particular page. (Cf. the ongoing discussion at the Village Pump over reactions to terrorist incidents for more concerns on these lines.) We should be selective in the incidents we choose to include. My suggested criterion would be to follow something like the overall notability policy on events. If there is evidence of sustained media coverage over more than a few days —the Lewandowski incidents, for instance—then they should go in. If there isn't, they shouldn't. There is a dedicated article on Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, where they can be listed even if they're not listed here. —Nizolan 15:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Point of order - I think we need a good consensus one way or the other on the WP:BLPCRIME claims, otherwise when the information is reflected in that other article, that argument could very well just pop up again on the new page. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my opinion the BLP point is specifically about the sexual assault and not the pepper-spraying, since the assault allegation seems to me to be a lot more serious. It may be that the two can't be divorced: I'm not sure that's true, since we can mention the pepper-spraying as an incidence of violence without the sexual assault allegation. I'm ambivalent on that issue, though. —Nizolan 16:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you include the pepper spraying you'd need to include it was in response to the punch in someones face and then you have to go further back to explain the trigger for that and you're all the way back to the "sexual assault" claim.--TMCk (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, and I can see that it might be seen as POV-biased against the victim. —Nizolan 16:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"you'd need to include it was in response to the punch in someones face" - TracyMcClark, you seem to be mistaking Trump partisan claims for facts. The accurate reporting, which follows the official police report to the public, says that it was her attempting to shove him away and not a "punch in the face." Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please pay more attention. I will give you again your own source after you removed my post from last night from your talk page:
"Janesville Police Sgt. Aaron Ellis told the Associated Press Wednesday that the girl told police she punched the man whom she accused of groping her,..." and "Ellis said the girl could also face charges for punching Crandall."--TMCk (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Leave it out for now - This seems like a relatively isolated incident that is only tangentially related to the campaign. The importance would be elevated if Mr. Trump, his staff, his security, or the Secret Service were involved. If this is still being covered by major news outlets in week, I will change my !vote accordingly.- MrX 16:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Leave it out Per WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't tied directly to the campaign, and might fit better in a side article about violence at rallies if it fits anywhere at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Leave out for now - not everything that happens at a Trump rally is relevant to the campaign. Huon (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Leave it out - Trump's campaign was not directly involved thus the incident should not be added. Meatsgains (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Leave out for now unless there is some new development. Neutrality 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed...leave it out...it could have happened anywhere. Buster Seven Talk 05:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Update – Media reports are now stating that the sexual assault allegations have been rejected by police . In view of the apparent consensus above and the fact that the distinguishing feature of the incident is no longer accurate I am removing the material from the article pending the confirmed decision of this RfC. (Pinging Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz as the original editor) —Nizolan 13:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Out - (a) It's WP:OFFTOPIC, an event in the crowd between people not involving Trump or any of his workers so not really related to the article topic. Similar things happen in many concerts or sports events, or anywhere a crowd is packed so it's a dog-bites-man not even very notable item. Also this seems (b) counter to WP:NOTNEWS chasing a tabloid story or 7-day wonder, and (c) smells like just going in for political reasons. Markbassett (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Out, per above, especially last three posts. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Out – Who am I to argue with a snowball? Objective3000 (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Include. I do not think these sorts of "campaign" articles are--or should be--restricted solely to the activities of the candidates and their campaign staff. Reactions by the public and notable controversies that arise out of the campaigns are totally appropriate and within scope. And as noted by others, this particular controversy received plenty of press. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Omit. A minor got violent, assaulted someone, got pepper-sprayed for it, was charged by police, Trump wasn't involved, none of his campaign workers involved, and we haven't heard about any convictions of anyone, AFAIK.. Did I mention "minor"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2016 (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.

RfC: Twitter controversy

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 details regarding a Twitter handle's website, which Trump retweeted, be restored to the page? Meatsgains (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• No - Per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. The information on the website is not relevant and deserves no place on Trump's presidential campaign page. Meatsgains (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• YES - Major news coverage in multiple news outlets has deemed it notable enough to include, due to the egregious nature of the account (far more outwardly and obviously white supremacist than some of the other white supremacist accounts Trump has retweeted). Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes (include). It's a key detail - an extraordinary one - that is of historic significance; I cannot recall any other presidential candidate ever doing such a thing. It's been extensively covered in the high-quality sources. And of course, it doesn't take up much space at all. Neutrality 06:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(I imagine other presidential candidates haven't done such a thing because Twitter was only founded in 2006...) —Nizolan 08:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but since the civil rights movement, no major-party presidential candidate until Trump has directly repeated the words of openly virulent white supremacists in other media formats, press releases etc... either. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

1964 was pretty much what I was thinking of, yep. —Nizolan 15:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - Verified information is what we rely on. The fact that a candidate is using Twitter (understandably a new phenomenon) as a vehicle to communicate is remarkable and will most likely become a mainstay of political campaigning. Without judging whether what was is tweeted is good or bad, the fact that Trump tweets is newsworthy and the details should be restored. Buster Seven Talk 06:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes -- Hear, here. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Unfortunately, this has been a recurring theme for this campaign, which is why it's important. Mr. Trump's retweet has been covered by Fortune, CNN, NBC, LA Times, The New Yorker, New York magazine, and the Washington Post, as well as internationally. This material provides relevant context.- MrX 16:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• No - I think it's ancillary to the topic.CFredkin (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - relevant and notable, part of what makes Trump different from other candidates.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• No - Associating someone with "Hitler" is usually a good indication that a conversation has gone off the rails a bit. It's enough to mention that he tweeted at a white supremacist. Adding that he tweeted at a white supremacist who praised Hitler seems a little redundant. It seems like WP:UNDUE soapboxing. NickCT (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• No it seems to me it's a guilt by association COATRACK addition. Hitler bit is not really relevant to the article. Darwinian Ape 09:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The comparison to Hitler is obviously "red hot". But, its not what he tweeted that matters . It's that he tweeted that needs to be mentioned. Buster Seven Talk 13:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• No very clear CoA here, based on WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. If we applied the same criteria being suggested by those in favour, at least half of this article would be devoted to picking apart tweets. JamesBay (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• No - Connections like this between the Trump campaign and extremism have received a huge amount of reliable news coverage and analysis and absolutely fair game. However the proposed level of detail here is overkill/piling on/non-neutral. If readers want to know more about these tweeters' particular flavor of white supremacism then they are free to click through. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

We can all agree the tweet itself is significant and should be included on the page. The question is, should the details claiming the "website contains a pro-Adolf Hitler documentary and a photo of American Nazi Party founder George Lincoln Rockwell" be added? Meatsgains (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why not simply add "nationalistic" into the description (my bolding): "...including posts from a user with the handle "WhiteGenocideTM" (a reference to the nationalistic white genocide conspiracy theory),..." and be done with?--TMCk (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Because we should work by the reported facts in the Reliable Sources, not by insinuation or requiring someone to play a game of Myst to figure out what's being referred to? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So you'd like to remove the "white genocide conspiracy theory" part?--TMCk (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's make it clear here, are you suggesting just having the word "nationalistic" or the entire phrase "nationalistic white genocide conspiracy theory"? Maybe it would help if you provided an example sentence or two of how you prefer to see it written, and why you think the wording used by pretty much all the media coverage isn't good enough for wikipedia. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh? I already gave the exact sentence above.--TMCk (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I support TracyMcClark's version, which I've included below for those who might have been confused:

Trump also raised controversy by "retweeting" posts from white supremacist Twitter feeds, including posts from a user with the handle "WhiteGenocideTM" (a reference to the nationalistic white genocide conspiracy theory). Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That looks plausible to me, though I'd use a dash rather than brackets. —Nizolan 05:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this account/site should be described as "nationalistic" which seems to be added in this RfC. I think of nationalistic, in U.S. politics, to be pro-America and I don't think white supremacy is pro-America as the country currently exists. Liz 22:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Haven't thought about the younger audience maybe not making the connection to the far right nationalism.--TMCk (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not just "a reference to a white nationalist conspiracy theory"? —Nizolan 07:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You're trying to engage in WP:OR then. We should stick to the wording as used by the numerous news organizations. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Who? Me, Nizolan or the article as it stands?--TMCk (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Shall we request a closure for this RfC? Meatsgains (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Alt right

I think that Alt-right should be mentioned in the "support base" section. As the article on alt right states, one of the defining characteristics of alt right is their support for Donald Trump's campaign, and this should be recognized here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingebot (talk • contribs) 08:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

First I ever heard of it, and I read nearly every political article in the major US papers and listen to all the Sunday talk shows and nearly 24/7 to C-Span. It the name gains currency it will show up in those places. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have read our article. They may support Trump, but I doubt Trump supports them, if he has ever heard of them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Many would argue his equivocation in the Tapper/KKK interview was an attempt to not turn them off. | MK17b | (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Republican opposition to Trump

Deleted Request

References

POV pusing Infobox title

@Primefac: and any subsequent editors who find themselves supporting Misplaced Pages content which is clearly politically bias and pushes a point of view. I would expect that an experienced editor might be able to identify something so blatant as "Donald J. Trump for President" being contained as a standalone statement within Misplaced Pages is an unambiguous violation of WP:5P2. It is by no means written with a neutral point of view and it is not an appropriate tone for information on Misplaced Pages. I would like to hear a single argument as to how this statement is not a violation of WP:5P2 before further reverts. However per WP:IAR and Primefac's history of initiating edit wars with me, I will revert back once on the basis that I strongly believe that Misplaced Pages should maintain an impartial tone however beyond that I will make no further reverts until consensus can be reached. Olowe2011 18:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

For the third opinion guy or girl (or third gender)

• Note I have not created this section because I am talking to myself. It's for the reference of the third opinion that I have requested for this issue.

Just as a note the disagreeing party appears to be Primefac as he indicates in his article reverts here Olowe2011 18:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

As stated in the documentation of {{Infobox U.S. federal election campaign}}, which is used in this article, |committee= is the "name of campaign's authorized committee, as listed with the FEC. Drop candidate's first name, "2008", or "Inc."), if preferred." I looked at Trump's official website, and it is indeed "Donald J. Trump for President." Primefac (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: That isn't an arguement as to why this does not violate WP:5P2. The template instructions do not constitute a policy nor do they contridict the exiting ones. How is the term "Donald J. Trump for President" in line with keeping Misplaced Pages non-bias and impartial? Olowe2011 19:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. The template asks for the name of the campaign committee. It isn't asking for the article title. Saying "Donald Trumps' presidential campaign is run by the 'Donald J. Trump for President' committee" is not biased, it's fact. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Primefac: I will take some time for this one given the importance and scale of the issue we are talking about. Firstly, Misplaced Pages isn't a political advertisement and shouldn't read like one either. Should this be a slogan it should be indicated as such, however to be so bold on the page and constitute an infobox title takes what is a political statement and projects it as a bias one sided opinion. This is wrong. I have never in my life (and should hope that I will never) find a credible written Encyclopedia other than Misplaced Pages that has information on an election campaign with it's infobox titled "Trump/Hilary ect for President." Olowe2011 19:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

How exactly is it POV to give the factual name of their campaigns? Does anybody think that "Hillary for America" or "Trump for President" in the infobox represents some sort of endorsement from Misplaced Pages? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• It doesn't exactly make it appear that its simply the "campaign name." It states in a bold title like format that x for President. For the uninvoved Misplaced Pages reader it could in fact read as an endorsement from Misplaced Pages, it's not exactly made clear it's something other. Olowe2011 19:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• It is worth noting that not all Misplaced Pages readers are American or should be expected to know what Committees even are. It should at least say its a committee name rather than boldly state that candidate x for President. It's comical but also a serious POV push. The whole reason they come up with them sorts of committee names is to endorse their candidate for election for presdient. And its displayed here in raw form. Olowe2011 19:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• It could be changed to "Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.", the official title as listed at the bottom of the campaign website. IP75 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• @IP75: That really doesn't resolve the issue. It still isn't clear enough for the reader to know it's a committee name unless it specifically states committee and is in line with the rest of the information text then it shouldn't be there as it's misleading at best. Olowe2011 21:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Fringe theories

There is a discussion about Trump and fringe theories at the main Donald Trump article, here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This also concerns the conspiracy theories section which was deleted from this article. Liz 20:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That section remains in this article, I merely reverted my expansion of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Enquirer

@Stephan Schulz: This edit has removed a lot of material with the following edit summary: "Undid revision 719234022 by Anythingyouwant (talk) NatEnq as a source in a BLP? Really?". The removed material is as follows:

Bump, Philip. "The 50-year-old mystery behind that photo of Lee Harvey Oswald", Washington Post (May 3, 2016).
Blake, Aaron. "Donald Trump’s day of many contradictions", Washington Post (May 5, 2016).
"DONALD TRUMP FULL INTERVIEW ON FOX & FRIENDS | FOX NEWS (5/3/2016)" (YouTube).
"Fox Host Regrets Not Pressing Trump When He Linked Cruz's Dad To Oswald", Talking Points Memo (May 5, 2016).

I don't see the Enquirer listed as a source here. Google News lists tens of thousands of articles about this controversy, and those hits aren't from the Enquirer either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's still based on the Enquirer article. Let's wait for two weeks to see if it isn't buried under more information garbage and forgotten. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but if we have Misplaced Pages articles that mention Hitler, Charles Manson, etc. then I don't see the problem mentioning the Enquirer. Anyway, this article already mentions the Enquirer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have restored a slightly modified version of the original formulation of this content (two sentences), cited only to the NY Times, Washington Post, and this Newsweek piece by a scholar of conspiracy theories at the University of Miami. As far as I can tell, nobody has objected to this - and in fact it looks like three different editors (including myself) have reverted to this version. Neutrality 22:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the fringe theory that Cruz's father was involved with Oswald and/or the JFK assassination, I have restored this reliably-sourced Trump quote: ""Of course I don’t believe that".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Jones

This article says, "Trump appeared during the campaign on the radio program of well-known conspiracy theorist Alex Jones." I object to this. It's fine to describe what Trump said during that radio program, but just saying he appeared is trivial. Lots of people have appeared on the Jones show, including Rand Paul. Merely saying Trump appeared on the show of a conspiracy theorist is classic guilt by association, and WP:BLP says very clearly: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC) @Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly not "guilt by association" because that addresses "claims" - the fact that Trump appeared on Jones' show, by contrast, is a statement of fact. And Trump's appearance on the show is so unusual that his mere appearance is noteworthy (which is why the NY Times mentioned it).

Nevertheless, I've modified the material to describe what Trump said during that radio program, as you suggested (namely, that he praised Jones). I've added a cite to a CNN piece to that effect, alongside the NY Times piece. Neutrality 00:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The NY Times has mentioned a lot of things about Trump's campaign, far more than we can include in this BLP. So we must discern what's encyclopedic. Trump said this on the Jones show: "Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down". Is that it? I am unaware that Trump praised any of Jones's conspiracy theories during that visit to the show. So, as far as I can tell, it's not encyclopedic material at all, and I continue to object to it. Our implied claim is that Trump sympathizes with Jones's conspiracy theories. That may be true, but we are not supposed to infer it from mere association with Jones.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

A clear case of guilt by association (unless he said a lot more than is quoted here). And an good example of the problems with an article that is overstuffed with trivia and very short on serious journalism. It should be dropped.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I will try to find some additional source that may go into more detail. Neutrality 14:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposing to remove tags

The number of tags on the page of a major Presidential candidate is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages. I propose to remove all tags, and discuss the issues actively here. At present, lack of active discussion - not to mention the tag-free pages of Sanders and Clinton - gives the appearance of WP:TAGBOMBING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. Tags are mostly useful for calling attention to issues in less-frequently watched pages in hopes of attracting the attention of an editor who could fix them. This page, by contrast, has no lack of page watchers. I would agree that the best course is to remove the tags and discuss issues as specifically as possible here at talk. Neutrality 00:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. (boldly).E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Fictional characters

The following section has just been restored:

This had recently been deleted with the following edit summary: "This 'fictional characters' section is petty..why not have an article compare Hillary to the Wicked Witch of the West?"

The edit summary restoring the section says: "making this section shorter would be fine, but wholesale deletion does not seem called for".

In my opinion, this material is extremely trivial and unserious, and ought to be deleted wholesale, and not restored wholesale. Mockery is typical on the campaign trail, unfortunately, but we ought to avoid it here. Next thing I suppose we'll have caricatures instead of realistic photographs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this section is trivial, non-encyclopedic, and should be eliminated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I would cut the last two sentences, but keep the first sentence (Buzz Windrip) based on the number/prevalence of references among sources of note.

I am tagging the editor who first added these to alert her: @Rosekelleher:. Neutrality 01:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well then I'll ping the editor who first deleted it. @MagicatthemovieS: Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is trivial and should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Violence and expulsions at rallies

This section is bloated and POV (it does not cover the violence and aggression of anti-Trump activists.) I'm not arguing for elimination, just for radical reduction - which should be easy because independent articles on the topics covered already exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's bloated, and does not conform with WP:Summary style. Also, in case you weren't aware, there's a related RFC above at this talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up and reduced section largely by merging into Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, which is linked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rename

Proposing rename of this section from the misleading "Violence and expulsions at rallies" to "Protests and expulsions at rallies". Reason is, what violence? There seems to have been merely a couple of punches thrown, and a lot of talk. It is misleading to label a section "violence" when, despite months of predictions of violence, and incitement to violence, there was virtually no actual violence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hitler

This section is troubling. On the one hand, I know the Hitler comparisons and fascism accusations are out there. On the other hand, people say all sorts of stuff about candidates, and there is nothing comparable on Bernie's page despite the fact that when I google the craziest slanders I can think comparable Sanders + communist , or even Sanders + Stalinst I get hits. I know, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF. But I do think that it is important to be evenhanded during a political campaign (see my extensive efforts to be evenhanded in treatment of candidates spouses this past January/February ) I more or less do think that either we add long sections on the slanders and denials being thrown at Bernie, or we need to remove these accusations from the Sanders page, or we need to justify treating Trump and Sanders differently.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

While I personally think these bold comparisons should be removed entirely from Sander's and Trump's page, I know others would oppose such an action. That being said, since they are more than likely to remain, both pages should give due weight to the comparisons. Both candidates have been compared to unfavorable individuals and/or ideologies therefore, the comparisons should be of similar length and in-depth coverage across both pages. Meatsgains (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you both. This stuff about the Hitler salute is pure trivia, because people who raise a hand invariably look like they're giving a Nazi salute if the angle of the photograph is just right. If a photographer had captured the people at the Trump rally from the side instead of the back or front, then obviously it would have shown people raising hands straight up instead of forward (like the Nazis). If the people at the rallies were saying "hail Trump" or "hail victory" or "hail my leader" that's one thing, but instead they were just promising to vote in a democratic election even if there were hurricanes. It seems to have been all in fun, and we need to let the news rags do the reporting on this, rather than discussing it here in this article where WP:BLP applies. We don't compare Sanders to Lenin and Stalin and Mao, nor should we compare Trump to Hitler, based on such flimsy reporting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's obviously not trivia. Nor is it based on "flimsy reporting." The comparisons to fascists have been widely addressed in serious publications; the head of the Anti-Defamation League has made comments on the point; and many scholars have weighed in. Whatever you feel about the merits of the comparisons. we follow the sources here.

As for Sanders: if editors feel that something is lacking on his bio or campaign article, they are free to take up the issue there. Neutrality 01:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The material in this article was focused on a supposed Hitler-like Nazi salute photographed at rallies. I removed it because it's trivial. Moreover, this article is not a forum for Trump's opponents to place their criticisms of him, no matter if they're professors or not. We could put into the Hillary Clinton article comparisons of her to Hitler, given the number of human beings that have been eliminated via her dictatorial march to war in Libya without congressional authorization, but that would be inappropriate for a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Since there have been serious comparisons of the Trump movement with fascism, it should be included. I note one of the people quoted was Robert Paxton, one of the world's foremost scholars on fascism. This is not just polemical writing, but helps readers understand the movement. The Sanders article btw says that he has been called a socialist, which certainly has negative connotations in the U.S. TFD (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

But what Paxton actually said is that although there may be points of comparison, Trumps campaign is NOT fascist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one has suggested removing the Paxton material, or removing the subsection (numbered 8.2 in the TOC) with the header "fascism comparisons". The only thing that I deleted was the subsubsection (numbered 8.2.1 in the TOC) titled "Hitler comparisons" for the reasons explained above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This topic was already thoroughly discussed on the talk page here. Further discussion and/or consensus should be reached before summarily reverting. For the time being I have hit 'undo' on this revision. | MK17b | (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

When that discussion occurred back in March, there was much less Hitler/fascism material in this article. There was only a subheader about Hitler, not the present situation where we have "fascism comparisons" plus "hitler comparisons".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "Hitler comparisons" can be combined into "Fascism comparisons". I think the "salute" should be mentioned, but it seems like it's given undue weight.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• After giving it a careful read, I believe that his entire section needs to be rewritten. What we have here are a series of allegations of similarity to fascism. Some of the writers, including Paxton, conclude that the comparison does not hold. Others, notably the "fascist salute" people, are making a clearly inaccurate comparison - at the very least they need to brush their Leni Riefenstahl. There is, for example, not a shred of evidence that anyone involved thought of the gesture as a fascist or Roman salute. To me, they looked like a bunch of over-eager students who wanted teacher to call on them. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The GREAT PROBLEM with this section is that it conveys the impression that there is a well-supported similarity or connection between the Trump campaign and fascism when, in fact, all that we have is a collection of individuals who mostly conclude that there isn't , and a few who assert that they perceive one - but on very thin or no evidence at all. I think the section needs to be rewritten to reflect this reality, the Hitler section merged under the fascism header, and the fascism section E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Can't be true - his wife has denied it here :) | MK17b | (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

renamed

To something like Allegations of similarity to fascism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

How about a spin-off article, Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler, Similarities Between? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exciting News (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the current name is fine.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Autism

On the subject of autism, this BLP says only this: "Trump has, for example, promoted the discredited belief that vaccines cause autism." as a result of this edit which deleted reliably sourced information that Trump actually supports vaccination, and has taken a stance that could increase vaccination. So, if we cannot be evenhanded about his autism statements, then I think the whole thing should be deleted. Trump has said: "I'm in favor of vaccines; do them over a longer period of time, same amount but just in little sections and I think you're going to see a big impact on autism." The originator of the delayed vaccine schedule was Dr. Robert Sears who acknowledges there is no known medical reason to space out vaccines, but says doing so is a useful tactic for convincing nervous parents to ease into the idea of approving vaccinations, and thus increasing vaccination rates. All of this is in a reference that we now use but neglect: Mahoney, Emily. "Fact Check: Donald Trump's claim on spaced-out vaccines, autism rate", Arizona Republic (October 16, 2015).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is - the issue at hand is that Trump promotes a discredited belief about a link between vaccines and autism (Tweet of his: "Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!"). It is not a place to discuss his precise preferred vaccine schedule. | MK17b | (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump's position is that people should get vaccinated, and they can get vaccinated without risking autism. Hiding that from our readers would not be NPOV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are saying that Trump believes people should get vaccinated; and yet still tweeted the discredited claim that vaccinations causes autism; wouldn't that appear to be worse, highly political behavior. Objective3000 (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The section is not about Trump's belief on vaccines but his belief or tendency towards conspiracy theories. Therefore getting into his exact proposed vaccination schedule is irrelevant. You wouldn't expect the article to expound on who killed JFK - just the fact that he alluded to a Cruz connection was enough. | MK17b | (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump has said: "I'm in favor of vaccines; do them over a longer period of time...." If our section omits this and misleads readers to think Trump is not in favor of vaccines, then we are failing as Misplaced Pages writers, and veering toward this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Trump promotes an "alternate" vaccine schedule with zero scientific support and no known medical benefit, based on his erroneous belief that vaccines (as currently administered) cause autism. That much is clear from reliable sources (e.g. ). I think we can say as much in one clearly written, properly sourced sentence. In fact, I just did. MastCell  19:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll discuss: Comments about fringe or conspiracy theories:

That's far too much attribution and weight to an isolated event. And the "Obama is in fact a protestant" insert: thanks, we know. Adding that is weasel wording to discredit Trump ever-more. Doing so is a WP:COATRACK, which this page is guilty of in far more instances. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the innuendo and guilt-by-association in this section is inappropriate. Some of the statements made by Trump have, however, gotten enough coverage to be notable and belong on the page. It should be edited for an objective, NPOV tone, and probably shortened.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about with no ref. And we must be careful in a BLP. But, Trump consistently makes dramatic statements without evidence -- and we can't ignore that. That would be a whitewash. Objective3000 (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry. Section: Comments about fringe or conspiracy theories. added to header.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to provide redundant footnotes saying that Obama is Protestant, especially when none of them mention Trump (resulting in synthesis, original research). It's adequate for us to call this an unfounded notion, and wikilink to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously any encyclopedic treatment of Trump's campaign will explore, in meaningful detail and with reference to high-quality sources, Trump's historically unprecedented use of conspiracy theories. I think that's been the rather firm consensus here.

I am baffled by the "isolated event" and "coatrack" statement made above by DaltonCastle—that simply flies in the fact of all of the high-quality sources we have that speak of Trump's many conspiratorial statements not as a one-off, but as a "almost daily" occurrence in his campaign. These are not daily "horse race" stories, but feature-style, longish pieces that explore Trump's conspiracy theories as a theme of his campaign, including from the New York Times, the Washington Post, a Newsweek analysis written by a University of Miami professors who literally wrote the book on American conspiracy theories).

I agree with the omission of the lengthy footnote about Obama's religious history is unnecessary. Neutrality 13:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump campaign selects White Nationalist as Delegate in California

Important story here: Trump campaign not only has white nationalists endorsing him, he has selected one of theirs as one of his delegates! I trust everyone will agree that the hard truth here must be told. Please add this encylopedic content at once. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/donald-trump-white-nationalist-afp-delegate-california http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/trump-california-delegate-william-johnson-white-supremacist-article-1.2632104 http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/10/trump_nominates_white_supremacist_william_johnson_to_be_california_convention.html http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-camp-blames-database-error-white-supremacist-delegate-list-n571556 http://gawker.com/donald-trump-picks-white-supremacist-to-be-his-delegate-1775848825 http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-ln-donald-trump-white-nationalist-delegate-20160510-story.html http://www.vox.com/2016/5/10/11652822/donald-trump-delegate-white-nationalist http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/05/10/white-supremacist-chosen-as-trump-delegate-in-ca/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exciting News (talk • contribs) 01:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

He has been dropped. Unless the story gets lengthy ongoing coverage, which it could, it should not be added. TFD (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A "database error" has been claimed, which in and of itself speaks to the efficacy of the Trump campaign. Let's let this play itself out a bit more... kencf0618 (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep off the page unless the story gains traction again. Meatsgains (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump: When audiences get bored I use ‘the wall’

"You know, if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, ‘We will build the wall!' and they go nuts.”- Trump http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/30/trump-when-audiences-get-bored-use-wall/79573388/ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/a-chance-to-reset-the-republican-race.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

This quote should probably go in the first sentence of the article, or maybe the second,, on my vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B420:FBE9:1415:DE0A:A10A:322 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, we will probably put that quote in the article later today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

There are 2 separate Barack Obama Conspiracy Theory articles; how can it be, then, that there are 0 for Donald Trump?

I came here looking to find an article entitled "Donald Trump Conspiracy Theories" and was aghast to find there was none. Thus, I'd like to propose for nomination a "Donald Trump Conspiracy Theories article", built on the model of these fine pieces of encylopedia building: :Particularly, I suggest we strike this sort of tone in the article: ***"During the 2008 presidential campaign, one chain e-mail accused Barack Obama of secretly being the biblical Antichrist, saying:

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything is it OBAMA?

The word Antichrist does not appear in the Book of Revelation (though it does appear in 1 John and 2 John); the Book of Revelation instead refers to The Beast. The Book of Revelation never mentions the Beast's age, nor does it include any references to "Muslim descent", as the religion of Islam was not founded until hundreds of years after the book was written.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, former comedian and political commentator Victoria Jackson made claims that "Obama bears traits that resemble the anti-Christ."

The radical Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, Kansas, frequently uses signs at their controversial protests claiming Obama to be an antichrist and runs a website dedicated to proving it, BeastObama.com.

Many websites and individuals continue to propagate the myth." " In March 2011, during an interview on Good Morning America, Donald Trump said he was seriously considering running for president, that he was a "little" skeptical of Obama's citizenship, and that someone who shares this view shouldn't be so quickly dismissed as an "idiot" (as Trump considers the term "birther" to be "derogatory"). Trump added, "Growing up no one knew him", a claim ranked Pants-on-Fire by Politifact. Later, Trump appeared on The View repeating several times that "I want him (Obama) to show his birth certificate." He speculated that "there’s something on that birth certificate that he doesn’t like", a comment which host Whoopi Goldberg described as "the biggest pile of dog mess I’ve heard in ages." On the March 30, 2011, edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Suzanne Malveaux commented on Trump's statements, pointing out that she had made a documentary for which she had gone to Hawaii and spoken with people who knew Obama as a child. In an NBC TV interview broadcast on April 7, 2011, Trump said he would not let go of the issue, because he was not satisfied that Obama had proved his citizenship. After Trump began making his views public, he was contacted by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, who was reportedly on the phone with Trump every day for a week, providing Trump with a "birther primer", answers to questions, and advice. After Obama released his long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, Trump said "I am really honored and I am really proud, that I was able to do something that nobody else could do."

On October 24, 2012, Trump offered to donate five million dollars to the charity of Obama's choice in return for the publication of his college and passport applications before October 31, 2012."

An article titled Donald Trump Conspiracy Theories is sure to win good article of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.35.0.70 (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Barack_Obama_religion_conspiracy_theories
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Disputes_over_.22natural-born_citizen.22_requirements

Proposed Article: Donald Trump's Wall

The page for Donald Trump's Wall is missing. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.198.157 (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

You can go to Donald Trump's Wall and discuss it there. The objection to that article's existence is: "Unlikely solidly independently notable for its own article, could be merged amd mentioned to his own article at best. Questionable for WP:EVENT and WP:GNG."Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

This article features a notable dearth of Wall-related material; I propose a section entitled "The Wall".or "Donald Trump's Wall" or "Wall of Trump" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWallmaker (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

New Material for Lead: Trump's Butler calls for Obama's Death

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/politics/donald-trumps-longtime-butler-calls-for-violence-against-obama-secret-service-to-investigate.html

Trump's long-time right-hand man and beloved minion advocates hanging President Obama for treason, calls him "Kenyan Fraud" Secret Service Investigates Mar-A-Lago as potentially terrorist organization advocating violent overthrow of government "“With the last breath I draw I will help rid this America of the scum infested in its government,” Mr. Senecal wrote last May, saying that the president should be dragged from the “white mosque” and hanged “from the portico — count me in !!!!!” — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWallmaker (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we add this piece,, along with Trump's White Nationalist Delegate, his signed copy of Hitler's Speeches, his loving Friendship with David Duke, and enormous popularity among White Supremacists under a Tell-All section called "Trump's connections to White Nationalism. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWallmaker (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump's ex-butler's own opinions are not relevant. Objective3000 (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

the NY Times seems to think otherwise, but I must have forgotten that the average Wikipedian holds political views drawn largely from thousands of hours spent listening to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWallmaker (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I personally despise Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and subscribe to the NYTimes. My personal opinions are not relevant. We follow WP guidelines here. Your edit is a WP:AGF violation and not useful. Objective3000 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

"Incidents of violence against protesters by Trump supporters" vs. "Incidents of violence between protesters and Trump supporters"

The line "Some of the events have been marked by incidents of violence against protesters by Trump supporters" should be changed to "Some of the events have been marked by incidents of violence between protesters and Trump supporters" to acknowledge the fact that protesters have attacked Trump supporters and thus remove bias against Trump supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvarado98 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

References

1. http://abc7.com/politics/injured-trump-supporter-details-frightening-attack-by-protesters/1316197/

RfC: Should information on the John Miller incident be included in the article?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

See the title and also this diff for the potential text, although it could certainly be changed. I don't want to get into specifics of the text at this point. The broad question is whether we should include a subsection on the John Miller incident. ~ Rob 08:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Multiple editors have removed the information as a BLP violation (inaccurate because it is obviously well-sourced) or WP:NOTNEWS (inaccurate because this is clearly relevant to the presidential campaign). I think the John Miller incident should be included in the presidential campaign article because it's become an issue. It's been covered by CNN, The Hollywood Reporter, People, The Washington Post, Salon, The New Yorker, Gawker, and The Wall Street Journal, to name a few. That list is by no means exhaustive, and it clearly indicates inclusion is warranted, in my opinion. ~ Rob 08:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: More biased nonsense opinion pieces being used as "sources". One can just as easily say, "Trump has never been terribly adamant about denying that he often made calls to reporters posing as someone else", and then cite the Fisher/Hobson article as "fact"?! Or, "Trump has gotten away with a lot, of course, and he will surely remain brazen during this flap" from the other "source"? What a whitewash. It's popular and fun to gang up on unpopular subjects. Yay. But eroding sources in favor of opinion pieces masquerading as "news"? Pathetic. Doc talk 08:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I will post here what I posted on my talk page in response to these being called "opinion pieces", since it is false: The Washington Post article was in their Politics section, not an editorial section. The author is a senior editor and journalist, not an opinion writer. The New Yorker article is written by John Cassidy, a staff writer who writes a column for their politics section. Again, does not write opinion pieces. ~ Rob 08:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • "As I’ve noted in previous posts, there is plenty of material in both Trump’s personal life and his business career that bears inspection." These are John Cassidy's very words from that source. Does this sound like a traditional news report? Do you really think this is a good source to use with a contentious BLP subject? Doc talk 08:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Alright, that's fair enough, although The New Yorker is presenting it as news. What is your beef with the Washington Post piece I linked above? Can you point out any indication that it is an opinion piece? I've read through the entire thing and it seems to stick entirely to the facts. I can agree that we could use better sources, but I seriously question whether anyone can argue at this point that all information regarding this major news event should be removed entirely. ~ Rob 09:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • "My "beef"? Read the first sentence! "The voice is instantly familiar; the tone, confident, even cocky; the cadence, distinctly Trumpian." What "news" article starts like that? Are you trying to be funny or something? Can you even tell the difference between a news item and an opinion piece? Is "Trumpian" an actual "thing" now? I'm astonished. And I can 100% guarantee that you are biased against the subject. Doc talk 09:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • You're suggesting we purge all information from the encyclopedia about what has become an actual issue in this election. The only POV I'm pushing is the POV that the encyclopedia should include verified information from reliable sources on an issue of the election that was worth mention in almost every reliable source that covers US politics. I don't think it's biased to say that Trump's tone is confident, bordering on cocky, or that his voice is recognizable. Hell, I think the man himself would embrace that. His confidence is part of his appeal to voters. If you believe you have more neutral sources for this, I welcome you to post them, and I'm happy to use them, but it makes no sense to completely censor an issue that's being covered widely. You may also wish to view the CNN piece I linked above or even the Fox News piece. ~ Rob 10:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That last report is succinct in its summary. "On NBC's "Today" show Friday, Trump denied being the voice on the phone. He said: "I don't know anything about it." But he apparently owned up to it at the time, describing the Miller call as a "joke gone awry," said the Post." Super. It's just another trivial "slow news day" Trump non-controversy. I'm not going to make a big deal about it, unlike the media. Go to town. Doc talk 10:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Given the BLP concerns, I'll wait for the RfC to conclude. I don't think there are any, but you brought up BLP, so WP:BLPRESTORE suggests waiting. It's also easier in the long-run to get this settled, since everything even remotely non-positive on this article eventually gets challenged by other editors. ~ Rob 10:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The Fox News report is going to be the least biased here because it's just reporting the facts. I like that the AP source is listed at the bottom. I wish we could re-title the section with an "Alleged", take out the opinion pieces as the sources, and use the Fox/AP source. Wishful thinking... Doc talk 10:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: It seems to be a trivial story that has received transient coverage.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

support Jack Upland, it's not trivial, it even got premiere segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver this week.

• Support - Incident has widespread coverage by WP:RS, WP:V sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I know it's getting coverage, but I don't see any particular relevance to the 2016 campaign. If anything, it seems Trump leaked this info, possibly to distract from his not releasing his tax returns. This article can't be bogged down by every single 24-hour news cycle story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The alternative that I considered was John Miller (pseudonym) or similar, but that will almost inevitably get dragged to AfD as per WP:NOTNEWS with the consensus to merge somewhere. Probably here. ~ Rob 18:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah I think that it would be nominated for sure. It could be worth a line on Trump's biography. Possibly. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's been a story for months, @Muboshgu: here's coverage from March. link. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And here's a Vice story - from November 2015. link. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it hasn't been covered @Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz:, (see that in my initial comment I said "I know it's getting coverage"), I said it isn't directly relevant to this campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean, the reality is that all the sources talk about it in the context of the campaign, which is why I think it should go here. We could argue about whether it's a real campaign issue (it's not, even if it is hilarious), but the reliable sources are treating it as a campaign issue. If you check all the sources here, I think all of them are in the politics section, and every single one talks heavily about his campaign. ~ Rob 20:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've read some (not all) of the sources presented in this section, and I don't really interpret it as being discussed "in the context of the campaign" beyond the fact that he's in a campaign and these recordings have resurfaced during the campaign. We can be more discerning than this. Comedy shows are mocking him, but nobody is attacking him specifically for this, for instance. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support with caveats. A modest mention (the current text is two sentences) does not seem disproportionate in the context of a long article). I do not think it needs its own subheader, but I am not hung up on it. I would definitely modify the cites to rely on straight-news pieces (e.g., this from the Washington Post) rather than opinion pieces. Neutrality 18:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose doesn't need own section and is basically a flash in pan from 25 years ago. Not notable. (in addition, per BRD and notice on contentious material, the RFC has to pass before it's added.) --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You're looking for WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, not BRD. BRD isn't policy (unfortunately). ~ Rob 06:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • No, I'm looking at the ArbCom sanctions that require clear consensus before this type of material is added. BLP is narrower than this arbcom decision. -DHeyward (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a fun little story, one of many we've seen throughout the campaign. Without enduring notability it falls under WP:NOTNEWS.LM2000 (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support A "fun little story"? It's a classic illustration, as pointed out by the reporter involved, of Trump's penchant for prevarication. Yes, it's "one of many we've seen throughout the campaign", but it's a prime example. And it's bizarre. Has any other presidential nominee ever pulled a stunt like this? I doubt it. With all the coverage it's getting, it needs to be in the article -- presented in a straightforward, factual manner, as it was before its recent removal.DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 00:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sourcing aside, it is WP:TRIVIA and not relevant to the page about Trump's presidential campaign. Meatsgains (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record, WP:TRIVIA does not apply: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." Also for the record, the documentation of behavior by a POTUS candidate unlike anything ever seen before in POTUS candidates is anything but "trivial". DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 02:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, WP:TRIVIA may not apply here but how does is an accusation from 1991, which Trump denies, relevant to his presidential campaign page? Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Because his denial is demonstrably false (no statute of limitations on lying), and because it's disturbing behavior in someone who aspires to run the "free world". DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 05:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Because reliable sources have covered it in connection with his campaign. One of the most basic principles of Misplaced Pages is that we follow what reliable sources say. ~ Rob 08:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Right! So how about let's put it back in, yes? DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 14:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support Called by bot. This story is well sourced and media outlets discuss it in relevance to the campaign. A short two sentences should cover it and it doesn't need it's own section, that would be undue weight. Just mention that (from my scan of the sources) he did it, admitted it around the time it happened but when it was raised during the campaign denied it. SPACKlick (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's something much more noteworthy to include, by far. The recent violent protests by anti-Trump groups in New Mexico and California. It's got major coverage:

• "Aside from Albuquerque, some of the most violent incidents followed or preceded campaign events in Costa Mesa, California, in April and in Chicago in March."
• "The scene outside Albuquerque's convention center was chaotic as police ushered protesters away from Trump's event and into the nearby streets."
• "Albuquerque attorney Doug Antoon said rocks were flying through the convention center windows as he was leaving Tuesday night. Glass was breaking and landing near his feet. "This was not a protest, this was a riot. These are hate groups," he said of the demonstrators."

Where is the coverage for this stuff? You can even say Trump called all the protesters "thugs" and "criminals"! That's the mainstream spin. Doc talk 09:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This may very well belong in the article. But, it is off-topic for this thread, the quote from a random person calling it a "riot" should not even be on the talk page, and your comment about "mainstream spin" shows bias. Objective3000 (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "the quote from a random person calling it a "riot" should not even be on the talk page"? Why on earth is that quote not allowed on the talk page? There's no "safe zone" that protects us from alleged "hate speech" here. Doc talk 10:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"White House compares anti-Trump rioters to tea party protesters"

"Protesters Riot at Trump Rally, Possible Shots Fired"

"Trump victory road paved by New Mexico rioters: Cal Thomas"(yes, this one's an opinion piece, but they are okay to use for sources. *cough*) Doc talk 05:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Breibart, Washington Times, Cal Thomas -- can you find any less encyclopedic sources? And this is still completely irrelevant to this RfC. Objective3000 (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the LA Times ok? No overt conservative bias according to the article, quite largely circulated. Seems "encyclopedic" enough a source. "Protesters clash with police outside Trump rally in Albuquerque; authorities call it a riot". Doc talk 10:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose What a stupid and mundane thing to add to an article. It has absolutely no bearing on this topic whatsoever. There is nothing about the campaign in that statement at all, even if sourced.--JOJ 11:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • As already pointed out more than once, reliable sources have covered it in connection with his campaign. One of the most basic principles of Misplaced Pages is that we follow what reliable sources say. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 17:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think this would be more fitting in the Donald Trump article. Objective3000 (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been posted at talk:Stop Trump movement#RfC: Should this article list people who have merely stated that they will not endorse, support, or vote for Trump?. Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 02:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Campaign Staff - Rick Wiley

No mention of Wiley's appointment and subsequent dismissal and/or campaign staff in general? | MK17b | (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump University lawsuits

Trump University and the lawsuits against it are becoming an increasingly prominent issue in his campaign. Trump himself has made it an issue by talking about it in campaign speeches - he devoted 12 minutes of a speech in San Diego to the lawsuit - and by repeatedly making personal, racially-tinged attacks on the presiding judge, which have been condemned by many commentators. I think this has reached the scale of coverage where it ought to be included in this article. And it's not a WP:RECENT or WP:NOTNEWS issue; Trump has been talking about it on the campaign trail since February. Where would it go - maybe as a section in "People and groups"? --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this needs inclusion. It could be its own section, or as a subsection under "People and groups" - I would be OK with either. Neutrality 14:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"People and Groups" should probably be renamed "Controversies", but it looks like Trump University information would fit well as a subsection there given the other content covered. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that the stuff in the news is about one specific federal lawsuit filed in California in 2010. I don't see anything about multiple Trump U lawsuits even in articles that point out he's been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades. Doc talk 15:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There are, in fact, three ongoing suits: two federal class actions (which are both being handled together in San Diego, California), and one New York state court action by the New York State Attorney General. (See here.) All three actions have been in the news of late. Neutrality 15:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And two of the three are being handled by the judge he keeps criticizing, so it is not about one or the other. Also the recent release of documents related to the cases has been getting a lot of press. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That's fantastic. Guess what's also been getting a lot of press that is far more directly related to this campaign? "Clinton: Trump deserves some blame for violence outside events". "'Disgusted' police condemn violent protesters at Donald Trump rally in San Jose". Stuff like that. Isn't that more relevant to the campaign than this lawsuit stuff? Doc talk 08:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Earlier there were similar comments about violence inside Trump rallies; was that covered? These are two sides of the same coin and could be covered in a single item if people agree it should be included. Personally I'm not sure it should. There is always some to and fro between the sides, and most of the coverage about it is generally finger pointing about whose fault it is. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I am going to add a paragraph about Trump University to the article. Open to revision of course, but it gives us a starting point. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment