Talk:Protests against Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:25, 17 March 2017 editAnother Believer (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers638,017 edits →"Not My Presidents Day" article merge: can we remove merge banner at top of talk page?← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:00, 17 March 2017 edit undoJFG (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors53,874 edits →"Not My Presidents Day" article merge: Expansion vs selective merge?Next edit →
Line 101:		Line 101:

	Can the merge tag at the top of this talk page be removed? The ] article has been expanded and will be nominated for Good article status in the near future. There is no need for a merge or this template any longer, but I hesitate removing the banner myself just because I don't know if it needs to be kept for archival purposes... ---] <sub>(])</sub> 15:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)		Can the merge tag at the top of this talk page be removed? The ] article has been expanded and will be nominated for Good article status in the near future. There is no need for a merge or this template any longer, but I hesitate removing the banner myself just because I don't know if it needs to be kept for archival purposes... ---] <sub>(])</sub> 15:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
			:{{re\|Another Believer}} Impressive work expanding the NMPD article! How do you reconcile this with the ] of February 28 which was to perform a selective merge? — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

	==RfC on splitting this article==		==RfC on splitting this article==

Revision as of 17:00, 17 March 2017

The article Not My Presidents Day was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 February 2017 with a consensus to merge the content into Protests against Donald Trump. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protests against Donald Trump 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.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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:

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump 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

	Politics portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

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.

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 Low-importance).

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.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 March 2016. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 was copied or moved into Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 with this edit on 12:43, March 13, 2016. 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.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Protests against Donald Trump was copied or moved into Timeline of protests against Donald Trump with this edit on 16:46, 26 January 2017. 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.

Template:Findsourcesnotice Template:WPUS50k

Follow-up on RfC

Nothing seems to have really changed following the RfC. Clearly, the protests have not ended, and this article seems still to be a voluminous list, detailing even minor protests. Can we stop this?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You have to wait until the people maintaining the article grow bored of it, it might take a decade or so. After all, this is wikipedia, not some veritable encyclopedia where people actually follow RfC's, try maintaining NPOV, or otherwise don't turn what constitutes 'encyclopedic content' into an extension of politics and individual beliefs. Of course, I find it even more questionable when people go around nominating AfD to articles they don't like while aggressively protecting articles they do; but such is wikipedia. The whole mess becomes extraordinarily funny once you recognize that the very content that people feel is encyclopedic and worth keeping today will often be the source of scorn and dismay in the future. Even if this article is written in a completely NPOV view, future editors will change it to match their view, or remove it all together. Such is the way of wikipedia.

Either way, I simply find the whole mess funny; especially since the consensus of the RfC vote was to remove the lists, but "remove / shorten" was what became the 'official' consensus... and now people are just looking to add to the lists. The notion that a protests against hillary clinton stub gets made to justify the existence of this article is typical wikipedian magic. Though, if the people maintaining this want to actually be judicious and start up a series of articles where they research protests against all U.S. Presidents and presidential candidates then it could be an interesting read; not that they'd do something so encyclopedic and controversially NPOV, but one could hope. I'll step off my WP:SOAP and let you all enjoy your article. 100.16.201.57 (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Day Without Immigrants 2017

Editors and page watchers are invited to expand and improve the newly-created Day Without Immigrants 2017 article. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Deploraball

Not going to get into an edit war here, but I have yet to find any source describing the protests outside the Deploraball on Jan. 19 as "mostly peaceful" or anything similar. The vast majority of coverage highlighted the number of fights, the fact that a person was injured, the many police on hand forming a human shield to protect attendees from getting hit with bottles and eggs, fires being set in the street, and finally the police using pepper spray. Without source support, "mostly peaceful" is a judgment call by the Wiki editor. By contrast, the protests on the actual Inauguration Day and the following day were largely peaceful and were described as such in the published sources. If someone has a reliable source saying the Deploraball Jan. 19 evening protest specifically was "mostly peaceful" or anything similar, please post it. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have reviewed the sources and amended the text accordingly. — JFG 12:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

General Strike

General strike

Discussion at Talk:Riot

Editors who watch this page may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Riot#Anti-Trump riots. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Day without women

I think this is certainly notable that one of the organizers of the event was behind two terror attacks in Israel and was responsible for the death of two students. Sir Joseph 15:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Not My Presidents Day" article merge

Shall we discuss the result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Not My Presidents Day? I think merging this content is a terrible idea, especially since the "Protests against Donald Trump" article is only going to expand more. I also assume there is more content that could be added to the "Not My Presidents Day" article. In short, I think we got it wrong this time, but rules are rules, so I'm just trying to get a discussion going about how to best merge this content. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Pinging you since you helped create much of the NMPD article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have archived the article at User:Trackinfo/sandbox/Not My President's Day, in case the merging loses content or the original article gets deleted too soon. Feel free to use that as a resource while merging the content. Trackinfo (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer and Trackinfo: I'm less concerned with how we currently merge the articles, since we do have a draft copy that we can use later if we need it. I think we should start to consider what Sandstein suggested in the closing: how can we start to group these protests? Should it be by month? How long should we wait until we decide to split these things up? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Thanks for saving the markup. Just in case, and for easier reference for me, I went ahead and saved the markup on the article's talk page: Talk:Not My Presidents Day. @Megalibrarygirl: I agree, this discussion needs to take place. But this is precisely why we shouldn't be merging content into an article that clearly needs some separating, and will certainly need more over time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought about starting the RfC discussion at first, but looks like more reconstruction on the Protests page is needed. Shall I start the RfC discussion right away? --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: I am continuing to improve and expand the Not My Presidents Day article, which currently has an "under construction" tag. I oppose merging its content into the parent protests article, especially since there is more to add to the NMPD article. I do think the protests article should mention NMPD and display a "Main page" link, similar to the "Women's March", "Airport protests", "Day Without Immigrants", "A Day Without a Woman", "Tax Day March", and "March for Science" sections. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Can the merge tag at the top of this talk page be removed? The Not My Presidents Day article has been expanded and will be nominated for Good article status in the near future. There is no need for a merge or this template any longer, but I hesitate removing the banner myself just because I don't know if it needs to be kept for archival purposes... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Impressive work expanding the NMPD article! How do you reconcile this with the AfD decision of February 28 which was to perform a selective merge? — JFG 17:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on splitting this 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.

This overlong article, to which some material Not My Presidents Day is about to be added needs to be split. The closing editor at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Not My Presidents Day suggested an RfC on dividing this article as did several editors at that discussion, myself included. Reason is that the sheer length of the artoc is not user-friendly. For comparison, we have Protests against Barack Obama, but it's short.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest Protests against Trump's Presidential campaign and election for the campaign and pre-inaguration period, and Protests against Trump's presidency as titles for the new articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

We are fighting a wave of people who do not want this content reported. The Merge/Deletion of the Not My President's Day content is yet another example. This article will continue to grow. It will constantly get demands to be pared down. For months, I have advocated the solution is wikilinks to sidebar articles. Instead those articles are getting deleted and merged back to this one. With this trend, over the next four years, this article will be a behemoth, the timeline even bigger. Trackinfo (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a proposal to split the article and allow it to grow. Let's stay on-topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

One easy answer is to not include every little protest. Look at the Bodega protest section. Two bodega owners closed their store and there was a little demonstration at Borough Hall. Why is that noteworthy? Sir Joseph 18:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe move a lot of this stuff to a list? This is not an encyclopedic article. I am aware, even hopeful, that it may improve. Nevertheless for over a year now it has been primarily a list of incidents, which I begin into think might be better placed in a List of anti-Trump protests. That, with some good editing, would enable this to become an encyclopedia article about the phenomenon of anti-Trump protests.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trackinfo and Another Believer: I like E.M.Gregory's first idea to split into articles about campaign and presidency. If you look at the content for the protests after he took office, you'll note that I've fleshed out out beyond a list. It includes reactions and impact. I can do the same for the pre- presidency protests as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm liking the direction of the current article in the sense that it covers the overview of what is happening. I consider it the master article. The essential part is it sends readers to more detailed articles about each major event. I'm sure we will have ongoing disputes as to what is major. With the size of January 21, everything else is dwarfed by comparison but many seem to have cohesive focuses for each protest. I wouldn't want to appear to eliminate one huge chunk for brevity. Face it, we've got 4 years of this. The master article is going to have to be brief about the various developments. The timeline is already long and grows daily. We need to accommodate the mass of additional material in other articles and there is a faction here who will attack each one of them. Trackinfo (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose split. The article isn't too big per the relevant guideline. It's irrelevant that an arguably equivalent article is much smaller. That said, the "Protests during Trump's presidency," is going to have to be trimmed way down over the next 4 years. There's a lot of recentism in there. (I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose split. per DrFleischman, no need also no advantage to converting to a list AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: this article works well as a main article. Summoned by bot. Prcc27❄ (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment (summoned by bot): "For comparison, we have Protests against Barack Obama, but it's short". Well, quite! More seriously, I agree with those above arguing that the article isn't too long as it stands. The suggestion to split the article into campaign and presidency ones seems a good one, but only when there is too much material for a single article, and I don't think we're there yet. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Bodega protests

The "Bodega protests" were a single-day protest of Yemini shopkeepers in Brooklyn on Feb. 2, 2017 and covered by the local press (it was in the New York Times local news section) It frankly does not appear notable enough to be in this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Support, as above.Sir Joseph 22:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose and wait to see if we split the articles. If necessary, we can incorporate the content with airport protests, to which this is related. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Support deletion – Local, non-encyclopedic protest. — JFG 16:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The subject of this article is Protests against Donald Trump. The Bodega protests were part of this. The duration of the protest (ie only one day) is irrelevant (the Womens march on Washington was a one-day event as well). And calling the NY Times as a "local source" is really pushing it, since it is an international paper of excellent repute. That The Guardian (a top British newspaper) also ran a story on the protest is further indication of its notability. The BT are well sourced, stays.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a protest too, it was just myself but it was a Protests against Donald Trimp. Should we include it, or should we only include those major protests? Sir Joseph 16:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, when the NYT and Guardian cover it, why not?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Unlike Sir Joseph's sarcasm, this protest was a cohesive event that involved over 1,000 store owners. That is literally a thousand times more than the insignificance of his example. His protest was not covered by the NY Times or the Guardian, these were. That folks is the difference between notability meeting WP:GNG and not. As I commented above, the events of January 21 dwarf any subsequent protest. The general point is there are a lot of groups (and subjects) that are generating protests. Each is protesting TO get their issue's moment in the sun. As our reporting goes, this is a cumulative effect we are documenting. There are potentially a lot of these kinds of entries coming over the next four years. Trackinfo (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Self-evident nonsense to characterise this as 'small' or only 'locally covered'. Pincrete (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Day Without a Woman

I started a draft at Draft:Day Without a Woman. Some of these protest articles have been nominated for AfD, so I thought creating a draft and moving into main space later might be preferable. Please feel free to help expand this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: See Day Without a Woman. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Lede edit: 9 March 2017

I recently edited the lede to show the scale and intensity of the protests. The recent Day Without a Woman protests had a lower turnout than other protests with the Trump protest movement being questioned. Knowing that protest movements are often fluid and have variables, I placed this information in the lede for now, but if more develops, we should address it, saying something like "the March for Science showed an increase of protest intensity..." or something of the sort.--ZiaLater (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a good edit. Might be appropriate to add something about Day wtihout Immigrant too? Mehaveaccount (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mehaveaccount: So far the only information I saw about the scale of protests was between January and March turnouts. With the March of Science occurring next month and possibly other protests, we will probably see more sources of the protest movement's momentum. I know that with protest movements, such as in Venezuela, as soon as you think another protest won't happen, something else occurs. We will see where this goes. --ZiaLater (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Assassination Attempt on Trump

User ZiaLater recently introduced an edit to remove references to the assasination attempt on Trump, saying the reason for the removal is “assassination attempt is a bit much”. These parts of the article have been part of it for a long time and given the notability of the event and the political context that lead to it I do not think it is justified to remove that material from the article, so I reverted the article to its version immediately preceeding these edits. I am posting this here to receive feedback. Mehaveaccount (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

An assassination attempt by an individual with mental health issues is not a common action of Trump protests. Placing waaaay too much weight on this one incident, which the judge himself stated was a result of "a medical problem", is not suitable, especially since the situation is not related to protests whatsoever.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion isn’t because assasination is a common action of Trump protests but because it is notable and relevant to the article. It is recorded in the relevant wikipedia article as a premeditated response to political pressures that motivated the assailant:

Sandford decided that "if Trump was elected, it would change the world...somebody had to stand up for America." Prior to the assassination attempt, Sandford had displayed no interest in politics. Following his arrest, Sandford expressed to his father his concern about policies of Trump's such as building a wall along the United States-Mexico border and halting immigration to the United States by Muslims, calling Trump a "racist".

Sandford spent the following year planning, ultimately deciding to attempt the assassination while Trump was addressing a rally in Las Vegas, Nevada on June 18, 2016. He acquired a ticket for the event, and also reserved a ticket for a subsequent rally to be held in Phoenix, Arizona, in case an opportunity did not arise during the Las Vegas rally.

Mehaveaccount (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The one sentence is sufficient. kencf0618 (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that one sentence is enough, it shows how extreme some situations have been, though its not that a common protest method is assassination attempts. One person who had a mental illness attempted this. Yes, people have focused on how it may have been premeditated, but mentally ill people can plan too (and sometimes become fixated on certain things). So sure, we can keep the one sentence that was existing saying that an assassination attempt occurred, but it doesn't deserve the weight in the article as a "method" of protest or its own "more details" template under the title of a section.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, let's try to form a consensus before adding this back. Not trying to edit war at all just think we should follow the edit notice of this article.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Categories: