This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vesuvius Dogg (talk | contribs) at 15:28, 15 August 2015 (→His campaign team). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:28, 15 August 2015 by Vesuvius Dogg (talk | contribs) (→His campaign team)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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. |
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
FEC Form 2
Trump has filed FEC Form 2, 22 June 2015. See ]. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
On the inclusion of all significant viewpoints
The problems with this page are comparable with the problems expressed in the tag, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." It is particularly important for articles on present-day politics to include important sentiment(s) from all sides. For the sub-categories, Trump is often the only one sourced, and the opinions of Trump's critics are often given misrepresented and/or. A good example can be found in the paragraph about the remarks on illegal immigration in his candidacy announcement speech, which the article simply says drew criticism from his "opponents." This suggests that the only people who criticized his remarks are people who had biases against him from the start; if this were the case, Trump himself would not have been on record saying he didn't expect the resulting backlash to be as severe as it was. In truth, the remarks made him many more opponents than he had previously had. AndrewOne (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have something specific that needs to be addressed? Based on what you've written, I can't decipher what your complaint is. Whatever it may be, systemic bias is NOT what are describing--of that much I am certain. So, you'll need to help us zero-in on whatever it is that you think requires attention, or we'll have to pull your tag. (Actually, we should probably pull it anyway, as it is clearly inappropriate.) Eclipsoid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hello User:Eclipsoid, I believe User:AndrewOne is especially complaining about this bit, bolded-emphasis added by myself:
During his announcement of his candidacy, Trump made a statement regarding illegal immigration that prompted reactions from his opponents, as well as from proponents who defended his remarks. He stated in part, "." In the days following, several businesses and organizations - including NBC, Macy's, and Univision - cut ties with Trump over his comments. Defenders of Trump's remarks on illegal immigration have included presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Congressman Steve King, and various families of victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. For his part, Trump has defended his comments, cited news articles to back up his claims and made illegal immigration a major issue in his campaign.
- Macy's obviously cannot and ought not be lumped in with "Trump's opponents" (aka other presidential candidates competing against Trump in particular , and the proponents of non-Republican-political-parties including Democrats in general). The paragraph is unbalanced, because although it talks neutrally about the controversial statement, and gives a reasonably-neutral quotation of the controversial statement... it then goes on to give one sentence of vague criticism ('several businesses cut ties'), and one sentence-fragment saying vaguely that 'his opponents reacted' to the statement. Everything else is positive. There is nothing specific I see that terribly *wrong* with the positive stuff; it appears to be backed by sources. I would suggest that some of the positive-parts are improperly vague: does Ted Cruz 100% agree with Trump? does Steve King 100% agree with Trump? the prose here implies as much, but that may not be the case (wikipedia should clearly reflect what the sources say -- and avoid implying something the sources do not explicitly say).
- But we cannot omit the negative coverage. When I do a search for
trump announcement immigration rapists "good people", the WP:SOURCES that turn up are very-negative, mostly-negative, pretty-close-to-neutral, somewhat-positive (Santorum & Guiliani need to be added to the paragraph... but note well they cannot be lumped in as "defenders" of Trump per their own multi-faceted-statements) and mostly-positive. Right now, what is in mainspace doesn't reflect ALL the sources. - There is a particular flaw with the boldfaced bit in the paragraph; from the interview with Costa, as reported by HuffPo, we learn that Trump blamed "Democrats and enemies" for blowing up one paragraph of his announcement-speech into a controversy. Now, it is okay for wikipedia to state that according to Trump the controversy over the statement "prompted reactions from his opponents" but it is NOT okay to use wikipedia's voice, and state flat out that the statement "prompted reactions from Trump's opponents" without attribution nor qualification... thereby implying that Trump's opponents were the only ones who reacted. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and also WP:ABOUTSELF. We can and should give Trump's position, and Trump's reaction to the backlash. But we have to give it as Trump's, not as wikipedia's.
- Most seriously, the paragraph mentions the businesses-cut-ties stuff, but otherwise ignores the mostly-negative and very-negative press coverage (see list of samples above). Those very-negative and mostly-negative WP:SOURCES also need sentences in this paragraph (my suggestion would be one sentence about criticism by other Republicans and one sentence about criticism from liberal&Democratic groups and then a summary-sentence that sums up the list of groups that have criticized the controversial stance which roughly parallels the "defenders" sentence), otherwise we have an WP:NPOV problem. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
another announcement-speech quotation, the "no-bicycle-races" campaign promise
User:99.112.166.96 added something about this back in mid-June, but it was deleted, and I can understand why (looks very random when taken out of context). But appearances can be deceiving, and in this case bicycle races *are* worth mentioning methinks, per WP:NOTEWORTHY best-quotes-list by Politico. Here is a rough-draft that I put together:
During his announcement speech, Trump said he would keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and criticized John Kerry for the current status of negotiations with Iran; Trump also criticized Kerry's judgement outside the political realm, in particular breaking his leg (at age 72) in a bicycle race, following which Trump made a firm campaign promise never to race bicycles himself.
This is too long, and may need to be cut down, but I'm not sure how far we can cut it down ('as simple as possible but no simpler') yet still manage to explain to the readership the context of the no-bicycle-races remark. I do think the quote helps give the flavor of the Trump candidacy; it is funny/zany/flamboyant, yet at the same time cuts to the heart of one of his important campaign-issues (it really matters who the president picks to put at the negotiating-table with other countries). As for placement, the no-bicycle-races stuff belongs in the Announcement section, either immediately after (or perhaps merged with) this existing sentence: "In the speech, Trump also pledged he would fund Social Security, not cut it, renegotiate U.S. trade agreements, oppose federal Common Core education standards, and complete the Mexican border fence and make Mexico pay for it."
p.s. I also would suggest adding more context to the 'make Mexico pay for it' portion, since that sounds non-sensible until you understand that Trump is planning on using illegal/undocumented immigrants to supply the labor, and subsequently deporting them, then via diplomatic channels trying to extract the cost imposed by those deported, from the government of Mexico. Not as good a sound-bite, but this is an encyclopedia so we should try and stay a bit more formal/educational. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I added a couple sentences about this to mainspace, after I found a cite for Kerry's accident; he wasn't in a bicycle race, that was a bit of poetic license on Trump's part, but Kerry did break his leg in May'15. I haven't tried to clarify the make-mexico-pay-for-it-portion yet. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
General election polls not yet relevant
Unanalyzed general election polls are not yet relevant, are misleading, and amount to WP:original research, since they do not contain running mates. The one listed showing Hilary is not really relevant at this point. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. We have an article for Republican polling, and that is available in the template and series box. Mention of polls at all on preliminary campaign articles is not only irrelevant, but no encyclopedic. Spartan7W § 20:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, and actually, some polling shows combinations of Trump and one of the other Republicans as possibly beating Hilary and a running mate. What's more Hilary hasn't been nominated.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Well she hasn't been nominated yet, although she is quite likely to receive it. But the fact she is the near-guarantee like Nixon in ')0, the polling is inherently flawed. Spartan7W § 20:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Another Democrat could still enter, Hilary has problems.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Don't forget Bernie, he's polled competitively in several of the early states. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Polling-data is encyclopedic, as long as it is handled properly. Almost every WP:SOURCES article I read about Trump specifically mentions that he is doing well in the polls. Wikipedians should not use our own logic (for instance, reasoning that since the polls in question didn't include veeps, therefore they are not REALLY worth noting), we should reflect what the sources actually say, per WP:NOTEWORTHY. It is perfectly fine for an article about a presidential candidate, to talk about how well that candidate is doing in nationwide/swingstate polls relative to other Republican candidates (if the reliable sources talk about such things), to talk about how well that candidate is doing in nationwide/swingstate polls relative to other Democratic candidates (if the reliable sources talk about such things), and to talk about how well that candidate is doing (relative to others) in their fundraising/endorsements/staffers and so on and so forth. It is NOT original research, to quote some article in Politico which discusses the hypothetical matchup of Trump versus Hillary, and mentions Quinnipiac polling-data on that hypothetical. That is the *opposite* of original research. (It would be original research if, extrapolating from the Politico/Quinnipiac datasets, using a spreadsheet on my own, I were to come up with some claims about how well the S.Palin/D.Trump ticket would fair against the M.Obama/H.Clinton ticket during the 2020 elections... since absolutely *none* of that particular hypothetical has been discussed in Politico, nor polled by Quinniapiac.) Just because something is in the future, does not mean wikipedians can refuse to include it, in our articles. Reflecting what the sources say, means, if the sources are talking about the future, then wikipedia can summarize what they said, in a neutral tone, no problem whatsoever. Otherwise, logically, we could just delete all this 2016-election stuff, because the final outcome is in the future, right? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Right: polling is relevant as long as it is handled properly, which means dismissing polls that really don't mean anything. As has been pointed out already, it is not possible to conduct a meaningful general election poll because we are still a full year from selecting the running mates. Thus, polls concerning the general election are merely "noise", basically just space-filler material. And no, not encyclopedic. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Doing some research on specific sources turns up these sources (see greenbox). That's just the top few hits from googling for
trump hillary poll. I'm sure there are more. Now, I fully realize, hypothetical head-to-head nationwide polling is inherently flawed; it ignores the electoral college, it ignores the winner-take-all nature of swing states, it ignores veep-picks, it ignores the next 15 months of campaigning / scandals / zingers / gaffes / commercials / endorsements / momentum / etc. But it is WP:NOTEWORTHY, and cannot be omitted from wikipedia, because wikipedia has to stay neutral per WP:NPOV, and reflect what the sources say per WP:V. See also, WP:5, this stuff is critical to what 'being encyclopedic' means. I don't find polling-data-summaries listed at WP:NOT. Are we just talking about different things, here? Here is a reliably-sourced sentence I think belongs in the article.
- Doing some research on specific sources turns up these sources (see greenbox). That's just the top few hits from googling for
- Right: polling is relevant as long as it is handled properly, which means dismissing polls that really don't mean anything. As has been pointed out already, it is not possible to conduct a meaningful general election poll because we are still a full year from selecting the running mates. Thus, polls concerning the general election are merely "noise", basically just space-filler material. And no, not encyclopedic. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Polling-data is encyclopedic, as long as it is handled properly. Almost every WP:SOURCES article I read about Trump specifically mentions that he is doing well in the polls. Wikipedians should not use our own logic (for instance, reasoning that since the polls in question didn't include veeps, therefore they are not REALLY worth noting), we should reflect what the sources actually say, per WP:NOTEWORTHY. It is perfectly fine for an article about a presidential candidate, to talk about how well that candidate is doing in nationwide/swingstate polls relative to other Republican candidates (if the reliable sources talk about such things), to talk about how well that candidate is doing in nationwide/swingstate polls relative to other Democratic candidates (if the reliable sources talk about such things), and to talk about how well that candidate is doing (relative to others) in their fundraising/endorsements/staffers and so on and so forth. It is NOT original research, to quote some article in Politico which discusses the hypothetical matchup of Trump versus Hillary, and mentions Quinnipiac polling-data on that hypothetical. That is the *opposite* of original research. (It would be original research if, extrapolating from the Politico/Quinnipiac datasets, using a spreadsheet on my own, I were to come up with some claims about how well the S.Palin/D.Trump ticket would fair against the M.Obama/H.Clinton ticket during the 2020 elections... since absolutely *none* of that particular hypothetical has been discussed in Politico, nor polled by Quinniapiac.) Just because something is in the future, does not mean wikipedians can refuse to include it, in our articles. Reflecting what the sources say, means, if the sources are talking about the future, then wikipedia can summarize what they said, in a neutral tone, no problem whatsoever. Otherwise, logically, we could just delete all this 2016-election stuff, because the final outcome is in the future, right? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
| suggest a specific sentence, that summarizes the candidate-relative-polling-numbers, for Trump-vs-repubs and Trump-vs-dems |
|---|
|
- Anyways, long story short, merely linking to the polling-data-articles in not enough. There are headline-stories about how Trump is doing in the polls against other repubs, against dems, against specific demographics, in approval-rating, in could-support, and so on and so forth. The history of his polling-data (relative to other presidential candidates) is definitely a topic for this article. By way of contrast, we have a separate article on endorsements, and this article links there, but this article also has a collapsed list of nearly all of the endorsements. We also need either a graph, or a one-sentence-per-month summarization, or a collapsed-copy, of the polling data about Trump, since that polling data is proven to matter, by the wiki-reliable sources that keep publishing about it. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
SSM
Howard Kurtz - Fox News interview
TRUMP: Look, it's an issue that been determined by the Supreme Court. And frankly, you know, I'm about jobs; I'm about making the country great. I would have liked to have seen the decision differently. And you have another decision ObamaCare, which is a disaster given to us by John Roberts who was appointed by Bush who was pushed by Jeb Bush.
Changing statement - he hasn't said "Christian views on marriage" -- Callinus (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
His campaign team
What else can be said about his campaign team? He certainly doesn't need any 'advisors'.
Headline-1: Trump strategist Roger Stone off campaign, dispute whether fired or quit
QUOTE: "A top political adviser to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is off the campaign, but both sides dispute whether he was fired or quit. A Trump spokesperson said early Saturday that high-profile adviser Roger Stone was fired. “Roger wanted to use the campaign for his own personal publicity,” the spokesman told FoxNews.com. “He has had a number of articles about him recently, and Mr. Trump wants to keep the focus of the campaign on how to Make America Great Again." However, Stone said later in the day that he quit, citing in part Trump’s “provocative” battles with the news media, politicians and others." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
- According to the National Journal, a woman named Hope Hicks identifies herself as spokesperson for the campaign. Perhaps she should be named? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Elections and Referendums articles
- WikiProject Elections and Referendums 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