Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 7

RfC: Should Trump's characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." be restored?
The lead of the article contained this sentence: Trump's most polarizing and widely reported statements have been about issues of immigration and border security, especially his proposed deportation of all illegal immigrants, the proposed construction of a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border at Mexican expense, a temporary ban on alien Muslims entering the U.S., and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."

An editor removed: "and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.""

'''Should Trump's characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." be restored?''' - MrX 19:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Yes - This has been covered in dozens of sources, and continues to be covered more than a year after he said it. WP:NPOV requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. This is both prominent and enduring, and can't possibly be removed for WP:BLP reasons because they are Trump's actual words.- MrX 20:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Include as already discussed before here and here. Additionally I suggest removing the disruptive editor who keeps removing this.--TMCk (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Include - Covered by every major news source, a significant part of his campaign, emphasized by his talking about crime victims of immigrants, and his own words. Objective3000 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude, with qualification - As stated in the section above, the actual statement attributed to Trump is "They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”. The disputed statement in the RfC does not accurately reflect Trump's statement as it doesn't include the qualification I highlighted ("in many cases").  I've proposed a version of the content to address this, but apparently that is unacceptable.  So if we're not going to accurately reflect Trump's statement, then I think it should be excluded.CFredkin (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)   Quite honestly, I think it's a blatant BLP violation to cherry pick only part of Trump's statement for inclusion in the lede of the article for pete's sake.CFredkin (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you mind listening to the audio of his actual words here, starting at time index 0:27, and tell me where you hear the words "in many cases"?- MrX 22:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, that's not the quote being discussed here.CFredkin (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC) That would seem to be pretty obvious.CFredkin (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Trump said: "They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." That's where the characterization came from. The specific words in discussion are Trump's doubling down on the exact same stated viewpoint.- MrX 22:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. That's not true. From the same WP source provided above:

–Real estate mogul Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech, June 16, 2015

–Trump, statement about his June 16 comments, July 6, 2015CFredkin (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (re. CFredkin, again) You leave the "etc." out (as I already proposed earlier) and what's left is a paraphrasing of the initial speech in June that actually triggered the controversy. His response to the response happened weeks later and has no importance here.--TMCk (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If the problem that CFredkin has is that the quote omits "in some case", then we can simple not use a quote at all and remove the "etc". No matter how you slice this though, Trump did characterize illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as criminals, drug dealers, rapists. Quotes are not needed.- MrX 22:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As stated above you can't take a fragment of a statement by someone, leave out a qualifier (i.e. "in many cases") that significantly affects the interpretation of the statement, and include it in an article (much less a BLP). The reference to quotation marks is a red herring.CFredkin (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He clearly states that "criminals, drug dealers, rapists" are being "sent" by the Mexican gov't, without a wit of evidence that the Mexican gov't is sending a single person, other than diplomats. He ignores the well-established studies by the FBI that immigrants create less crime than natural-born citizens. This remains a major part f his campaign. Objective3000 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Include This is one of the most notable aspects of the Trump campaign per multiple RS and is consistent with the first quote. The first quote appears to be more notable than the second quote, if only in terms of Google searches. first quote 42,000 citations Second quote 7,960 citations--Nowa (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: isn't it already in the page further down? Controversy aside, it is not the most notable aspect of Trump's campaign. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you say this quote is not one of the most notable aspects of his campaign?--Nowa (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Trump did not say that all illegal immigrants were ""criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." He said that some of them were "nice people."  However outraged we are by his comments, we must report them accurately and reliably source any interpretation of them.  TFD (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the quote is "some I assume are good people" That's actually not a statement that some illegal immigrants are good people.  The main thrust of the statement is that illegal immigrants as a whole are bad people, not like us.  "Some, I assume, are good people" rhetorically emphasizes that basic message.--Nowa (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That falls under WP:OR. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, DaltonCastle, User: Nowa's post is not WP:OR. Instead, Nowa is sticking to the source — that is, trying to adequately summarize what the source is saying. WP:OR is when there is no reliable source to refer to, or to summarize — which is obviously not the case here. Refer to WP:OR, please inform yourself about guidelines before throwing more allegations on the table. My own opinion on the subject matter is that Trump's vague qualifier — 'some, I assume, are good people' — is intended merely to fend off allegations about racism; and this opinion of mine does not amount to OR, as there is a verifiable source to be summarized and made sense out of. Thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you say something is your opinion it is by definition OR. Notice in an example provided in the policy, it says, "The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion...."  Your opinion may be right, wrong or the only conclusion a reasonable person could draw, but it is still your opinion.  TFD (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is incorrect. You are refering to an example concerning synthesizing material which is irrelevant here. We are presently concerned with sticking to the source, that is, 'carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning or implication'. Editors obviously disagree about how to summarize and rephrase, as the current discussions show. User: Nowa, myself and others have offered views on how best to summarize and rephrase the material, and this does not amount to OR, I submit. Refer to WP:OR once again. However, I welcome this meta-discussion of what reliable editing is. My point is that we need to abandon the narrow-minded practice of labeling any opinion stated by an editor on a talk page as OR, and — even worse — to unfairly dismiss the opinion as OR without further ado. User DaltonCastle and User TFD will have to consider the error of their ways and correct themselves accordingly, I say. Thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, include As has been pointed out already, there was tremendous coverage of those words exactly as they already in the article. Whoever removed them without discussing it first should be sanctioned by an admin. It's a ridiculous pro-Trump POV to take that quote out; complete whitewashing attempt. Rockypedia (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, include Very strongly support they be included.  This is so obvious that we should not need to have a RfC on it.  Gandydancer (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Include The comments during his announcement set the tone for his entire campaign.LM2000 (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, include It was the opening statement of his campaign, and he repeated it since. It definitely belongs in the lead. But the wording could be improved a bit, taking into account the complaints of User: TFD and especially User: CFredkin that Trump did add "... that some of them were nice people." Hence, my suggestion reads: "... and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as mostly "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."" The single word 'mostly' put before the quotation itself neatly converts Trump's own vague qualifier into a concise encyclopedic account, I say. Now, let us not get too nitpicking about all this. Gaeanautes (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, include - the opening statement of his campaign, repeated many times, extremely widespread coverage even in the context of a media-soaked campaign. Certainly lead-worthy. Would do our readers a disservice to omit. (It is pretty disappointing to see editors fighting tooth and nail on what really should be non-contentious). Neutralitytalk 14:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. So let's include his complete sentence, and not some cherry-picked fragment of it.CFredkin (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * CFredkin, quoting long statements in full is a rather un-encyclopedic exercise, especially in the lead section. Have you considered my suggestion for a re-wording above? Gaeanautes (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Gaeanautes: I appreciate your good faith proposal. However "mostly" has a different meaning than "many".  I don't believe this version, which uses Trump's actual language, is any longer:  "...and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as, in many cases, being 'criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.'"CFredkin (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * CFredkin: Good enough for me. Will this settle the issue for you once and for all...? Gaeanautes (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. In fact, I attempted to add this language to the article.  It was reverted. I initiated the Talk discussion in the section above and removed the content (per WP:BLP), until consensus could be achieved about the content.CFredkin (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with basing the lede on the second "in many cases..." quote. He certainly said it, but the initial quote is the notable one that has set the tone for his campaign.--Nowa (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nowa: But Trump's initial quote is too long, "... they're not sending the best. They're not sending you. [do.] ..." It's inappropriate for an encyclopedic account, especially in the lead. Gaeanautes (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. What I'm coming around to is that maybe "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." should not be in quotes.  Simply state that Trump has characterized Mexican illegal immigrants as a whole as criminals, drug dealers and rapists.--Nowa (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and that makes it a paraphrase of the initial speech which triggered the response. To put it in quotation marks was the only minor mistake by MastCell in their edit. Insisting on a "softened" quote that was made weeks later is dishonest cherry picking, misleading and disruptive.--TMCk (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The proposed language isn't based on his initial quote (as stated above).CFredkin (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. So I think your basic point is that if we are going to have a quote, then it should be in context, and the context of that quote was that it referred to "in many cases" and not illegal immigrants from Mexico as a whole.  Correct?--Nowa (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Bingo.CFredkin (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * --TMCk and CFredkin does this more accurately capture what you want the lede to say? ...and his characterizations of illegal immigrants from Mexico as generally being criminals, drug dealers and rapists. (i.e. a paraphrase, not a quote)--Nowa (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why can't we use Trump's own words (i.e. "many")?CFredkin (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's actually what I suggested before the RFC was started but someone was not happy with it and removed the whole darn thing, again. "Generally" is actually a good addition.--TMCk (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User: Nowa's proposal for the wording made above. Since Nowa's post is unsigned(?), I'll repeat the proposal here for convenience: ... and his characterizations of illegal immigrants from Mexico as generally being criminals, drug dealers and rapists. A paraphrase is appropriate, I say. I suppose we could substitute the word 'generally' with either 'in many cases' (as User: CFredkin has proposed earlier on); or with 'mostly' (my own previous proposal). So, I think we have now narrowed down the discussion to this: Is it going to be 'generally', 'in many cases' or 'mostly' in the italicized sentence above? Is there a slight chance we can reach a consensus on this soon? Gaeanautes (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, include, MrX's audio above makes it clear that when challenged by TV news he repeated, the only qualifier in that instance is "some I assume are good people" additionally he makes it clear that Mexico etc are 'sending these people'.Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Include, with qualification. The statement is so massively controversial, and so widely covered, that I don't see that we have any choice but to include it in the lede. We need to be careful, though; if we're quoting, then we should accurately reproduce the whole quote, and if we're paraphrasing, then it shouldn't go in quotes. There seems to be some uncertainty about which quote is being used: AFAIK, the June 16 speech is the one that got a lot of attention, and should be the one used. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked Sockpuppet Yes However, we shouldn't be making up our own context. We should objectively report what he had said. Searcher11 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes The words reflect what he said and continues to say. Pmacdee (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Include but Qualify - (summoned by bot). I think User:CFredkin, User:Vanamonde93 and User:Searcher11 are making a worthwhile point. The proposed wording suggests that Trump implied all illegal immigrants are "criminals, drug dealers, rapists". Strictly speaking, that doesn't appear to be what he said. I'd use the following wording to more accurately reflect Trumps quote.
 * his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."
 * Ultimately, if we're going to relay potentially inflammatory quotes, we should work hard to make sure we relay them as accurately as possible. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Include the wording suggested by NickCT above. (I assumed this is already in the text of the article somewhere, but for some reason we seem to have banished all of his political positions from the text.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems we have finally reached a consensus on this issue. Consequently, I have now restored Trump's comment along the lines proposed by User:NickCT above. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for and for conforming to the talk page consensus. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Khan's response
User:DaltonCastle removed the fifth paragraph from the "Khan" section, the paragraph about Khan's response to Trump's followup comments. So what we now have is four paragraphs: the first about Khan's initial speech, with his comments paraphrased into two short sentences; Trump's response to it, extensively quoting him; a third paragraph with one sentence about the public reaction and a sentence quoting Trump's continuing attacks; and a fourth paragraph quoting Trump's written followup. Does that seem balanced to most people? Or should Khan's own followup get some coverage? Possible sources (the source that DaltonCastle deleted),   And considering the massive public reaction to Trump's comments,  does that material maybe deserve more than one sentence? --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We needed Five paragraphs at all on the subject? No one is concerned about too much weight being given? DaltonCastle (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes we need 5 paragraphs. The reversion just looks like, "I don't like it."  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC) It could be argued that four paragraphs is too much. It could be trimmed. But per WP:WEIGHT, it is not balanced to have two-and-a-half of those paragraphs presenting just Trump's viewpoint, in his own words. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The whole thing is a Trump criticism. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Having 70% of the material devoted to Trump quotes and defenses does not seem balanced, no. Neutralitytalk 02:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then just cut the whole section down. Its already too much weight. The removed paragraph was just a chance for all the die-hards to tell readers what they should take away from the section - that is, Trump = bad. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You object to having less than a third of the section devoted to the person on the other side of the disagreement AND the public reaction to it, combined, leaving two thirds of the section quoting Trump in his own words? You actually think that has the UNDUE intent/effect of making Trump look bad? The only way that math works if if you think quoting Trump, in his own words, amounts to criticizing him or making him look bad. Of course maybe that is what you think; do you? And if not, how can you possibly claim that a section of which two-thirds consists of Trump talking, is unfair to Trump? Personally it seems obvious to me that this section in its current form is very slanted in favor of Trump, and needs to get more of the other side in (for example by restoring the paragraph you deleted, which would restore the balance to 2 1/2 paragraphs Trump, 2 1/2 paragraphs anti-Trump). You deleted it without getting consensus; let's see what others think. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I added the Khan response because the section begins with what Mr. Khan said at the DNC convention, and I saw his response on Meet the Press and thought it tied it up. I certainly didn't mean to make the section unbalanced against Trump. I thought I was editing with a NPOV and I certainly didn't intend to make it WP:Undue emphasis. I do think the section could be trimmed and we could leave off Khan's rebuttal. The issue is over the words spoken and Trump's words must be there in full to understand the controversy. But we don't have to have Khan's MTP rebuttal. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The section is way too long, and direct quotes just add to it. This is an article, not a dramatic play.  TFD (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The controversy is over what Trump said. It's his words. Yes, we need his quote. It's a campaign issue, and does not in any way resemble a "dramatic play." I would prefer to keep the section just as it was. It had consensus. Originally, I left off the rather dramatic bits about firestorms and the press going nuts about it and just had it at what these two men had to say. It's their words that matter. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? What is significant is how his comments were interpreted.  If people want to to read transcripts of everythiing Trump has said and draw their own conclusions, they can folow the sources.  But we should not reprint them in this article.  TFD (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not an article about the media and how they respond to every thing Trump says. This is about Trump's campaign and his conduct within it. It is not about the media coverage of Trump's campaign. There's no context for the media firestorm without what he said. And it wasn't the editors here who put the words in his mouth. He did that all by himself. Nobody is picking on him or trying to make him look bad. This is Donald Trump. And I'd prefer to keep Khan's rebuttal because as MelanieN noted, it's only a small portion of the whole section. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While it is not about the media coverage, we rely on media reports as secondary sources for what happened and accept the expertise of the writers of secondary sources to summarize what is found in primary sources. Some readers may wish to examine primary sources themselves.  Some readers for example may question official reports of 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination and want to read through all the testimony and exhibits.  But that makes article overly long and really boring.  TFD (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I've suggested before that perhaps this deserves an article of its own. That would allow us to cut it down here and then just link it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It would also make more sense to move the Khan section from "People and groups" to "Controversies".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point! The issue has got nothing to do with "People and groups." Gaeanautes (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really need to be cut down here. Maybe it's offending people, but that's what the man said. You're right, it could easily be expanded on a subpage which is perfectly within policy. But what is there now, is fine. Readers do want to know what presidential candidate Donald Trump said in response to the parents of a dead American soldier killed by a suicide bomber, and it's right there where it should be, right here on his presidential campaign page. It is not "overly long,"there are no BLP violations. It's not undue, it's NPOV, and it's sourced with reliable sources per policy. More importantly, the edit was settled on with congenial editing and consensus.. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed people want to know what Trump said which is why we should mention it. But why should we use five paragraphs to illustrate what could be explained in one or two sentences?  Furthermore, deciding which words to quote and which to ignore involves judgment, and we should defer to the judgment of people like reporters in mainstream newspapers who are better able to judge what is important and what is not.  Again, if people want to read Donald Trump's speeches in full, this article is not the place to find them.  TFD (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not really 5 paragraghs. It's really one or two paras broken up for ease of reading. That's my doing, I can change it. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @TFD, shouldn't that standard also apply to speeches made in criticism of Trump? This whole article has gotten blown out of proportion with such incredible weight being given to events which, if not within a month certainly within a year, will be a minor footnote at best in the history of the election. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend to predict the future but I dare say that nothing, in the long history of this campaign and this election, will be a footnote. This campaign is uprooting the election process and transforming it by "root and branch". Buster Seven   Talk  06:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with that. Well said, Buster. This is like 1968 all over again, but on steroids. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This issue seems to have dropped off our radar (as often happens with Trump because he creates a new sensation every day or two and new threads get started here). But I don't want to let this issue, slide because I feel the current section is heavily slanted toward Trump. It is now three paragraphs: one paragraph about Mr. Khan's speech; a second paragraph that is entirely Trump's reaction, with direct quotes; and a third paragraph with ONE SENTENCE about the enormous, bipartisan rejection of Trump's comments and the rest of it, again, Trump in his own words. We need at least a full paragraph about the fallout, because this touched off a reaction comparable to the widespread condemnation of his months-ago comments about the judge. Trump's comments were denounced by prominent Republicans as well as Democrats, veterans and other nonpartisan organizations, and the press. Three Republican congresspeople (at last count) have proclaimed they cannot support Trump, in part because of this incident. Some pollsters attribute Trump's recent slump in the polls to public disapproval of his comments. We can't let this go with a single, generality-type sentence, and I will work tomorrow on a proposal to expand this back to a properly balanced section. --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand your points. My concern is, it seems like political correctness and a desire to gain positive attention on the part of those politicians who weren't really supporting Trump anyway. As for the media 'firestorm' the big question is, what set that off? It was Trump's response to a question put to him about what Mr. Khan said regarding sacrifice. I think as it reads right now is enough. Because afterall, how can anybody answer a question about 'what have you sacrificed,' when it's already a loaded question meant to draw fire against Trump, because of course he can't answer that in his favor. It puts him immediately on the defensive because none of Trump's children have been killed in the service of the country. It's a demeaning thing to say even to someone who's child did serve in Iraq or Afghanistan or in any war. Is Mr. Khan saying that those parents/spouses/children didn't suffer because their loved one wasn't killed? What about the little boy who cried every day he was father was deployed and refused to let go of him when he returned home finally? I guess he didn't sacrifice with his fear and sadness every day because his Dad wasn't killed. Trump floundered because he did not respond with the cool, measured response that we were all expecting. I can't be alone in expecting him to respond in the way Hillary Clinton handled a question about Pat Smith's speech at the RNC. Hillary was gracious, understanding and said, "Of course she's upset." She never took a defensive stance. So it was Trump feeling on the defensive and his own words that got him in trouble. But he was set up for that and there's no mention of that. I'm against piling on the slanted view of the media which is already aligned against him. They don't even make any attempt to hide it. That's not what this article is about. It's about Donald Trump's presidential campaign and his conduct in carrying out that campaign. I think the section is fine as it is. But if there is a rewrite, I'd like to see sources that acknowledge what he was up against and just how stacked the deck was when he was asked that loaded question on by a man who openly supports Hillary and has contributed to her campaign. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I question whether this article is the best one to include maximum detail about the Khizr and Ghazala Khan controversy. Perhaps the best article would be the one about Khizr and Ghazala Khan.  There's lots of room there, and a summary could go here in this article, with a link to the pertinent section of that article for people who would like to know more.  I note that Pat Smith isn't even mentioned in the article Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, FWIW.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that they had their own article. Yes, I agree with that. I've not had time to look over Hillary's article. I've not looked at it lately as last I checked things seemed well in hand. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The story to me was that Trump lacked normal compassion, the normal empathy that one father would have for another who has lost a son in the service to his country. The story was, to me at least, that Trumps first response was a callous counter-attack. "He hit me first". Even most of his vocal surrogates defended Trump as if it was a schoolyard fight between 8 year olds. We've seen it before. It was nice to see Eric Trump defend his father a few days into the story. It's to bad that Mr. Khan's son doesn't have the opportunity to defend his father and his grievously maligned mother. That's the story. That's what I would put in the article...that Trump showed his true nature and he lost a lot of Republican support because of it. Buster Seven   Talk  07:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr. Khan is a Harvard-trained immigration lawyer, and reliable sources give credit to both him and the DNC for cleverness. Time Magazine reports that he set an "obvious trap" and Trump "took the bait".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, a Kobayashi Maru. And I did state clearly (in my post here) that Trump had failed the expected response which was to show compassion and empathy and get past it rather than take a defensive stance. We were all hoping he would say what we were all thinking, which is the job of our leaders. We wanted heartfelt empathy and we didn't get it. It was a massive fail. We all know how the press are treating it, but not everybody is aware of what exactly did he say? I agree with Buster7 that comments about how he failed those expectations belong there, and with due weight. But also include what his defenders, like his son said. And I certainly don't fault any parent for not having a child who died serving the country. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And even if Khan did set an "obvious trap" (which I doubt was intentional; he was asked to speak by the convention, and his speech received so much attention precisely because it was so heartfelt and emotional) - it says something important about a potential president if he "can't resist taking the bait". Would he be easily manipulated by others, "take the bait" every time a foreign leader pushed one of his buttons? In contrast, Hillary Clinton listened to four solid days of vicious attacks against herself, but she did not lash out against the individual speakers. I recently saw a replay of George W. Bush's response to Cindy Sheehan, who set up camp outside Trump's Texas home while he was staying there, spent nearly a month there, speaking about against Bush and the Iraq war, said it was Bush's fault that her son was dead. When Bush was asked about Sheehan at a press conference, he said he sympathized with her; emphasized that she had every right to speak out as she was doing; and then offered a calm defense of his Iraq policy. That's how presidents are expected to respond. That's why Trump's fight-back, he-had-no-right response caused so much dismay and disapproval among his supporters. That's why observers all across the political spectrum, and in the anonymous people who respond to polls, condemned his comments. And that reaction is what makes this a story. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree pretty much with all that, Melanie. There are also a zillion other significant aspects to the story.  Trump says he was advised beforehand not to "punch down" but ignored the advice.  Mr. Khan said afterward that "Allah makes people like Trump to make mistakes to discredit them in public eyes forever...."  Which kind of confirms that Mr. Khan was happy with the outcome, not crying in disappointment and hurt. Reporters observe that the widespread coverage of the Khan story bumped anti-Clinton headlines, e.g. her misstatements to Fox News's Chris Wallace.  And the question comes back to whether Trump can or will learn from his mistakes, or will relapse into squabbles with people who aren't Hillary Clinton, against widespread advice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added some material about the reaction to Trump's comments - with additional references about the reaction of newsmakers, plus information about polling data about the controversy. I left in all the direct quotes from Trump which still constitute 50% of the section. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that it belongs in the article about the Khans.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What in the world do criticism of Trump, and Trump's poll numbers, have to do with the biographical article about the Kahns? Nothing. This information is directly relevant to the "Donald Trump presidential campaign" article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The main article about the Khan's speech and its consequences should be Khizr and Ghazala Khan. Including it all here strikes me as undue weight. Of course, it can and should be summarized here, and perhaps even supplemented. The criticisms of Trump about this were also defenses of the Khans.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All these attempts to sanitize the article by Trump fans is reminiscent of how disparaging issues were handled in the Sarah Palin article so many years ago. I wondered about paid surrogates back then. I'm beginning to wonder again. Buster Seven   Talk  21:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If that's an accusation of paid editing, I deny it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks or unsupported "wondering" here, please, Buster. This page is under heavy scrutiny because of Discretionary Sanctions and we need to stick to issues, not personalities. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just consider it a "(warning) shot across the bows". I could say more but "discretion is the better part of valor"...and "conjecture is a fool's game". I will take your well-intentioned advice and say no more on the subject. Buster Seven   Talk  04:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump receives Purple Heart
Trump was given a Purple Heart at rally in Ashbury, Virginia yesterday. Should mention be made in the "Khan family controvesy section" or in the "Awards and Accolades" section. Also, can anyone verify that it was a real Purple Heart? The New York Post, (not the most reliable source) is claiming it is a replica which might lessen the honor. Buster Seven   Talk  12:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it should not be mentioned - certainly not in the "awards and accolades" section, and it is unrelated to the Khan controversy. He wasn't "awarded" a Purple Heart; somebody walked up and handed him theirs. Reporting differs on whether it was an original or a copy, but in either case it was not an "honor", just a gesture of support from someone who had actually earned it. There was some criticism of him from veterans groups for accepting it and bragging about it, but I don't think it rises to the level of inclusion here, unless it becomes a much bigger story than it currently is. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Humayun Khan (soldier) was awarded the Purple Heart, posthumously. It is definitely and directly related to the Khan/Trump story. And, I didn't call it an honor to receive an un-earned replica. Trump said it was an honor. Buster Seven   Talk  15:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How can he get a replica of a Purple Heart? I know they do give duplicate medals, one set for the family and the other set for burial with the soldier from combat, or the veteran when he dies. He could have given him one of those but that doesn't make it a replica. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can buy them online.--TMCk (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If we ever end up with a separate article on the Khan v Trump controversy it could go in there. Right now, here... I'm not so sure. Honestly the problem is that there have been so many "Trump stories" in the past few days that it's hard to decide which one of them are encyclopedic enough to include. Any other candidate, any of them would probably qualify.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true. The article will start looking like a news page. Also, last I checked Katy Tur from MSNBC had put it in a tweet, not on air, not sure her tweet is RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that the latest controversy distracts us from the last controversy. **SQUIRREL!** Did we ever reach a conclusion about whether or not to include President Obama's comments in the article? --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If we add something every time Trump makes a fool of himself, this article will hit record length. This should not be included anywhere.Objective3000 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I thought we were going to add it. I've not checked that thread. There are so many threads. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We didn't have a wording. I have been working on some wording and will propose it below so it doesn't get lost. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems fairly stale, but I'll add this here just because people don't seem to get how this works. Purple hearts aren't something that's controlled as far as acquiring one. You can buy them online for about six bucks. People aren't given them, they're awarded them and authorized to display it. In some cases it's illegal to wear them if you haven't been awarded them. But as far as significance goes, the physical pin isn't, its the act of being awarded that is. Timothy Joseph Wood 21:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Iran Cash Video
In a repeat of his "thousands of Muslims cheering" claim, Trump recently had to admit that, although he had talked about it in depth and made a lot of conjecture about the careful professional quality of the tape and Irans reasoning for showing the tape, the tape of the Cash transfer didn't exist. Not sure how to incorporate this into the article and whether to co-mingle it with the previous claim of seeing a tape that no-one else can find. The "muslims cheering in NJ" tape has been mentioned often over the past year. A skilled editor is needed to meld the two incidents with care and concern. Buster Seven   Talk  14:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Which tape? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump claims he saw a on TV that ‘thousands’ of New Jersey Muslims celebrated the 9/11 attacks and

Donald Trump backtracks on 'video of Iran payment. Buster Seven   Talk  21:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd include that. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Before we proceed
One editor says the campaign is "historically unique" while another says it is "normally unique". This stalemate may cause constant bickering as we move forward. So...before we go to an RfC it is suggested that we have a discussion. Is it historic or normal? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  06:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Historically unique. The other one is poor English ("unique" means "one of a kind" so "normally unique" or "very unique" don't make sense). Neutralitytalk 14:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Historically unique. agree that makes the most sense Rockypedia (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: - In this question "normally unique" is meant to imply that all campaigns/elections are unique when considered against each other. The claim is made that this elections uniqueness is normal and that opposing claims (that it is "historically" unique) should cease. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Historically irrelevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Historic only. Both campaigns are historic. One is for the first woman president and the other is for a businessman who has never held public office. Not even on a city council or had any political appointment of any kind. I would just say "Historic." I don't think "unique" applies to either campaign. In that, I agree with and . SW3 5DL (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If we say that it is unique we need to say how, because every campaign is unique in some way. TFD (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Neither. I'm with Buster. Every campaign is different, and every campaign has aspects that are unique to it. This campaign has a lot more such aspects than most, but you can't say something is "more unique" than something else; a thing is either unique or it isn't. And "normally unique" is an oxymoron. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Historically unique, I say. A simple text search on the term 'historically unique' reveals that I was the 'one editor' refered to by User: Buster7 who was first to use this description of Trump's campaign, so maybe I should have the opportunity to explain myself in greater detail...? But before I proceed, we need to get rid of a rather silly misrepresentation made by Buster7: A new text search, now on the term 'normally unique', reveals that Buster7 was the first editor on this talk page ever to use this particular term (I've been through the archives, too). Yet another text search reveals that Buster7 must have paraphrased User: DaltonCastle above, who merely argued that ' Every election, in the history [of] the nation, is unique.' Shame on you, Buster7, for confusing co-editors and wasting their time with your own made up terms and 'stalemates' and 'bickering' and different degrees of uniqueness and whatnot. I hope you are easily forgiven by the others ;-) Anyway, here's the list of stylized facts that make me believe Trump's campaign is historically unique, and not just different — as conceptually distinct from 'unique' — from any other election: Those are the reasons for my belief that Trump's presidential campaign is historically unique. Gaeanautes (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump has been appealing to racist sentiments from the outset of his campaign; this has been reported, documented and commented on (almost) from the outset as well; but he has managed to defeat all of his rivals within the Republican Party with a comfortable margin and win the Party's nomination anyway. Has he managed to win this nomination because of or despite of his appeal to racist sentiments? Whatever the answer may be, it will be a historically unique answer.
 * Trump has radically shattered the establishment of the Republican Party and exposed the vast chasm dividing the base and the top. I expect that the political consequences of this shattering will unfold for years to come. American conservatism may be challenged by right-wing populism on a permanent basis from now on...
 * Commentators have been tossing the 'F'-word at Trump from early on in his campaign, and scholars have seriously discussed if Trump really is an 'F'. The 'F'-word I'm refering to here is Fascism.
 * His policies have evoked disbelief and condemnation throughout the world, from the former president of Mexico to the Pope and many others in between. I'm surprised that Gandalf and Darth Vader have not yet come up with a solid statement on Trump.
 * Trump is ignorant of politics and world affairs in general. He is arrogant and vindictive towards political opponents and rivals, even within his own party. He is impulsive and unreliable in all of his conduct and communication. He is a habitual lier. He shares the typical egomaniac's authoritarian contempt for democratic norms and limitations. He displays all the personality traits characteristic of a narcissist, please check out this comprehensive list and draw your own conclusions. Nonetheless, he has managed to get this far in a U.S. presidential election!
 * Gaeanautes, your attacks on Trump here come close to violating the notice at the top of the page - "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." I understand that you are posting this material to defend your claim that this election is "historically unique" from any other election - presumably with the intention of including that description somewhere in the article. But I'm sure you realize that your opinion carries no weight in that question. Show us the reliable sources describing this election as "historically unique"; then we can talk. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As Editor Gaeanautes states my confusing thread was pretty much a waste of our precious time. My question was not clear and so the responding answers (which I am thankful to for editors participating) wandered. It was never intended as a means to include something into the article. I'm 70. This is the most historic election cycle in my life. I guess I wanted to end up with an irrefutable consensus, for future discussions on this talk page, supporting its historic quality so we could not be burdened by the idea that this is just a good old fashioned normal campaign.  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  04:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The posts by User: MelanieN and User: Buster7 above merit some further comments on my part. Consider the following:
 * – Buster7 and I seem to agree that Trump's presidential campaign is historically unique; however, this is only our POVs. Buster7 apparently believed he could settle the issue once and for all on this talk page by an 'irrefutable consensus', and then move on to other matters. He has now stepped down on this, which I think was a wise decision: As WP editors, we are not in a position to settle such an issue.
 * – I agree with MelanieN that my post violated the WP notice that the talk page "is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." However, the entire section (thread) initiated by Buster7 seems to be violating this WP notice, and MelanieN herself merrily went along with the violation nonetheless by posting her own opinion on the 'general discussion'. I'm not the only editor to blame here, I say.
 * – I realize that the content of my post may be read as an attack on Trump. Fortunately, MelanieN is good enough to express her understanding of the particular circumstance of me feeling a need to explain (defend) myself, as Buster7's vague reference to me left something (a lot) to be desired in the context.
 * – MelanieN asks for reliable sources to back my claim about 'historical uniqueness'. Well, I was inspired by The Washington Post's editorial from July 22 on Trump's lack of qualifications to serve as president. The word 'unique' appears in the headline of this editorial, and the second paragraph of the text indirectly admits that this is no ordinary election year. Further down, we learn that "It has been 64 years since a major party nominated anyone for president who did not have electoral experience", and that Trump's personality is 'unusual'. Although the very term 'historically unique' does not appear in the editorial, that was what I thought while reading. I can only encourage other editors to read the editorial, as it is a very good read. The Post's editorial has been resonating somewhat around the media, so maybe we could turn it all into a section of its own...?
 * References


 * End of post. Gaeanautes (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Responsibility of journalists
"Trump's behavior and positions have resulted in some journalists changing their goal in covering Trump from balanced and fair coverage to performing a duty to fully inform the public regarding the alleged dangers of a Trump presidency. "

I am going to remove this new section, pending discussion here and consensus to include it. In my opinion it is insufficiently sourced (two sources are given, but one of them is based in part on the other) and the evidence cited in the articles is weak and muddled. The section claims that journalists - presumably meaning the reporters who produce the "news" content - are beginning to abandon balance for advocacy. But the examples given are mostly not from straight reporting, but from interviewers and editorials, which have always included judgment. It's possible this may become more widely reported or better documented in the future, but I don't believe it is there yet based on the sources given. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this should be restored. There's no question that Trump has been treated very unfairly by the press.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it should only be restored if someone can produce a better version of the previous version. FallingGravity 19:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This can be directly observed in nearly every major newspaper and on every news channel, excepting Fox News. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal - that section was not encyclopedic and it was based on two editorials/opinion pieces. There are literally thousands of editorials written over the course of a presidential election. Unless these editorials become notable themselves, this is WP:UNDUE and should not be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ABC news cut away when Trump criticized Hillary, actually had the screen go blank, then came back, but played music instead of Trump speaking, then restored the sound. There are multiple instances of unfairness, and it is an issue in the campaign. They can be reliably sourced. As for Fox News, I wouldn't say they're favorable to him, especially Megan Kelly. Hannity is in love with Trump, but other than that, they seem to slant toward the negative, especially what I've seen of Shepard Smith. The newspapers always seem negative. For instance, they write articles about his school days at Wharton but always in the negative such as, "Trump did not receive an MBA from Wharton." Well, I don't know any undergraduate who did get a Master's in Business Administration while still an undergraduate at Wharton. They pile on negatives that make no sense. Since this is the campaign page, and media coverage is part of that, I would include it. I would also include the bit where Trump revoked the press credentials of the WashPo guy for the nasty piece of work he wrote. The articles are out there and some are really ugly. I had no idea how bad things were until I started editing these pages and went looking for sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If they "can" be reliably sourced, then provide these reliable sources. And these sources have to discuss the coverage rather than serve as examples, should not be unique or few in number, should not be editorials and an argument needs to be made that this is an issue on its own. Otherwise all we have is your impressions and original research. And these impressions could very well be wrong. Indeed, scholarly assesments of media coverage of the candidates show that it was actually Clinton who got most negative coverage, , . So if anything, that fact (Clinton got bad coverage, Trump was boosted) should be included, although of course not here, but in her presidential campaign article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Journalistic coverage of the election campaign will certainly be the subject of study for years to come. But the entry was vague and written in a judgmental tone.  TFD (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I hope my comment wasn't taken to mean I wanted to see that edit put back. I was simply commenting that in general I think there's something to the bias. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I see two kinds of responses here: evaluations of the sources, and assertions of personal opinion or observation. Only one of those types of responses carries weight here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We are looking for meta sources where journalism experts comment on media coverage and the ethics of journalism. The Columbia Journalism review is an example of that, news of journalism and media coverage. The Columbia source compares Trump to Joseph McCarthy and cites Edward R. Murrow as a role model. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Most discussion with respect to the ethics of covering Trump relates to giving him too much coverage or how to cover him after you have been banned by him. Only this commentary addresses the issue raised of duty to warn. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Do not include. It was correct for MelanieN. It is way under sourced. The two related sources are only opinions with anecdotes instead statistical data establishing bias.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

, yes, we would need RS that specifies it but maybe from media critics whose job it is to assess coverage. But it would cut both ways. Those who perceive it and those who aren't seeing it. These are just randoms I found:          SW3 5DL (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of these sources are usable, but many are not. The "TransmiTV" YouTube channel is not reliable. Breitbart, "WesternJournalism.com," and the Daily Caller are not reliable. Peter Navarro's op-ed in the National Interest is not reliable (note that Navarro is an official adviser to Trump, so of course he'll say that the media is biased against him). The Washington Times is, if not actually unreliable, low-quality. An LA Times op-ed by Justin Raimondo is not reliable for statements of fact (and is probably not worth citing for his opinion since Raimondo is a quite marginal figure).
 * The bottom line is this: we must avoid a grab-bag of punditry, and should rely on (1) actual journalistic accounts (straight news), plus (2) analysis from experts in journalism, plus (3) maybe some attributed opinion from noteworthy commentators. Neutralitytalk 06:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with a section or piece about how the Trump campaign is affecting journalism (there are good sources out there) but the section that was inserted into the article was dreadful&mdash;unbalanced and not really supported by the cited sources&mdash;and quite properly removed by Melanie. A good, concise but comprehensive write-up can be done. This was not that.

Two places that might have good, usable material on this are the Poynter Institute for Media Studies and the Columbia Journalism Review. Neutralitytalk 06:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for looking through those. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was supporting the edit that has been removed. As for the sources I've listed, I wouldn't dismiss all of them. I agree Peter Navarro, if he has a connection to the campaign, wouldn't be useful, but I wouldn't necessarily dismiss all the others out of hand. Taken as a whole, they do all seem to be pointing to the bias Trump claims. Comments from recognized media critics might be best. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a piece by Howard Kurtz. It seems to lay out | Trump's behavior versus media. I wouldn't head a section about how Trump is affecting Journalism. It seems more like a tit for tat interaction to me. He says something, they attack, he hits back. At least, Kurtz seems to think so. Maybe he baits them to seem the underdog? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The only fact-based evaluations of media coverage I have seen at this discussion are the three cited above by Volunteer Marek - which use actual data (rather than opinions or anecdotes) to show that in fact media coverage over the last year has been mostly negative about Hillary Clinton, slightly positive about Donald Trump, and highly positive about Bernie Sanders. We have all heard the "media is liberal and biased" accusations for decades, at least since the advent of Rush Limbaugh, until it has become a truism among the right. But the evidence does not seem to support it, and without evidence, neither should Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2016 (UT
 * The Howard Kurtz piece appears to be a reliable source on the topic. Melanie your comment seems entirely off topic. I don't see any comment here from any editor advocating what your comment is suggesting. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2016
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. SST flyer  10:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 → Trump presidential campaign, 2016 – Nobody else named Trump has run for president so specifying the first name seems unnecessary. If we look at the lead image, it simply says Trump Pence so why the bloated title? Ranze (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not consistent with other articles, and this title is probably more recognizable. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith suggestion. This might make sense in terms of Wikipedia's titling guidelines, but it appears that such article are always titled as Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not consistent with similar article titles.LM2000 (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why call 'em The New York Yankees. Everyone knows they're from New York! <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  07:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Deletion of Trump's denial in lead
The lead says a bunch of people think Trump's a racist. I inserted that he denies it, and was reverted. According to WP:BLP, when someone is accused of having a romantic affair, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." I see no essential difference here. Many racists embrace and tout their racism. Trump denies the charge. Omitting it from the lead is very ill-advised.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC) There is an ongoing RFC about this above, so please disregard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, if we don't include the campaign's denial, it may give the impression that he accepts that label. This seems like an important point.CFredkin (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The lead says nothing about people thinking Trump's a racist. It says he is viewed as appealing explicitly to racism. It is a widely-reported fact that he is viewed as appealing explicitly to racism. Please stop trying to circumvent a consensus with this equivocation.- MrX 17:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference between appealing to racism and being a racist is trivial. Where was the consensus to omit Trump's denial?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference is certainly not trivial. One speaks to his tactics; the other speaks to his beliefs. I imagine there's no consensus to include his denial because most editors realize that would create a WP:FALSEBALANCE.- MrX 17:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe we should definitely add that he has repeatedly denied it. This isn't supposed to be an attack page.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude. MrX is right. The lead does not make an accusation against Trump; it states how he is perceived by a wide variety of commentators. These are quite different. Neutralitytalk 18:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, perception is highly subjective.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude denial, as it is irrelevant what Trump admits or denies in the context. What is relevant is that 'some mainstream commentators and prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism.' I have included this full quote from the lead section, because User: Anythingyouwant distorted the issue from the outset in his first post in the current section, chatting about 'a bunch of people' and accusations about having romantic affairs. Fortunately, User: MrX has already reacted to the distortion, and User: Neutrality joined in. I'm now the third one in the row. Editors should always stay objective and not distort the issues on purpose, refer to talk page guidelines. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Include denial. Accusations of racism are very damaging and this isn't supposed to be an attack piece.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We all agree that the present article is not supposed to be 'an attack piece', so will you please stop repeating this non-issue ad nauseam? Yes, accusations of racism are usually damaging to people; but the purpose of Wikipedia is to document matters from a neutral point of view, not to avoid damaging people's reputations. Refer to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. You really have to get better informed about the nature of Wikipedia before posting more premature stuff and wasting co-editor's time and attention on this talk page, I say. Thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I think the accusations of racism in the lede are undue and POV. This is a constructive comment. I am quite experienced with Wikipedia...Zigzig20s (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, there are NO accusations of racism in the lede. Please stop misrepresenting the situation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's please put a hold on this until I get more info about the denial. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Include I don't think the content is relevant to begin with per WP:LEAD, but if the community decides to override policy in that regard, some sort of qualifying statement seems appropriate. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude The lead does not say a bunch of people think Trump's a racist but that some people view him as appealing explicitly to racism. The qualifier "some" infers that others do not view him this way which should be sufficient.  The difference between appealing to racism and being a racist is non-trivial, just as the difference between appealing to evangelical voters and being evangelical is non-trivial.  TFD (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude and uhhhh... wasn't this just a subject of an RfC? 23:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that your post above was not properly signed... Gaeanautes (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One too many tilde I believe. The above is me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude per Neutrality. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude The denial of being a racist in this context makes no sense. Some have accused him of appealing to racism, which is not the same as accusing Trump of being a racist.  As it stands, it is well-sourced, balanced, and neutral.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude per other editors. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  03:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Modify What is needed as a contrast is Trump's record of relating well in his personal and business life with a wide variety of people of other races and persuasions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that this material is already subject to an RFC above, and therefore I probably should not have started this talk page section. I already said above "Let's please put a hold on this...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't think he's "explicity" going out on the campaign trail 'explicity' appealing to racism. That implies to me a single-minded focus, and I've been looking over some of his speeches and rally talks on Youtube and I'm not hearing that. The source might say that, but that seems like a POV word, in any case.I'm also concerned that the article will be perceived as labeling him a racist and I don't believe he is. He speaks off the top of his head like he's sitting in his local having a pint and chatting it up. Definitely not polished, but that doesn't make someone a racist. Boneheaded, yes, but racist no. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude 90% of User:Anythingyouwant edits are pro-Trump-pushing-non-NPOV edits, and this one fits in the 90%. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, I am not proposing anything in this section. Go look above where I deleted my initial comment, saying: "There is an ongoing RFC about this above, so please disregard."Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)