Talk:R/The Donald/Archive 3

Racist, misogynistic, islamophobic, and antisemitic
Went ahead and removed this paragraph, it's hardly objective. It could belong in a Controversies or Criticisms section, but certainly not in the lede. WookieInHeat (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That paragraph summarizes /r/The_Donald; leads summarize the body and sources per WP:NPOV, and certainly do include prominent controversies per MOS:LEAD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, citing a handful of partisan media outlets with a pathological hatred of anything Trump, describing a Trump subreddit as laden with conspiracy theories, racism and anti-semitism - ignoring the irony of themselves being heavily involved in racist and anti-semitic controversies and promoting conspiracy theories - can scarcely be considered meeting WP:NPV. In fact the entire /r/The_Donald section fails to meet WP:NPV in presenting exclusively views from one side of the political spectrum. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you take issues with the neutrality of sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Vox, etc. the most appropriate thing to do would be to add content from reliable sources that represent an opposing point of view, not to delete content from the article. Regarding WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." There are currently no reliable sources in the article that represent an opposing point of view. "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." For example, the vaccine page does not promote the point of view of anti-vaccination proponents simply because a significant amount of people consider the sources used in the article to be biased. Shimunogora (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "If you take issues with the neutrality of sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Vox, etc. the most appropriate thing to do would be to add content from reliable sources that represent an opposing point of view" What am I going to do, find an article that says "nuhuhh"? It's impossible to prove a negative, which is why those media outlets rely so heavily on such name calling to demonize their political opponents. If a partisan journalist trawled through the comment sections of WaPo articles and found some anti-semitic comments left by users, then wrote a hit piece maligning the entire organization based on those cherry-picked examples - while ignoring whether those views were actually an accurate representation of WaPo or its readers - would it be reasonable to then describe WaPo as anti-semitic in the lede of its Wiki article? Obviously not, perhaps it would make it into a criticisms or controversies section. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement" The paragraph is shoehorning a clearly politically motivated, unobjective, non-neutral POV - of which there is no practical way to present an opposing POV - into what is otherwise an accurate and concise lede. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there is mutual understanding here and there are a few false premises. Undue weight is in reference to other reliable, published sources. If there are no other reliable, published sources that discuss the topic in a different light then there is no undue weight. If you want a good example of how to find a source that can challenge some of the characterizations of subreddit, The National Review, a reliable right-wing source, made specific objections to the characterizations of the subreddit by the New York Times. This could be added as an opposing point of view, however, they specifically did acknowledge the The New York Times was correct in characterizing a "great deal" of the content on the subreddit as "anti-Semitic, racist, or homophobic". If the issue is with biased or partisan journalism, then perhaps one or more of the sources should be replaced with The National Review piece that says the exact same thing but from a different partisan source in the other direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimunogora (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure the "Never Trump" National Review can really be considered as providing an opposing POV to those already included. Undue weight is discussing giving undue weight to any POV, in particular minority POVs, in ways such as "prominence of placement," which including a minority partisan POV in the lede could certainly be considered. If we went and tossed out all the parts of the "Media Reception" section supported by unreliable sources - like BuzzFeed, Vice, Vox, etc. - it would be a fraction of the size it is now and would hardly be a prominent part of the article. Even without doing that though, inserting a one-sided partisan POV into the lede is objectively not neutral; arbitrary interpretations of WP:NPOV notwithstanding. The day we start including descriptions of NYT as hosting anti-semitic content or The Guardian as promoting conspiracy theories that never happened in the ledes of their Wiki articles, will be the day that paragraph belongs in the lede of this article. WookieInHeat (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed News and Vox are WP:RS - see WP:RSP. We don't seek to represent all POVs, only POVs of reliable sources; if there are no pro-Trump or pro-The_Donald POVs in reliable sources, then we must represent that, and not give undue weight to POVs only represented by unreliable sources. The highest quality reliable sources we have are of New York Times and Washington Post; they hardly represent minority POVs but rather the main, majority POV. Until and unless you provide reliable sources that describe The_Donald in a different manner, that paragraph cannot be removed. Stating that something is "objectively not neutral" does not make it so; the only thing that matters is the WP:NPOV policy, not your or my definition of "neutral". So please, provide sources if you wish to remove the paragraph, and stop edit warring. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Buzzfeed News and Vox are WP:RS - see WP:RSP." Thanks for pointing me towards that. When I've got some free time I'll get around to excising all the sources in this article of questionable reliability from that list, like Vice and Slate. "The highest quality reliable sources we have are of New York Times and Washington Post; they hardly represent minority POVs but rather the main, majority POV." What majority are they representing precisely? Can you substantiate that in any way? Also the NYT article is an opinion piece. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Which is not a suitable source for the statement it is supporting. "Until and unless you provide reliable sources that describe The_Donald in a different manner, that paragraph cannot be removed. Stating that something is 'objectively not neutral' does not make it so" You've already acknowledged the sources currently included are exclusively from one side of the political aisle and objectively not neutral, you're just hiding behind WP:RS to justify including a partisan POV in the lede. Neutrality is one of Wikipedia's five pillars, stop using WP:RS as an excuse to get around that. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * First sentence of WP:NPOV: representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. - neutrally fundamentally depends on RS, as what is in RS determine the significant views. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias" Rather ironically self-defeating quote to cite while defending a statement editorializing an opinion piece. Regardless, like your WP:RS argument, this is irrelevant to whether the paragraph belongs in the lede or not. You've produced no clear argument addressing the point of this whole conversation, relying on conjecture and contradictions - It's not neutral but it's neutral... because WP:RS. It's the "main, majority POV" because... you say so. Defending editorial bias by... citing WP:NPOV saying editorial bias is not allowed. - then glossing over your failed arguments and evasively changing the subject. We could be here until the end of time with you arguing in circles around the point, focusing on extraneous, irrelevant nonsense. How are we supposed to reach a consensus - and why is your individual opinion "the consensus" - when you can't even directly address the topic? WookieInHeat (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By all means, if you believe that our selection of sources to build this article or our summary of those sources displays editorial bias, please explain how so. You have yet to do so, instead attacking the sources themselves without presenting alternatives. The correct place to discuss the reliability of a source is our reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter, thanks for chiming in and kicking the conversation in a different direction. "if you believe that our selection of sources to build this article or our summary of those sources displays editorial bias, please explain how so. You have yet to do so" Sure, actually I've mentioned the NYT article a couple times already, which is an opinion piece and the most cut and dry example of this article directly editorializing an opinion. - The WaPo piece has several issues. First the article is full of weasel words, presenting a paper written by "a newly formed group of scientists" - whose online presence consists of a free WordPress template website - and submitted to a non-peer-reviewed journal, as a factual scientific study. The paper itself and its author's self published works would not meet WP:RS, they submit to a non-peer-reviewed journal because their "science" is totally unverifiable and impossible to reproduce, we just have to take their word at face value. Second, the claim T_D "hosts antisemitic content" in the lede appears to be supported solely this WaPo article, which in turn is based on one particular paragraph in that article: "One meme known as the “Happy Merchant,” an offensive Jewish caricature, was used repeatedly to convey anti-Semitism ... The meme made at least 1,100 appearances across Reddit between mid-2016 and mid-2017, including on “The_Donald” board, the researchers found. <--(vague assertion followed by weasel words to give it authority)" Here is the paper the WaPo article appears to be citing. If you look at Table 3 on page 7, you will see the top 20 memes the paper examined listed by their number of appearances on pol, T_D and Gab. Note that the "Happy Merchant" meme does not appear in T_D's column, and the last entry in T_D's column lists a total of 15 appearances. Meaning the "Happy Merchant" meme appeared on T_D... 2? 6? 14 times? Maybe? We're not really too sure? Maybe the researcher's algorithm made an error? Maybe one guy posted it one time and a mod deleted it sixty seconds later? This is out of thousand or even millions of user-submitted posts, the number is so minuscule and totally negligible it didn't even warrant a mention in their paper. This is what the "T_D is known for hosting anti-semitic content" claim is based on? Additionally, the paragraph directly below that table explicitly states: "Donald Trump [32], Smug Frog [52], and Pepe the Frog [45] appear in the top 20 for all three communities, while the Happy Merchant [37] only in /pol/ and Gab." In fact the only mention I can find of the "Happy Merchant" meme appearing on T_D is an ambiguous statement in another of their papers (they have published a total of 3, all non-peer-reviewed): "The Donald however, is the most efficient actor in pushing Happy Merchant memes to all the other sampled Web communities." So T_D was "the most efficient at pushing the Happy Merchant meme" all those... 7 times, or whatever? The categorical statement "T_D hosts antisemitic content" - as if it's routine behavior - in the lede of this article, based on vague assertions of a WaPo author that one anti-semitic meme appeared on there, maybe a handful of times, while citing a non-peer-reviewed psudeoscientific study making similarly vague claims, is inarguably an editorialization.  - The Vox article states: "'The mods of The_Donald have also been consistently unwilling to take steps to deal with toxicity on their forum — and they arguably encourage it. Last year the moderators... explicitly invited white supremacist users into the forum, announcing that they would not be enforcing its “no racism” rule'" This is supported with a link to an archived post from a former moderator of T_D. First, there is no "explicit invitation to white supremacists" in the linked post - this is a clear example of the author editorializing their opinion as a statement of fact (which is subsequently used to support the statements in the lede of this article). Second, a cursory amount of research reveals the post the Vox author linked was quickly deleted, and the moderator who who posted it was subsequently removed. The Vox author stating "The mods of The_Donald have also been consistently unwilling to take steps to deal with toxicity on their forum — and they arguably encourage it." then linking to a post on T_D that directly contradicts their assertion, is not an objective statement of fact, it's an editorialization. Anyway, I could go on dissecting articles, but I think you get the point. I was trying to compromise in simply saying that paragraph doesn't belong in the lede, and already has a place in the Media Reception section. But I'm certain I could go through the Media Reception section as well and undoubtedly find lots of yellow journalism like this to shred there, too.WookieInHeat (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Given nobody has replied here in a few days, I'll go ahead and remove the paragraph pending further discussion. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Attempting to weigh your interpretation of primary sources, as a Wikipedia editor, against the summary of multiple secondary sources, is a subtle form of WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're conflating "multiple secondary sources" as if they're all summarizing the same thing. There is only one source stating, for example "One meme known as the “Happy Merchant,” an offensive Jewish caricature, was used repeatedly to convey anti-Semitism ... The meme made at least 1,100 appearances across Reddit between mid-2016 and mid-2017, including on “The_Donald” board" This is subsequently editorialized as "The subreddit has been described by mainstream media outlets as hosting content that is ... antisemitic." - which is not a description that exists in the article. Also you've totally failed to understand WP:OR if you think it's relevant here. WookieInHeat (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's an example to explain this issue, and also to demonstrate to you a less bloated and confusing way of formatting quotes:
 * ...r/The_Donald, a subreddit on Reddit that is a meme-clogged online playground for Trump fans, alt-right trolls and conspiracy-mongers.
 * This is a news story from The Washington Post, which is a reputable outlet. The journalist also has a positive reputation, having won multiple awards for journalism, such as from the Society of Professional Journalists. This is an indicator of reliability. As a daily news outlet, it uses much less formal language than we should, but this isn't a problem, because this doesn't make them any less reliable. If you have some reason to doubt that T_D is a playground for Trump fans, alt-right trolls, and conspiracy mongers, you would need a new source contradicting this or explaining why this is incorrect. Attempting to track down that source's sources, (or its source's source's sources, etc.) is not helpful. We are not interested in your research, we are interested in reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grayfell. Quick note: not sure why the restriction isn't clear to you even after being warned, but "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article" indeed means "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article", and people not responding to you is not an exception to that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hold on, I saw that you already did the revert. I'll get on filing at WP:AE then, I suppose. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What a mess. I appreciate that WookieInHeat inserted their response to my first comment above my second, since it still works pretty well as a response. As a general reminder to the room, first-hand experiences are not usable here, in the same way that WP:PRIMARY sources are not particularly helpful. We are interested in reliable sources, and like it or not, Wikipedia favors mainstream sources. With that in mind...
 * There are many sources already cited in the article which describe the sub this way. I would hazard a guess that most substantial sources which discuss the sub at least mention these issues. I think the status-quo paragraph is, if anything, too tame, since it implies that this is a subjective opinion of sources, when it's treated as a simple fact. So far, I have never seen a reliable source disputing this characterization, or otherwise leading me to question that this is defining trait according to sources. Figuring out how to summarize this can be discussed, but removing it completely is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Chiming in as I undergo my own attempts at "neutralizing" a charged article, the opening description reeks of bias and partisanism to me. Are we really going to say it is "fact" that a Donald Trump subreddit is "racist" and "bigoted"? Are we really going to disregard any sources other than those on the left-wing of the political spectrum? If so, this seems to me the workings of a very egregious violation of NPOV and attempting to force a personal message rather than report facts. The claims of its "bigotry" are subjective, not factual, and to treat it otherwise is, in my view, very much partisan. If I'm correct, it's saddening that this sort of thing has bled itself onto what is intended as an impartial, unbiased encyclypedia. Tradeojax6 (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The sentence should reflect all reliable sources, regardless of their political bias. That's our neutrality policy in a nutshell. Does the sentence not summarize the "Media reaction" section at the bottom of the article, or is that section missing some content? R2 (bleep) 23:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If your intention is to address how charged the article is, your comments about biased sources are counterproductive as they only make this more charged without offering any fix. If you have reliable sources disputing these claims, or even discussing them, let's see them. These sources are not reliable because they are left-wing, they are reliable because they meet WP:RS, and if some of them are also left-wing, so be it. Attempting to group all unflattering sources by ideology isn't helpful.
 * The Happy Merchant meme (as just one of many, many examples) is racist, and there's no point in equivocating on something like this. The subreddit has been discussed for years now. The message isn't "personal", it's professional, as in, professional sources, both journalistic and academic, describe and define this forum as disproportionately harboring bigotry and unsupportable conspiracy theories. Wikipedia must reflect those sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:FALSEBALANCE. We're required to reflect mainstream reliable sources (which do, in fact, describe it in those terms), not to try and weigh or balance them according to what we personally feel is the most neutral summary.  Similarly, while I think people have argued above, convincingly, that they had good grounding to describe it in those terms, that's not really the point - unless we have a very serious reason to think they're just wrong, second-guessing our sources' sources is generally WP:OR.  (And even when we think they're wrong, the best route to go down is to look for sources that make corrections.)  Regarding the "how do I prove a negative?" thing, I think that if they were wrong about such stark words in relation to a high-profile subreddit, it would be relatively easy to find sources of comparable weight disputing them - errors by eg. the New York Times don't go unnoticed, especially at this level.  The lack of such sources contradicting them implies that the NYT et. all got this right.  (But even if they had gotten it wrong, it's not our role to try and "correct" the sources when there's so many of them saying the same thing -- see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  The thing to do when you think mainstream sources are wrong and yet can't find anything to back your interpretation up is to write letters for them asking for retractions, or try to convince other news sources to cover the error.  You're not supposed to try and "set the record straight" on Wikipedia, since our purpose is to summarize reliable mainstream coverage.)  --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "See WP:FALSEBALANCE": "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."
 * Rather ironic policy to link while defending WaPo presenting pseudoscience as accepted academic scholarship. Again, WP:OR is not relevant here, OR is about writing original research in an article, nobody is trying to "set the record straight" or write OR into this article. WP:OR has precisely zero relevance to examining claims made by a source to determine whether they are being accurately represented in a Wiki article, particularly when vague claims like those in the WaPo article and are being unceremoniously "summarized"/editorialized by editors on Wikipedia. "One meme known as the “Happy Merchant,” an offensive Jewish caricature, was used repeatedly to convey anti-Semitism ... The meme made at least 1,100 appearances across Reddit between mid-2016 and mid-2017, including on “The_Donald” board" If this statement from the WaPo article can be summarized as "T_D hosts anti-semitic content," it could likewise be used to describe Reddit similarly, yet there is no such description in Reddit's article, why is that? If you answer that question honestly, you will begin to understand why the paragraph fails to meet WP:NPOV. The only argument for keeping the paragraph so far seems to be "because WP:RS," while ignoring the many violations of WP:NPOV. "Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." The media sources used to support the paragraph are partisan actors in a political dispute, and their characterization of political opponents must be represented as such.
 * "I think the status-quo paragraph is, if anything, too tame, since it implies that this is a subjective opinion of sources, when it's treated as a simple fact." This sentence from Grayfell above illustrates the problem here perfectly. Like the examples of the WaPo/Vox journalists and "scientists" above, some editors here are not approaching this topic as impartial, objective observers - as is required by Wikipedia. But rather working backwards; starting with their personal opinions and then looking for excuses to justify representing their partisan views as fact. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I read through this entire conversation and I still don't quite understand why a well supported, well cited paragraph is missing because one user initially thought that anything published by those citations was inherently biased (to quote: "partisan media outlets with a pathological hatred of anything Trump"). There haven't been any citations contradicting this, or they should have been included in said paragraph. I admit that I'm not an expert in wikipedia and the overwhelming majority of my contributions are done passively / through others to make sure they conform to greater standards of the site... but... i don't understand? Can someone explain, please? 72.217.110.84 (talk)
 * Actually the disputed paragraph is not missing, it is still present in the lede, with only some wording change and an added citation compared to the version that was momentarily removed at the beginning of this discussion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Subreddits on Wikipedia.org???
Wtf JoshuaReen (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

the donald url
should the url even be shown? google has decided not to show it as a result in searches on their platform, so if you search for the donald, it will show things about the president and the controversies surrounding the subreddit but not not any links to the actual subreddit itself.

i think most people here would agree that this is a good thing.

so who is in favor of removing the url from the sidebar, such that we arent inadvertently promoting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.243.111 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wiki is neutral. Removing it is unnecessary.Madbrad200 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there any news sources that say Google decided not to show this subreddit? Either way, I agree with Madbrad200 that the URL should stay. But I recently removed the Google claim for lack of WP:RS. -- Elephanthunter (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is accurate, but only Epoch Times has covered it from what I can find. - note that it occured prior to the quarantine. The Federalist however points out that since the Quarantine is now in effect, it wouldn't show up anyway (Quarantined subs are apparently delisted). Madbrad200 (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Similar subreddits
Can we remove this section? It has nothing to do with the subject of the article. BLDM (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Quarantined subs removed from Google results?
The article says: "A quarantine of the subreddit was imposed in June 2019, requiring users to click an opt-in button to view the subreddit and preventing the subreddit from appearing in Reddit's and Google's search results and recommendations". However, it's quarantined right now and yet posts can be found in Google: indeed, my search turned up their thread about having a Wikipedia article, which is how I got here... Equinox ◑ 15:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My search shows that while a link to the subreddit is included at the top, links to posts on the subreddit seem to be filtered out. These are very unusual results and doesn't happen for non-quarantined subreddits, so I think it's safe to say there is indeed some filtering happening.Madbrad200 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Reddit’s 2019 Transparency Report and Subsequent Changes
On February 24 2020, Reddit's administrators released a transparency report titled Spring forward… into Reddit’s 2019 transparency report outlining events and changes to the platform. Included in the transparency report is the following statement regarding quarantined communities:

"When we expanded our quarantine policy, we created an appeals process for sanctioned communities. One of the goals was to “force subscribers to reconsider their behavior and incentivize moderators to make changes.” While the policy attempted to hold moderators more accountable for enforcing healthier rules and norms, it didn’t address the role that each member plays in the health of their community."

"Today, we’re making an update to address this gap: Users who consistently upvote policy-breaking content within quarantined communities will receive automated warnings, followed by further consequences like a temporary or permanent suspension. We hope this will encourage healthier behavior across these communities."

Reception to the report was mixed, including commentary such as:

"“You gonna do a Blizzard next and ban people for posts on other sites?” [calling similarity to the Blitzchung controversy]"

"“Think like we do or we will ban you.”"

"“Uh…wow. Which rules violations are these? Will this be policed in subreddits outside of the Donald?”"

On February 26 2020, Reddit's administrators began removing certain moderators from the Subreddit in order to implement a new moderation team approved by the Company. The Pro-Trump creators of the community claimed that Reddit's administrators were attempting a "'thousand cuts' campaign to kill off its massively successful pro-Trump community."

The Donald's Official Statement: "Reddit has been trying to slowly kill The_Donald since it played a role in getting Trump elected in 2016. It started with user harassment, moved on to restricting our posts from being seen by most of the rest of Reddit (The third highest-traffic website in the world), then entirely quarantining us from the rest of the website as well as search engine results."

"In the last couple of days, China-backed Reddit has begun warning and banning our users not only for posting content that they disagree with, but even “liking” wrongthink. Finally, on Tuesday, Reddit admins removed more than half of the moderators that have spent the last four years of their lives building the number one Trump supporting online community and announced that they would be choosing users to replace us. Their post requesting new moderators was met with thousands of responses telling them, in no-so-nice words, to shove it."

"As they’ve done with other Reddit communities, such as Kotaku In Action, they’ll be installing their own puppet moderators to continue to silence and dilute our message. Reddit knows that to entirely ban what is effectively the only conservative voice on their website would garner them too much negative press, and possibly legal attention, so they’ve been trying to kill off The_Donald with a thousand cuts."

"In preparation for this inevitable course of events, the mod team established a backup website, free from the political censorship of Reddit, and have encouraged our users to migrate to it (of which at least 100,000 have in the last day). The_Donald can now be found on an independent website, created and run by the people that have ran The_Donald for years, at http://thedonald.win."

The Reddit Administrator's request for new moderation staff for The_Donald was posted on February 26 2020 with a deadline of February 27 2020. As of March 1 2020 there were no additional moderators added to the team, only previous moderators removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nac93 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree that this sequence of events is notable, albeit in fewer words. Also of note would be the fact that the backup they've set up is hosted by Epik, a registrar that has gained attention for hosting far-right content. Schiffy  ( Speak to me &#124; What I've done ) 21:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"[r/The_Donald] is ranked as one of the most active communities on Reddit." any recent sources for this?
Are there any recent sources (late 2019 or preferably 2020) that suggest this? The community is not nearly as active as it used to be, in part due to the mass migration to thedonald.win (which should also be incorporated into the article somehow). SebastianTalk - 23:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"/r/The Schulz" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect /r/The Schulz. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

GOP lawmakers sent a letter to Reddit saying that they will soon take action for "systematically singling out, censoring, and destroying" The_Donald
Fox News recently posted an article detailing a letter sent by GOP lawmakers to Reddit, which stated that they were going to take action against Reddit regarding the controversy with The_Donald. Since this is a controversial article I wanted to consult here first as to where to fit this development in the article.  CatcherStorm    talk   23:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems extremely relevant that legislation is being crafted by Republican lawmakers to target Reddit due to their handling of this subreddit, specifically calling out /r/The_Donald in their letter to Steve Huffman as reported by the Fox News article you linked. Of course, this is still very WP:RECENT, so we haven't heard much in the way of commentary from other legislators, law professionals, or other news outlets. I'm guessing Trump's executive order (also mentioned in the Fox News article) is much more relevant from a legal perspective, as there is a fair chance that GOP-backed legislation targeting Reddit will die in the House. Still, gotta say it seems extremely relevant and interesting that Republican legislators feel such a strong tie to this subreddit. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Update to reflect 06/29/2020 ban of subreddit
On 06/29/2020 as a part of a major purge of hate speach on the platform The_Donald was removed Nheyer (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Why bury thedonald.win in an article about a dead subreddit?
Given that thedonald.win is bigger than r/The_Donald ever was, and given that r/The_Donald has been deleted by Reddit whereas thedonald.win is active and extremely popular, it is unencyclopedic to bury thedonald.win here. It should at least have its own article, and if having two articles gives people heartburn, then r/The_Donald should be reworked to be a sub section of thedonald.win. An outside observer would suspect that left leaning Wikipedia editors are attempting to influence the election by burying a popular political site like this. Given that there simply isn't any good reason for such burial, it's not obvious what to reply to such a charge. Wookian (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/TheDonald.win, which closed as redirect/merge. If sufficient extensive coverage in reliable sources to establish notability exists now, it could be resurrected, but first those sources should be established to exist. --tronvillain (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Attention should be paid to the nature of sources, of course. Far left sources have a strong political motivation to avoid drawing people's attention to a self described 24/7 political rally for their opposition. Some social media outlets are automatically censoring all references to thedonald.win. As such, one would expect to find coverage of thedonald.win in right leaning sources. Wookian (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

First sentence should read "formerly" instead of "formally".
Can't edit because I'm not a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.198.115 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020
Change "formally" in first line to "formerly". Seaucre (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Update the domain name history
The domain name history for thedonald.win should be updated to include the following text:

"The domain name thedonald.win was accepted for registration on 2019-07-21 by GRS Domains  the operator of the .win domain name through their reseller Epik Inc.

GRS Domains, a wholly owned subsidiary of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) Gibraltar (https://www.pwc.com/) and run by a PWC Partner with the name of Edgar Charles Andrew Lavarello  has so far provided a safe haven for this domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.129.86 (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose This IP seems to be engaging in some good-faith OR. I just reverted his addition to the PricewaterhouseCoopers article, which while cited was OR. EditorInTheRye (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

TheDonald.Win
A lot has happened this week between Reddit and the subreddit. Reddit removed and banned multiple moderators, started a rule about banning accounts that upvote rule breaking content, the subreddit has been quarantined for months. Clearly Reddit is doing all they can without outright banning the subreddit as a whole and now most of the users have moved to a new site, TheDonald.Win, that seems to be using a very similar version of the old Reddit. Think it's clear this series of events should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blsupr (talk • contribs) 10:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC) While we're at it TheDonald.win should contain a hyperlink to the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.192.212 (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, per the updating of URLs for other move-prone sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica. However, we'll need better sources than drama subreddits, surely some independent outlets covered it?   SITH   (talk)   12:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree, some oficial Wiki RS as Axios and WaPost already confirm that sub moved to the .win website Meganinja202  (talk)  ''' 21:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was looking for the new URL to their new site. Luckily I found it on this Talk-page thanks to you guys. Unfortunately I believe most people is not interested in reading through the whole article to just find this, so the new address should be more clearly displayed on the page. I'd suggest the top paragraphs and in the sidebar. -Primal Benefactor (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

patriots.win
TheDonald.win has rebranded to patriots.win. Updating links.

Source: https://patriots.win/p/11SJoRrHUX/the-future-is-here/c/

--  ApChrKey    Talk 17:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)