Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Proposed Fascism section

I read through the Vox reference in some detail. I'd like to propose the following abbreviated section on fascism. Since many people have drawn the parallel, I think the scholarly opinions by fascism experts are important to include. Nonetheless, I welcome alternative proposals and candid comments.--Nowa (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Commentators have argued that Trump's personality, political positions and style of campaigning resemble fascism. Fascism scholars, however, have said that the Trump campaign is not fascist since it does not seek the violent overthrow of democracy and its replacement with a state dedicated to war preparation where only the state has value and not the individual.

I think that's good and balanced, but the end of the sentence is too convoluted, hard to follow. How about just "...does not seek the violent overthrow of democracy," which gets to the heart of the matter? --MelanieN (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Per WP:WEASEL, we cannot say some commentators without saying who they are. Then, per WP:WEIGHT, we need to provide the correct balance between the "commentators" and the "fascism experts." Obviously expert opinion has far greater weight than the commentators. Also, the only commentator provided that actually calls Trump a fascist is Robert Kagan, who said in 2003, “Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find — and there will be plenty.”[1] Elsewhere Kagan called Trump a Napoleon. A balanced statement would say that the neoconservatives are rallying around Hillary Clinton. TFD (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The sentence cites four different commentators; we can't name them all in the sentence, that's what references are for. --MelanieN (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't have to name the commentators since we have cites. I don't see how WP:WEASEL applies at all. That said, I favor Neutrality's proposed version below (with slight revisions). It's a little lengthier, it does attribute the viewpoints, and it offer a few different viewpoint.- MrX 18:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the sources provided don't support the assertions that Trump's personality and political positions resemble fascism. Also, I don't believe we should rely on left-leaning sources to substantiate subjective statements with such strong, negative connotations.CFredkin (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The old version

A variation of the two-sentence version that was stable until a few days ago (before all the adding and removing) seems superior to me:

Columbia University professor emeritus Robert O. Paxton, a scholar of fascism, has cited a number of parallels between Trump's campaign and the fascist movements of the 20th century, including "nationalism, aggressive foreign policy, attacks on the enemies inside and out without much regard for due process"; an obsession with perceived national decline; and the belief that the country needs a strong leader. However, Paxton and other fascism scholars, including Roger Griffin and Stanley G. Payne, do not consider Trump a neo-fascist, classifying him instead as a right-wing populist.

I specifically have three concerns with the Nowa version above: (1) I think "commentators" is a little vague; that can encompass scholarly commentators, journalists, and political commentators; (2) I think it is misleading to state that "scholars reject the idea that he's a fascist" without also stating that some scholars have said that he uses "fascist themes and styles" (in the words of Paxton); and (3) I think it is undesirable to say what scholars think he is not (i.e., a neofascist) without also including what scholars think he is (i.e., a right-wing populist). I would also be OK with combining on Nowa's first sentence with the two sentences above. Neutrality^talk 15:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the whole thing sounds like a smear campaign, not serious analysis, and we should focus on remaining NPOV. So it was a good idea to remove the section, and there's no need to add it again.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Your personal beliefs (as others have reminded you numerous times) are irrelevant and unhelpful here. If you advance no meaningful policy-based reasons for why something should be included or excluded, you can't be surprised if others don't take your remarks very seriously. Neutrality^talk 17:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read again. The section is POV. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The section is point of view? Please explain.- MrX 19:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The new and lengthy version

I would like to have a four-paragraph section on fascism: First, a general reference to the three run-of-the-mill commentators, followed by a lengthy quote by Robert Kagan, as his column is the one that has gained the most online attention so far (also documented in the draft below); then, a short list-like naming of and referencing to Bernstein, Reich and Mulcair; and finally, two paragraphs on the experts, who seem to contradict each other a bit (as most experts do).

– The drafts suggested above by User: Nowa and User: Neutrality are too short and will not suffice, I say.

– I think it would be both relevant and visually stimulating for the readers to include a fascist symbol as an image in the section. The swastika would probably be over the top, but I deem the fasces appropriate for the purpose. Didn't Trump retweet a Mussolini quote by the end of February this year? There is plenty of relevance, I say.

– By now, we seem to have reached a consensus that a section on fascism does merit an inclusion – only, we need to discuss the proper length of it...

Fascism, new and lengthy version
Commentators have argued that Trump's personality, political positions and style of campaigning all resemble fascism to some extent. In May 2016, neoconservative historian and columnist Robert Kagan wrote a column where he argued that Trump's lack of a coherent ideology, compensated for by his popular appeal of a strongman who can be entrusted the fate of a nation, is a phenomenon earlier known as 'fascism'; but times have changed since the first part of the 20th century, and the U.S. is not continental Europe, Kagan concludes:

“ This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes ... but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac 'tapping into' popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him. ”

Kagan's column gained some interest in the media.

Journalist and author Carl Bernstein has argued that Trump is 'a neo-fascist' representing "... a kind of American fascism that we haven't seen before..." Professor Robert Reich, political commentator and author, has labeled Trump 'a fascist', whose "... verbal attacks on Mexican immigrants and Muslims ... follow the older fascist script." In Canada, leader of the New Democratic Party Tom Mulcair has labeled Trump 'a fascist', as Trump appeals to "the lowest feelings in human nature;" Mulcair is reported not to be the only establishment politician in Canada who has taken aim at Trump.

Columbia University professor emeritus Robert Paxton, a scholar of fascism, has cited a number of parallels between Trump's campaign and the fascist movements of the 20th century, including "nationalism, aggressive foreign policy, attacks on the enemies inside and out without much regard for due process"; an obsession with perceived national decline; and the belief that the country needs a strong leader. Paxton and other fascism scholars, including Roger Griffin and Stanley G. Payne, classify Trump as a right-wing populist rather than a neo-fascist.

One expert admits Trump's speeches and rallies do resemble "... the rallies of fascist leaders who pantomimed the wishes of their followers and let them fill in the text," but that Trump himself is mostly "... a demagogue who voices contempt for basic principles of liberal democracy, offers simple explanations of complex issues, and draws on racism, religious bigotry, and extreme nationalism to 'make America great again.'"

End of draft. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Except for the last paragraph, I think this is pretty good, but not quite as tight as the version proposed by Neutrality below.- MrX 18:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed compromise amalgamation of three earlier suggestions

I oppose including any sort of image or symbol or having a separate section exclusively about or entitled "fascism." I also would prefer to name commentators, rather than referring vaguely to "One expert..." as Gaeanautes's proposal does at one point. I also think four or so sentences is a fair and appropriate size limitation. What about a compromise amalgamation of the proposed versions (shorter than Gaeanautes' version, but slightly longer than Nowa's or mine):

Several commentators, including Carl Bernstein, Robert Reich, and Tom Mulcair, have called Trump a neofascist, while others such as David Neiwert, Bob Dreyfuss, and Robert Kagan argue that Trump's personality, political positions and style of campaigning resemble or evoke fascism. Historian Jeffrey Hart, for example, argues that Trump is not a fascist but that "his campaign brings to mind dangerous echoes from the past."

Columbia University professor emeritus Robert O. Paxton, a scholar of fascism, has cited a number of parallels between Trump's campaign and the fascist movements of the 20th century, including "nationalism, aggressive foreign policy, attacks on the enemies inside and out without much regard for due process"; an obsession with perceived national decline; and the belief that the country needs a strong leader. However, Paxton and other fascism scholars, including Roger Griffin and Stanley G. Payne, do not consider Trump a neo-fascist, classifying him instead as a right-wing populist.

There is also an interesting piece by Italian writer Gianni Riotta ("I Know Fascists; Donald Trump Is No Fascist"), who has firsthand experience of actual fascism, tin the Atlantic that we could conceivably cite. Riotta argues that although Trump's "xenophobic rhetoric, his demagoguery, and his populist appeals to citizens’ economic anxieties certainly borrow from the fascist playbook," he is not a fascist because he holds some socially liberal positions and has "no clear plan of any kind." Read through it, and maybe it'll be useful.

Tagging those who have weighed in above: @Nowa:, @Gaeanautes:, @MelanieN:, @GHcool:, @CFredkin:, @MrX:, @Rockypedia:, @Objective3000:. Neutrality^talk 17:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• It looks very good. It presents several noteworthy viewpoints. We should also include Riotta's expert view, and we should also consider expanding it slightly to explain to readers why Carl Bernstein, Robert Reich, and Tom Mulcair call Trump a neofascist.- MrX 18:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the sources provided don't support the assertions that Trump's personality and political positions resemble fascism. Also, I don't believe we should rely on left-leaning sources to substantiate subjective statements with such strong, negative connotations.CFredkin (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The assertion made isn't "Trump is X or Y." The assertion is "This set of notable commentators and figures argues that Trump is X, while this other set argues that Trump is Y." We are not making contentious characterizations in our own voice; rather, we are representing what the broad sweep of sources say. Their opinions could be wise or unwise, but that doesn't matter. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Neutrality^talk 19:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this place mad? Has Wikipedia went from an online encyclopedia to nothing more than a place that echos SJW's views on everything such as in this case how Trump is like Hitler? I say leave it out completely!!! It's a complete violation of NPOV!!! Entire article needs a rewrite telling a timeline of what has happened in the campaign not what others think of it, maybe I should propose a lengthy section on the Clinton page telling how others view it, sure dozens would oppose it there!!!ShadowDragon343 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hush now, ShadowDragon343. @Neutrality: Trying to cram this much material into only one paragraph renders the text difficult to read, I say. I think we should settle for at least two paragraphs. It is relevant to have an Italian perspective on Trump, so Riotta's piece is welcome indeed. Please note that the historian to be referenced is Jeffrey Herf, and not Jeffrey Hart. Also note that Tom Mulcair is not a commentator (strictly speaking), but a politician. A third note: Only Bernstein has termed Trump 'a neo-fascist', I have not come across the 'neo-' prefix anywhere else online. Experienced editors know that when too much referential text is crammed into too little space, inaccuracies may arise. This much said, I think we are beginning to approach a consensus... Gaeanautes (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the catches, this is all quite good. We could change "neofascist" to "fascist or neofascist," and we could drop "commentators" and describe each person individually: journalist and writer Carl Bernstein, professor and commentator Robert Reich, and Canadian politician Tom Mulcair. As for Riotta, we could include the following:

Italian writer Gianni Riotta, who experienced fascism firsthand during the Italian Years of Lead, argues that Trump is not a fascist. Riotta writes that while Trump's "xenophobic rhetoric" and "demagoguery...borrow from the fascist playbook," Trump is "fundamentally, a blustering political opportunist courting votes in a democratic system" without the intent to "kill democracy and install a dictatorship" that characterizes fascism.

Comments appreciated. Neutrality^talk 19:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

ShadowDragon343 Please focus on objectively improving content and not assailing editors, or Wikipedia as whole. If you believe the proposed content violates WP:NPOV, please lay out your reasoning so that it can be given consideration. Multiple exclamation marks don't really bolster your arguments.- MrX 18:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions to improve the article and relating to this. Get rid of the Trump University section. It has more to do with Trumps extensive legal history as owner of a private company and not his campaign for a public office, it's better at the article about Trump himself or his company. The section on white nationalists supporting Trump having it's own section places a one-sided negative image of Trump as racist and all based on a nonexistant endorsement that was not made (only praise). Parts can be shrunk and relocated into the campaign history as some of it was notable. And finally keep comparisons to fascism off it, it's too far from what Wikipedia's guidelines would allow as NPOV. Fascism is a far right ideology that Trump doesn't necessarily fit into because he has stances on some issues that don't match up to it. He is often described as a national populist which has it's differences and such a section on fascism would be redundant when what would be more fitting is a section comparing his rise to similar populist movements like Brexit and politicians such as Nigel Farage, and Geert Wilders. Also Gaeanautes this is a Talk page, there is no need to tell others to "hush".ShadowDragon343 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hush now, ShadowDragon343 — again! You are going wildly off-topic. Have you read any of the other posts around here? Have you even read the headline of the current section? For your information, it is 'Proposed compromise amalgamation of three earlier suggestions'. Now, please stop your irrelevant ranting about this and that and everything! Thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - will concede to the most succinct paragraph (like first proposed): This is getting out of hand. This article is not strictly about critics of Donald Trump. I am willing to concede a very small paragraph but that's it. Anything more is a Coatracking attempt to describe Trump as a fascist. Its tangential that left-leaning, or anti-Trump right-leaning, or barely-known figures constantly call him a fascist. If editors kept trying to describe Hillary Clinton as a "criminal" on her page, because a bunch of anti-Clinton sources brought it up, you would all immediately vote in favor of removing it. This is not the place for you all to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, just because you don't like Trump. Hell, Trump's not even MY pick, but this battleground behavior and obvious bias sure is making me scrutinize this page more. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

These figures are not "barely known." Jeffrey Herf is a very well-known academic (whom Irving Kristol, not exactly a figure of the left, called a distinguished intellectual historian" in 2014). Carl Bernstein is famous for his role in exposing Watergate and is probably among the most well-known living reporters on the planet. Robert O. Paxton, Roger Griffin and Stanley G. Payne are leading scholars of fascism.

I think it is unreasonable to say that it would be "too much" to summarize this back-and-forth between a large number of quite noteworthy scholars and others in four or five sentences—comprising maybe 0.5% of the text of a quite lengthy article. To ignore it completely or substantially, even though the issue has been discussed at a high level by the left and the right and those is between, would not serve our readers. Neutrality^talk 19:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Because the terms "fascism" or "fascist" have extremely negative connotations and can also be applied inaccurately, we need to be extremely careful with sourcing. I don't believe politicians and journalists themselves are necessarily reliable when using these terms. As I stated above, I also don't believe we should be using left-leaning sources to source this content.CFredkin (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Journalists and scholars are clearly reliable sources for their own opinions as published in the usual outlets. You may disagree with the substance of what they say, but that is immaterial. We are required to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint...." (WP:NPOV). Again, this is not material that we are present in wiki's own voice. This is content that is specifically attributed to noteworthy individuals, in-text.

Is your position that one or more of the viewpoints represented are "insignificant"? Neutrality^talk 19:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@CFredkin: Many of Trump's articulated views do indeed have extremely negative connotations, but that's not our problem per WP:DUEWEIGHT. While I do believe that comments from political opponents should be given negligible weight, analyses by journalists and scholars are exactly the types of sources that we have to use to construct this article.- MrX 19:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. However in this case, we're not discussing Trump's explicit statements, but other people's interpretations of them. And a big part of what we're doing here as editors is assessing the notability of those editors and whether they're qualified to make that assessment.CFredkin (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, exactly. And since Griffin, Paxton, and Payne are three of the leading scholarly experts on fascism in the world, I'm not sure who could be more qualified. Do you disagree? MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Generally speaking I don't have a problem referencing them on this subject.CFredkin (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Neutrality: Nice of you to pick up on my earlier comments. Your piece on Riotta is enlightening. It should be obvious for you – and everybody else – by now that we need at least two paragraphs on all of the material discussed, and perhaps even three. Also a fine rebuttal of DaltonCastle's latest utterances. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• @CFredkin: I think you are much too concerned with the 'negative connotations' evoked by fascism. Please note that the current article is about Trump's campaign, not the connotations evoked by fascism. As to the alleged left-leaning sources you seem to be so concerned about: How many of those do you count out of the grand total, and who are they exactly? And why don't you go looking for any right-leaning sources that may help counterbalancing the left-leaning ones? Perhaps you should be a little more constructive on this, thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

---

This news piece in the New York Times—Peter Baker, Rise of Donald Trump Tracks Growing Debate Over Global Fascism (May 28, 2016)—has the following language which we might want to quote or paraphrase:

"Trump's campaign has engendered impassioned debate about the nature of his appeal and warnings from critics on the left and the right about the potential rise of fascism in the United States....To supporters, such comparisons are deeply unfair smear tactics used to tar conservatives and scare voters."

I would be curious to hear thoughts on this. The second sentence, I think, could be added to this article to reflect the view of Trump's supporters. This might (I hope) assauge concerns and facilitate moving forward with a version we all could live with. Neutrality^talk 19:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Neutrality: Excellent quote from New York Times. I suppose even CFredkin, ShadowDragon343 and DaltonCastle could learn to live with it. Whoops, I just violated the WP:AVOIDBEINGSARCASTIC guideline, shame on me :-) Gaeanautes (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gaeanautes: I would advise that you change your tone. I've noticed several little quips you've made at users you disagree with. Are you trying to make me deliberately dismiss your arguments? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: My humblest apologies to you. It was just my odd way of saying "Bye, folks – I'm off for the weekend". It won't happen again. Gaeanautes (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

*Support I support this version. Short and to the point.--Nowa (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Nowa: What about the discussions following the version itself? User Neutrality, who presented the version, later made some subsequent suggestions to it. I have worked on and summed up these suggestions in draft #5 below. I think we should avoid getting stuck on earlier material here. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Presenting draft #5

I have now worked out a fifth draft on the 'Fascism' section to present; but first, some explanatory notes are called for:

– The text on Tom Mulcair has been cut back a little.

– The material about Jeffrey Herf has now been cut back and Herf himself thrown in with the rest of the fascism scholars who classify Trump as a right-wing populist rather than a neo-fascist.

– The inputs from Neutrality above have been of good use to me — thanks! I have rewritten and included the paragraphs on Riotta and the NYT article in the current draft.

– I disagree with users MrX and Neutrality that no image or symbol of fascism should be included in the article. The section on Various earlier figures... already features an image of Trump shaking hands with former President Reagan. It is dull for the human eye to glance at text, all text. An image here and there provides some visual variety for readers, I say. Editors who believe that a genre image of fascism is irrelevant should get informed about the recent neo-Nazi pledge in Sacramento to protect Trump supporters at the coming RNC, please read this Daily Beast article and look at this Ring of Fire photo before objecting to the image below.

So, here goes:

Fascism

See also: Fascism

Commentators and experts have discussed the resemblance between Trump and fascism

Commentators have argued that Trump's personality, political positions and style of campaigning all resemble fascism to some extent. In May 2016, neoconservative historian and columnist Robert Kagan wrote a column where he argued that Trump's lack of a coherent ideology, compensated for by his popular appeal of a strongman who can be entrusted the fate of a nation, is a phenomenon earlier known as 'fascism'; but times have changed since the first part of the 20th century, and the U.S. is not continental Europe, Kagan concludes:

“ This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes ... but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac 'tapping into' popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him. ”

Kagan's column gained some interest in the media.

Journalist and author Carl Bernstein has argued that Trump is 'a neo-fascist' representing "... a kind of American fascism that we haven't seen before..." Professor Robert Reich, political commentator and author, has labeled Trump 'a fascist', whose "... verbal attacks on Mexican immigrants and Muslims ... follow the older fascist script." In Canada, leader of the New Democratic Party Tom Mulcair has labeled Trump 'a fascist', as Trump appeals to "the lowest feelings in human nature."

Professor emeritus Robert Paxton, a scholar of fascism, has cited a number of parallels between Trump's campaign and the fascist movements of the 20th century, including "nationalism, aggressive foreign policy, attacks on the enemies inside and out without much regard for due process"; an obsession with perceived national decline; and the belief that the country needs a strong leader. Paxton and other fascism scholars, including Roger Griffin, Stanley G. Payne and Jeffrey Herf, all classify Trump as a right-wing populist rather than a neo-fascist.

Italian journalist Gianni Riotta, who had first-hand experience of Italian neo-fascism during the Years of Lead in the 1970s, argues that Trump is not a fascist. Riotta admits that while Trump's "xenophobic rhetoric" and "demagoguery ... certainly borrow from the fascist playbook," Trump is "fundamentally, a blustering political opportunist courting votes in a democratic system" without the intent to "kill democracy and install a dictatorship" that characterizes fascism.

According to The New York Times, comparing Trump's campaign to fascism is regarded by his supporters as "... deeply unfair smear tactics used to tar conservatives and scare voters," while not acknowledging "... widespread popular anger at the failure of both parties to confront the nation's challenges."

References

End of draft. End of post. Gaeanautes (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"Admits" (as in "Riotta admits") is not a good word to use (see WP:CLAIM). I would replace it with "writes" (a more neutral word). I would get rid of the "see also" - unnecessary since it is already linked in the text. In the last paragraph, I would also change "while not acknowledging" to "that fails to acknowledge" (a bit more clear). I also maintain that we don't need an image. Other than that, I'm OK with using this draft, subject of course to editing in the normal course of article improvement. I do think we need something in the article, and as long as it is well-sourced and balanced it doesn't need to be absolutely perfect. I think Kagan text in particular can be tightened. Neutrality^talk 15:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your fine comments. I will take them into account in the sixth draft along with the comments from other users I expect will turn up soon... Gaeanautes (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

*Oppose in favor of Talk:Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Proposed_compromise_amalgamation_of_three_earlier_suggestions This version seems too long to me. In my opinion the basic point to be made in this article is that many political commentators have seen parallels between the Trump campaign and fascism. Fascism experts, however, has said this isn't fascism. I think too much explanation drowns out that basic message. Too much discussion also drowns out the basic message. I wouldn't mind seeing any one of the above versions go into the article. I also recognize that whatever goes in will be subject to additional editing.Nowa (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nowa: I'll cut back on the Kagan part of the text in the next draft, as already proposed by User Neutrality above and agreed with by me. I agree with you what the basic message of the section is. The only paragraph not dealing with the basic message is the last one, documenting that Trump supporters deem it 'deeply unfair smear tactics' to label Trump a fascist. But I think this is an important point to have as the conclusion of the section. Gaeanautes (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It has now been two weeks since I presented the draft #5 on 'Fascism' above, and only two users — namely Neutrality and Nowa — have reacted to it so far. I'll wait two-three more weeks from now on before I present my intended draft #6 below. In the meantime, users are more than welcome to discuss draft #5 here, or — even better — to present their own version of a draft #6; the text is not entirely my baby anyway. Gaeanautes (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gaeanautes:: Any movement on this? Neutrality^talk 19:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Thank you for asking :-) Next week, I'll put my draft #6 below. Prepare yourself. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Presenting draft #6

I have now worked out a sixth draft on the 'Fascism' section to present; but first, some explanatory notes are called for (as last time around):

– The text on Kagan has been cut back somewhat.

– In the paragraph on Riotta, I have replaced the word 'admits' with 'concedes'. User: Neutrality wanted to use the word 'write' instead, because it appears more neutral. I disagree with this. Riotta's general argument is that Trump is not a fascist; but Riotta also points to some circumstances that may make people wrongfully believe that Trump is a fascist. This is a concession made in his general argument. Hence, the word 'concedes' better describes Riotta's line of reasoning, I say. Note that sticking to the source by paraphrasing it may involve the use of words that are value-laden (non-neutral) by themselves.

– User: Nowa has expressed the concern that the previous version of the draft was too long, and that the basic message drowned in explanations. This time around, I've added a summary to be used in the lead section, it's been put in between the article text itself and the references below it.

– I've replaced the earlier genre image of fascism with a new one. The bird's-eye view in this new image makes the mass of uniformed people appear less intrusive when compared to the earlier one. The swastika is still present, a total of three in the background, actually — but they're minuscule, so nobody should get too crossed about them, he-he (pun intended, please smile or chuckle). Yes, A. H. is present at the very center of the image, although he's barely recognizable. However, Trump has already been widely nicknamed 'Mein Trumpf' and 'Mein Drumpf', an obvious allusion to A. H.'s well known manifesto on Mein Kampf ('My Struggle'). In effect, the presence of A. H. in the image is relevant to the article as a whole, I say. (Editors are encouraged to make their own Google search including the 'Mein [T/D]rumpf' keyword string to see what pops up; be sure to enjoy some of the images as well — especially this one.)

– I have added a new paragraph on Trump's bad nicknames.

So, here goes:

Fascism

Commentators and experts have discussed the resemblance between Trump and fascism

Commentators have argued that Trump's personality, political positions and style of campaigning all resemble fascism to some extent. Hence, neoconservative historian and columnist Robert Kagan has made the point that Trump's lack of a coherent ideology, compensated for by his popular appeal of a strongman who can be entrusted the fate of a nation, is a phenomenon earlier known as 'fascism'. Kagan predicts that fascism will come to America "... with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac 'tapping into' popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party ... falling into line behind him." Kagan's column gained some interest in the media.

Journalist and author Carl Bernstein has argued that Trump is 'a neo-fascist' representing "... a kind of American fascism that we haven't seen before..." Professor Robert Reich, political commentator and author, has labeled Trump 'a fascist', whose "... verbal attacks on Mexican immigrants and Muslims ... follow the older fascist script." In Canada, leader of the New Democratic Party Tom Mulcair has labeled Trump 'a fascist', as Trump appeals to "the lowest feelings in human nature."

Professor emeritus Robert Paxton, a scholar of fascism, has cited a number of parallels between Trump's campaign and the fascist movements of the 20th century, including "nationalism, aggressive foreign policy, attacks on the enemies inside and out without much regard for due process"; an obsession with perceived national decline; and the belief that the country needs a strong leader. Paxton and other fascism scholars, including Roger Griffin, Stanley G. Payne and Jeffrey Herf, all classify Trump as a right-wing populist rather than a neo-fascist.

Italian journalist Gianni Riotta, who had first-hand experience of Italian neo-fascism during the Years of Lead in the 1970s, argues that Trump is not a fascist. Riotta concedes that while Trump's "xenophobic rhetoric" and "demagoguery ... certainly borrow from the fascist playbook," Trump is "fundamentally, a blustering political opportunist courting votes in a democratic system" without the intent to "kill democracy and install a dictatorship" that characterizes fascism.

According to The New York Times, comparing Trump's campaign to fascism is regarded by his supporters as "... deeply unfair smear tactics used to tar conservatives and scare voters," that fails to acknowledge "... widespread popular anger at the failure of both parties to confront the nation's challenges."

Trump has been widely nicknamed 'Mein Trumpf' and 'Mein Drumpf', an allusion to Adolf Hitler's manifesto on Mein Kampf ('My Struggle').

[Text to be put in the lead section as a summary of the section above:] Commentators have argued that Trump's personality, political positions and style of campaigning all resemble fascism to some extent. However, leading scholars on fascism have all classified Trump as a right-wing populist rather than a neo-fascist. Nonetheless, Trump has been widely nicknamed 'Mein Trumpf' and 'Mein Drumpf', an allusion to Adolf Hitler's manifesto on Mein Kampf. [To be placed by the very end of the lead section, after the lengthy paragraph documenting Trump's spectacular campaign rallies (a suitable place to put it, I say).]

editorial break

• Support draft #6 - Beyond that I congratulate the editors for their healthy collaboration and the hard determined work that resulted in a fair and considered thread. Buster Seven Talk 18:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This draft is biased and slanted from the very first sentence: "Commentators have argued that Trump's personality, political positions and style of campaigning all resemble fascism to some extent." This implies all commentators, unless qualified (e.g. "There are commentators who have argued" instead of "Commentators have argued"). You have also omitted many historians who reject the characterization of Trump as a fascist. Here are two right off the bat:
  • Ledeen, Michael. "Nobody Knows Anything About Fascism", Forbes (May 19, 2016): "As I wrote in this space a few weeks ago, Donald Trump is no fascist, but there are many pundits who are calling him that. Their efforts, I think, tells us more about their ignorance of fascism than about Trump and his followers."
  • Frank, Thomas Carr. “Is Donald Trump an Actual Fascist?”, Vanity Fair (June 14, 2016): "So Trump is no fascist, and he’s not going to be a Constitution-shredding dictator. But that’s probably not going to comfort you all that much."

And what of Trump himself? If Wikipedia calls him a fascist, will we (fascist-like) omit his denial? Just google "foolishly perceived fascism".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I appreciate your work on this, but I don't think we're quite there yet. First of all, no images, period. There is no image in existence than can properly illustrate the concept of Trump's views resembling Fascism. Second, the use of ellipses in quotes makes it looks like quote mining. I'm not saying that it actually is; only that it looks suspicious. The paragraph beginning "Trump has been widely nicknamed 'Mein Trumpf'..." is not encyclopedic (also the summary in the lead). Let's please save it for Cracked. If these concerns can be addressed, I can support the rest of the content, although a little copy editing may help.- MrX 21:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support without image By "support" I mean that once it's in, we can let it evolve through the normal editing process. There's lots of changes I would make, but I would work to keep it from being simply reverted out. --Nowa (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Similarly my support was intended as a beginning and a support of the effort required. I was and am well aware that it is still a work in progress and will require editing before a final draft is offered. Buster Seven Talk 22:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand you feel that more editing is needed before a final draft is offered, but what I'm saying is that it's close enough now to go in and from there we will edit it.--Nowa (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Anythingyouwant's comments above regarding issues with some of the wording and the fact that Trump's response is excluded. The references to Hitler and "Mein Trumpf" are completely inappropriate in this article. Also, since this is a BLP and DS are involved, I disagree with the notion that we should rush to post this draft and then address issues later.CFredkin (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

References

End of draft. End of post. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's tax returns

Mr. Trump's campaign is at a very historic point. No Republican (or Democratic ...? ) candidate for President has advanced to the convention without producing a single tax document since the Nixon/Agnew ticket. Nixon produced his tax returns after the election to prove his honesty, resulting in his famous "I am not a crook!" statement. Well, Nixon under-paid his taxes and Agnew was convicted of tax evasion. As a direct result, disclosure of tax returns PRIOR to the convention has become the de-facto standard for all candidates. Trump's refusal is treading new ground particularly in the wake of all of his financial misadventures. This issue should receive greater disclosure than lumping it in with other "Controversies". This isn't equivalent to something Trump said that someone may disagree with. This could remove him from elected office, as it did with Agnew, since many people are advocating electing him President WITHOUT documentation that he has not committed tax fraud or under-payment. Very different from the other controversies.

I advocate adding information regarding this significant issue in the lead paragraphs For this Article. The tax evasion issue is in Agnew's lead paragraphs and disclosure of tax returns have been a de-factor standard because of Agnew.

Please note that I had added this previously and it was removed.

Pmacdee (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I can tell that you feel very strongly about this, and you believe it is far more important than other issues. You may well be right, in an absolute sense. But the way we balance the article is according to how much attention the various issues have gotten in Reliable Sources. This issue has gotten enough attention to be a section, which it is. I honestly don't think we can justify putting it in the lede. But let's see what others have to say. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I took at look at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and it has a very similar treatment to this: nothing in the lead, but a section about his reluctance to release the information and the reaction when he did. It isn't clear from the article when he released the returns (before or after the convention) and whether they were complete or not. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Romney was reluctant but did commit BEFORE the convention to release tax returns and released them two months before the election . Trump has committed to NOT releasing his returns before the election. This is a big difference and could lead to a serious disruption in our government. Nixon/Agnew should be a lesson to the American public that the tax returns should be available before the election. It demonstrates basic honesty of the candidate. It should be mentioned in the lede (BTW, is the lede the first 4 paragraphs before the the "Contents"?) Those paragraphs mention many of the controversies. Clearly, the tax return issue should be included. None of those controversies could lead to Trump leaving office, but a tax fraud issue could and the American public has zero documentation to make a decision. Pmacdee (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, Do we have consensus on adding something about Trump's refusal to produce tax returns to the lede? Pmacdee (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. I said above that I thought it was NOT justified in the lede. Maybe if some other people would chime in? (P.S. Thanks for asking. Some people would have just gone ahead and claimed consensus even though there wasn't one.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Your mentioned that you balance the article is according to how much attention the various issues have gotten in Reliable Sources. I notice the following items in the lede ; "assassination" attempt was (a one day thing in the news), the shutdown of a rally in Chicago (a 2-3 day thing over a weekend), Trump saying that he would like to punch protesters (that happened once or twice). The tax return thing clearly outscores the items I mentioned. I would be happy to prepare a list of references spanning the past year if that is appropriate ( at least for making he decision on this talk page) Since this also has the potential for a significant disruption of his Presidency if he is elected without examining his returns, I claim that the tax return issue should be mentioned. Although I am pretty certain that counting google search returns is not what you mean by "Reliable Source" , google returns only 600k references to 'donald trump punch in the face' and over 4 million for 'donald trump tax returns' or 'donald trump chicago rally'. Is there a way to get others to review this request? Nothing personal, I just disagree with you.Pmacdee (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The significance of any aspect of a subject is determined by its coverage in reliable sources, not by how significant we think it is. In this case, it is the frequency with which CNN, The New York Times, Sunday morning talk shows, etc., discuss the returns relative to other issues. No reliable sources have suggested the returns are fraudulent and it is unlikely that their public release would enable us to determine if they were. IRS auditors are in a better position to make that call. Agnew indeed was convicted of tax fraud, but it was failing to report bribes received. Unless one knew that Agnew had received bribes, which is an offense and something that Trump has never been in position to do, the tax returns would not have shown the fraud. TFD (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the description of the significance criteria. Can you provide the data on the frequency of the coverage for a few of the the topics that appear in the lede so that I can demonstrate the importance of the tax return issue? I did not suggest that Trump's returns were fraudulent, it is merely the risk of such a situation re-occurring is significant when no documentation is provided. However, one editor did make reference to the fact that Trump's refusal is an electoral "bomb" in this Article, so I guess reliable sources have been identified. Thanks for discussing this with me and providing the data so that I can demonstrate the importance of the tax return issue in the lede.2605:E000:141F:8028:9976:3E8F:D58B:C58A (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that some of the stuff in the lede may be relatively unimportant, but other stuff exists. We are discussing the tax issue on its own merits, not compared to everything else in the lede. And the reference you mention is a claim that the returns themselves could contain an electoral bombshell. Nobody has said that his failure to release them is one. (Personally I think Trump has made a calculated judgment that his failure to release the returns is not going to be determinative in the election - that is, very few people are going to vote against him for that reason - whereas their contents very well might be.) TFD, just for clarity, are you arguing against putting it in the lede? --MelanieN (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but"other stuff" relates to other articles and not content in the very same where it is of course relevant when comparing due weight for or against inclusion.--TMCk (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, Two things; 1) Four dueces said that the lede topics ARE determined by comparison to others topics in the lede (makes sense to me...) and 2) the article that you linked in the Controversy section says exactly that if Trump does not release them and provide sufficient time for the shock/concern/anger to dissipate, he will have a nasty 'October surprise'. Read the first two or three paragraphs. The tax return issue was huge in the first quarter of this year when Trump changed his mind, do you think Clinton is going to ignore that? I am still not understanding why the tax return issue was not in this Article on March when Trump changed his mind. This is a significant and distinctive departure from a 40 year old practice. I hate to be a 'Get off my lawn!' old man, but do you remember what happened to our country with Nixon and Agnew?? I appreciate the great point about Trump making a calculated decision. (Personally, I agree, but think that he made a huge mistake. If there is something in those returns that is worse than not showing them, he should have never run. There are too many people voting, like myself, that lived through Nixon/Agnew) 2605:E000:141F:8028:9976:3E8F:D58B:C58A (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

(It would be helpful if you would remember to sign in before commenting, so that your comments have your signature - although it's pretty clear when an IP is you.) The article actually says “What will you do if the returns come out as part of an October surprise?” - i.e., if Trump doesn't release them but they are "leaked" before the election. The same article urged delegates to abstain from voting until he releases his tax returns; however, no delegates did abstain, indicating that this writer's advice was not taken seriously. Look, I agree with you that this OUGHT to be a big deal for the electorate and the media. But up to now, it hasn't been. If it becomes a bigger issue in the general election campaign, as it very well may, it could escalate to the point of being included in the lead. But up to now, things like the Mexico wall and the Muslim ban have attracted far more media attention than his refusal to follow this traditional action of candidates. For that matter, his comments about the "Mexican" judge also got a huge amount of publicity, as did the widespread criticism of them, but we have not included that in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The August issue of Vanity Fair shows that the tax issue may be resurfacing. I thought to keep this thread open just in case it does. Buster Seven Talk 14:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Vanity Fairr article finishes; "The president has a duty of loyalty and care to the United States. He or she is a fiduciary to the public". Recently Clinton and Kaine shared their tax returns. As of August 14, Donald Trump has not. Do we wait to expand this article entry until Trumps "Duty of Care" as a possible president is implemented. Ot do we wait till after the election? Buster Seven Talk 14:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Secret Service

Regarding The Secret Service "being aware" and maybe talking to Trump; we all know Trump already has a Secret Service detail. What we don't know is if they were the ones that talked to Trump or if a special detail was sent from headquarters. Does anyone know? At some point during Wednesday, the Trump campaign denied that there was any conversation with the Secret Service. Buster Seven Talk 06:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As of Wednesday midnight, CNN says they did. Reuters says they didn't. Does anyone know what the USSS says? Buster Seven Talk 07:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The USSS initially sent out an official Tweet saying they "were aware of the comments" ([2]))

Reuters (citing a "federal official") reported that there were no "formal discussions" ([3])

CNN (citing a "Secret Service official") reported that "there has been more than one conversation" on the topic but that "it's unclear at what level in the campaign structure the conversations occurred" ([4])

These are all not necessarily incompatible, it should be said. There could have been more than one "informal" discussions between lower-level officials in the campaign and the USSS. Neutrality^talk 15:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Right now the article just says "was aware of". That's probably all it should say unless we get more definite information about any actual discussions. (Which is not likely; there's a reason it's called the Secret Service.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I did look into all those things Buster7 and Neutrality mention. However, I couldn't find anything official other than the comment that is there now. As they also protect him, they have a policy to never discuss the protectee. Cathy Milion's comment might be all that will be said on the matter. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As of Aug 14, Trump claims the Secret Service is lying about having talked to him multiple times about his threats against Hillary Clinton and any possible attempts to incite violence among second amendment supporters. Buster Seven Talk 14:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

ABC report about moment of silence for Johnson

ABC News has identified a person who requested a moment of silence for Micah Johnson. See Keneally, Megan. "Trump: 'Some People' Called for a Moment of Silence for the Dallas Gunman", ABC News (July 13, 2016): "So far, ABC News has been able to find one person who posted on two of his social media accounts calling for a moment of silence." This was removed from our Wikipedia article with the edit summary "Removed content not verifiable in the cited source". Seems verifiable to me. Anyone object if I put it back in?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I object. It has no more value than if we said "Trump eats carry-out chicken with a knife and a fork" which is also verifiable. Buster Seven Talk 05:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You lost me. Are you agreeing that it's verified by the cited source, but disagreeing on some other grounds? This Wikipedia article presently says: "Following the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, Trump claimed that 'some people' have called for a public moment of silence to honor the perpetrator, Micah Xavier Johnson. When asked if he had seen any examples of this, Trump's campaign co-chair was not able to substantiate Trump's claim.[496]". ABC substantiated Trump's claim, but you prefer not to mention that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec)I object that you put it back in. It may be verified but it is of Zero value to the article and a waste of space. Instead, why don't you add something about Trumps claims that if he loses in Pennsylvania it will be because "people voted 5 or 6 times" or add his claims that The President of the United States founded ISIS? Those might be a little more noteworthy. Buster Seven Talk 06:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

WTF? You think it's valuable to include a "misstatement" by Trump, but including ABC's refutation has no value? Look pal, if Trump has lied about X, that is no reason for us to dishonestly report that he has lied about Y.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't get an attitude with me! You asked. I answered. You have had no problem inserting whatever over other editors objections. Do as you will. Buster Seven Talk 06:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That's ridiculous (again). I'm not going to violate discretionary sanctions and get topic-banned by restoring material without consensus. So congratulations to you. You and MrX are helping this article to be dishonest, by excluding the thoroughly verified statement by ABC News. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Buster7. The fact somebody said something on twitter... has nothing to do with this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

So you think Trump made a misstatement because calling for a moment of silence on Twitter or Facebook doesn't count? You folks need to acknowledge what reliable sources say, instead of turning this article into anti-Trump propaganda.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

How many tweets (of much more importance) do you think Trump has made since his run for the office started? 1000? More? And you want to focus on some isolated tweet he makes. Remove Trump's campaign co-chair was not able to substantiate Trump's claim.[496]". and insert ABC substantiated Trump's claim. No need to carry on with me. If off to dreamland. Buster Seven Talk 07:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Writing "Subsequently, ABC News substantiated Trump's claim." misrepresents the source. Your edit summary when you restored a version of the same material without consensus ("per suggestion at talk page by Buster") misrepresents what Buster7 wrote.

Your simultaneous removal of " When asked if he had seen any examples of this, Trump's campaign co-chair was not able to substantiate Trump's claim." deceives our readers and violates WP:POV. This material does not belong in this article. There is no evidence whatsoever that when Trump said "some people" he was referring to a single person who tweeted. - MrX 12:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

There are estimated to be 500,000,000 tweets per day. I'm sure you could find a tweet saying anything you can dream up. This substantiates nothing. Objective3000 (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump said "some people". What is the number of "people" in the world? Are tweeters not "people"? Would you be willing to have this article mention someone who has called for a moment of silence (for Micah Johnson) who did not do so merely through a social network like Twitter or Facebook? I doubt you would, I doubt it very much.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF Objective3000 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The article currently states:

Following the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, Trump claimed that "some people" have called for a public moment of silence to honor the perpetrator, Micah Xavier Johnson. When asked if he had seen any examples of this, Trump's campaign co-chair was not able to substantiate Trump's claim.

The source for the bolded statement above makes it clear that the co-chair was asked about this in an interview and was not able to corroborate on the spot. First, I don't believe the circumstances of non-substantiation are clear in the bolded statement. (i.e. He didn't have the opportunity to confer with Trump himself, or others close to him.) Second, even if they are clear, what relevance does the non-substantiation have? It's not like he was asked about it, went back and conferred with Trump or people close to him, and then came back and said "we got nothin". Unless he's got some telepathic link with Trump (and I pity the fool if he does), it's seems very possible that he wasn't clued into the circumstances of Trump's statement. And if you add in the corroboration by ABC that at least one tweet existed which might have been the basis of Trump's claim, then the possibility that the co-chair was just not in sync with Trump seems even more likely.

Consequently I think we need to either include both the bolded sentence AND the corroboration by ABC, or neither.CFredkin (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

References

See also Lee, Peter. "Why I Am a Jerk: Micah Johnson, Josh Marshall, and Charles Pierce", Counterpunch (July 18, 2016): "I too think we should have had a moment of silence for Micah Johnson.  A moment of anger, of compassion, of understanding, of self-reflection that one man’s warped response to warped policing practices had caused him to commit a terrible crime."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Including this story, in its entirety, is like hanging one too many ornaments on the Christmas tree... in the middle of August. What is the purpose of including it? The length of the article needs to be a concern for us all. We are not writing War and Peace. Buster Seven Talk 19:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

So remove the whole thing about Micah Johnson. There wasn't any misstatement; none is apparent from the reliable sources collectively.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Do other editors agree we should remove the whole thing about Micah Johnson...? Buster Seven Talk 19:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the right approach. Honestly, there will probably be couple dozen "controversies" of this nature before this whole thing ends and we can't include them all in *this* article. If there was a separate one dedicated to the controversies, it could go in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed mention of Micah Johnson from article. Buster Seven Talk 14:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

References

length of article

RE: A separate one dedicated to the controversies, it could go in there

• Or...we could break up the article into 4 new ones. 1) Covers the Primaries, 2) covers the Convention, 3) covers the General Election, and 4) covers Election Day results. Just an Idea.... Buster Seven Talk 20:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible Pennsylvania voter fraud claims

There are facts to discredit Trumps claims of potential election day voter fraud in Pennsylvania which he made yesterday. Should it be included in the article? And what about Trumps claims that Obama and Hillary are co-founders of ISIS. Should such an outrageous claim be mentioned? Buster Seven Talk 06:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

There really needs to be a "controversies related to Donald Trump's presidential campaign" because, seriously, if we were to include all of them - and they keep occurring at a rate of one per day - this article would be yuuugee. It would also allow us to remove some of the less notable controversies from this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The article need some serious "readers digest" type consolidation of early primary stuff...if just to make room for whats to come in the next 88 (?) days. Buster Seven Talk 07:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

What will be left for this article, though? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you one of the "...six guys named Steve"? Buster Seven Talk 12:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, although with Trump you never know. If I'm on his council, nobody has told me. I'm pretty certain that I'm one of currently 1389 Steves, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: I would like to see the voter fraud bits added. That's not something presidential candidates normally say. In fact, he might be the first. Not sure about the Isis bits. He blames Hillary and Obama for everything. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

He said he was being sarcastic about the latter. No need to include that. Voter fraud, however, could happen. Who owns the voting machines? Have the owners made any political contributions? As we're not supposed to do OR, are there third-party sources about this?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump is talking about thousands (maybe millions) of individuals voting more than once. He is talking about ballot stuffing. Buster Seven Talk 16:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The International Republican Institute monitors elections in Africa and Eastern Europe; not sure if they also do that in the US. It may be hard to track who's voting without voter ID.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If we publish re-buttals then we need to report counter-rebuttals as well, which would make this a very long article. Voting more than once is not the only type of voter fraud, and there are alleged examples in 2000 and 2004 in Florida and Ohio. Similarly saying Clinton founded ISIS could be interpreted as destroying ISIS enemies and supplying ISIS with weapons. And of course if the U.S. not invaded Iraq in the first place, there would be no ISIS. TFD (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

He was being sarcastic. I don't think we should include every joke that he makes. (We weren't allowed to include Hillary's barking, one of her jokes apparently.) I do think the voter fraud claim might be encyclopedic, but as I said before, we'd need to find reliable third-party sources about machine ownership, political contributions, who tracks the fraud (do they have a political preference?), etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces: I guess we could create a List of voting machine manufacturers in the United States. Voting machine doesn't have much; Electronic voting is slightly better, but needs to be improved. We do have Category:Election technology companies, but is that all there is?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This is three edits you have made suggesting voting machine fraud without any evidence before the election has even taken place. This is pure speculation and is not appropriate. Objective3000 (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Do not personalize this; stick to improving content. Of course I don't believe voter fraud has ever occurred in the US. But that doesn't mean we can't add sourced content about who owns those machines, etc. We should.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with voting machines. Objective3000 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@TFD...Voting more than once is what Trump claims the impending voter fraud will look like. Lets be clear about that. He clearly makes that claim, in spite of the fact that "voting 5 or 6 times" is virtually nonexistent in today's voting day environment. Again, his claim is outlandish and WAAAAAY over the top. Sure. Other ways to commit voter fraud exist but they are not what Trump is talking about. At least early today. He may imply he meant something different tomorrow...after his advisors try to convince him to stop being Trump. Buster Seven Talk 16:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, how do you know who's voting without Voter ID? But unless we focus on improving content with facts, I don't think we need to discuss Trump's opinion endlessly. His opinions are not encyclopedic.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You present id when you register, which has nothing to do with this article. Obviously, what Trump says can relate to this article. Objective3000 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

But not when you (or your third cousin) votes in the registered name apparently. Anyway, I suggest adding, "Donald Trump has expressed concern over the possibility of voter fraud in the outcome of the presidential election results." That is objective and sufficiently succinct.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest: "Donald Trump has expressed concern over the possibility of ballot stuffing in the outcome of the Pennsylvania presidential election results in November (2016)". That is even more objective and succinct. Buster Seven Talk 18:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC) This LA Times article] is informative. Buster Seven Talk 18:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If you put that in, NPOV does require that we also put in a rebuttal/reaction. Indeed, the reaction is a big part of this story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

What is the rebuttal?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that everyone else thought this was crazy talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't heard that, and I'm not sure who "everyone" would be. I heard Jeff Sessions say it would be a good idea to enlist poll watchers.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

[Sample rebuttal]. This is one of many such articles. Objective3000 (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking, presidential campaigns routinely dispatch observers to polling places during close elections. This is to prevent the sort of thing that happened in 1960, see United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Controversies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OTOH, DJT and/or the RNC could have this problem: [Election observers]. This entire area is a bit sticky for a small addition in this article. Objective3000 (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It could also be argued that Trump's calls are a dog-whistle to create voter-intimidation at the polls. And, it could be argued that the real vote fraud is the large number of recent voter-id laws, which one Federal Court recently ruled was specifically aimed at disenfranchising specific groups of legitimate voters. This area really is complex. Objective3000 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Who is arguing this? Wikipedia editors only relay information found in reliable third-party sources. We don't voice our opinions.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This has been argued in the courts for decades, and there are two recent Federal Court rulings on the issue. There have been dozens of demonstrations over the issue. It has been debated at length in the majority of state legislatures. Objective3000 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Leave it out. He offered no evidence for his claim; he was blowing smoke, probably laying the groundwork for an excuse in November: "if I lose, it must have been because of cheating". The scenario has no basis in reality. As pointed out above, "voting five or six times" is virtually impossible, with or without voter ID. Here in California, for example, you go in, you sign the register, you get your ballot; and since the register has been signed, you can't go in again and get another ballot, and neither can anyone else pretending to be you. Even if a few manage to slip through the cracks somehow, it would not be enough to affect the outcome of the election. This hasn't gotten as much coverage as his other controversial comments, and heaven knows we can't include them all; they come virtually daily. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The story is that its another example of where the facts don't back up the claim. But, I agree, it may not be article-worthy....yet. He will light this preposterous pipe again. Buster Seven Talk 18:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thread:Caucasies and primaries

At the end of the above thread is the following paragraph.

In Illinois, two separate lawsuits filed in April 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act related to unlawful campaign text messages. In the class action suit Thorne v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., lead plaintiff Thorne alleges he never provided his phone number to the Trump campaign, and he received a text message from an SMS short code leased by the Trump campaign. Thorne seeks $500–1,500 on behalf of each class member for each text received.  Roberts v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. includes the same allegations as the Thorne case but also has additional allegations regarding how the Trump campaign obtained the phone numbers it allegedly unlawfully texted.

References

Its not a story that has any legs. I didn't know about it till I read it here today. With the growing "girth" of this article in mind, I would like to remove this paragraph. If anything comes of this legal action, the info can be reinserted in an appropriate location. Thoughts? Buster Seven Talk 18:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Replace if anything comes of it, otherwise it's a blip on the radar. TimothyJosephWood 18:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Dump it. The Manafort/Ukraine story is far more likely to have legs. Albeit, I wouldn't include it yet either. Objective3000 (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Buster Seven Talk 01:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)