Talk:Protests against Donald Trump/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

MAHA

The redirect of Make America Hate Again to this page is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_23#Make_America_Hate_Again. References were listed by @Patar knight: in raw form to show usage. @Champion: mentioned the term not being mentioned in the target.

I will template-cite the references Patar provided below so we can have a discussion as to whether to discuss this recurring phrase in this article, or to give it its own article:

I don't see it mentioned at Make America Great Again but these sources could also be used there if we decide it is more appropriate to talk about there than here at PaDT. Either way, wherever it does get mentioned should link to the 2nd article.

• "'Make America hate again!'". USA Today. 15 March 2016. At a Trump event Sunday in Florida, a protester yelled: "Make America hate again!"
• "Protesters say Trump and Pence will 'Make America Hate Again'". Straits Times. 18 July 2016.
• Egan, Timothy (22 July 2016). "Make America Hate Again". New York Times.
• Lemire, Jonathan; Lerer, Lisa (25 August 2016). "Trump will 'make America hate again,' Clinton says". CTV News. Hillary Clinton says Donald Trump has unleashed the "radical fringe" within the Republican Party, including anti-Semites and white supremacists, dubbing the billionaire businessman's campaign as one that will "make America hate again."
• Abramsky, Sasha (29 October 2016). "Make America hate again". New Statesman.
• McGeough, Paul (19 November 2016). "Make America hate again: how Donald Trump's victory has emboldened bigotry". Sydney Morning Herald.

This makes me curious what the earliest recorded usage we can find. Anything prior to USA Today's March 15th report of a protester shouting it in Florida? It seems to have been maintained from March to July, and then Egan picking up the title from USA/Straits probably kept it floating around until Hillary herself used it in a speech (as CTV reports) which then prompted Abramsky of Statesman and McGeough of SMH to use it in their titles. Ranze (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Videos

I've been migrating videos to illustrate the days of protests, and now the sections have been marked as having too much intricate detail. I wanted to ask - What if I made all the videos from November protests into a simple linear montage? I could cut out any extra titles and leave each protest sequence as maybe 5 seconds per location, and leave a place and date on the bottom of the screen? I'd see the video being placed at the top of 'November'. That way we could remove all the videos in the galleries and have only particular photos in the sections. Thoughts? Victor Grigas (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're willing to invest the energy into this idea, I think it would be very helpful to the article, both reducing clutter and providing a more informative story to readers. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 07:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Women’s March

My skill english is too bad and some people will do a better job, so here is a material for Women’s March on Paris France with a Creative Common Licence and a neutral POV on YT with link's end : Y3vSOZJMuns (please clean this message, when section about Women’s March's will be done) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temp0rary (talk • contribs) 10:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Per the reference included as follows, from 3 million to 5 million people worldwide participated in the Women's March. This protest was launched in response to the election of Donald Trump as POTUS. This information could be expanded in the dedicated entry for the Women's March, but should be included prominently in this article with reference to the main Women's March article. Mark Stein (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Lots of fake hate crimes have been committed by anti-Trump protestors

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/10/women-in-hijabs-on-2-campuses-say-they-were-attacked-by-men-invoking-donald-trump/

http://www.13abc.com/content/news/BG-police-say-student-lied-about-politically-driven-attack-401814426.html

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/21/students-face-disciplinary-action-hoaxing-kkk-vandalism/

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2016/11/man_admits_to_faking_hate_crime_in_malden

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/13/wave-fake-hate-crimes-sweeps-anti-trump-imaginations/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/18/the-hate-crime-victims-of-trump-who-werent/

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/18/election-hate-crimes-hoaxes-hyperbole

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/11/election-night-hijab-attack-false

http://twitchy.com/twitchys-3831/2016/11/17/7-fake-hate-crimes-that-the-media-blamed-on-trump-and-his-supporters/

71.182.248.230 (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• If you think there is enough on this topic from reliable sources then you can send this to WP:AFC. I will however caution that some of these links are from sources that are not generally accepted as reliable. Please see WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want a separate article. I think it should be mentioned in this article. Certainly, these fake hate crimes are a form of protest against Donald Trump, and should be mentioned in this article. Here's a new one: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/north-park-fabricated-notes-402556366.html 71.182.245.30 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

71 -- Maybe. It might be put in section 3.3 Conflicting news reports ... but I think doing so would first require a significant commentary out there describing a group of 'fake hate crimes'. Otherwise this would look like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Markbassett (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Every one of these is an anti-Trump protest. 71.182.242.245 (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's another one: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/S-Jersey-man-arrested-in-post-election-vandalism-in-South-Philly.html 71.182.242.245 (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

And here's yet another one: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/yasmin-seweid-teen-accused-of-making-up-story-of-anti-muslim-harassment-on-nyc-subway/ 71.182.241.21 (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's one more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/12/14/a-man-set-his-exs-car-on-fire-for-revenge-then-blamed-it-on-the-kkk-police-say/ 71.182.241.21 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

And here's one more: http://wreg.com/2016/12/21/mississippi-authorities-make-arrest-in-burning-of-african-american-church-spray-painted-with-vote-trump/ 71.182.250.36 (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't say that this was an anti-Trump protester. Just that he's African-American. ^Falling_Gravity 23:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There is actually a database that catalogs fake hate crimes. Several of them are precisely such "hoax Trump supporter hate-crime".

Attempted Assassinations

Michael Steven Sandford's listed in the main article, so why not his method in the sidebar?

This isn't the only attempted assassination against Donald Trump - Justin Barkley shot & killed William Schumacher, a UPS driver Barkley mistook for Trump. CitationKneaded (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

References

They would appropriately be placed in an article such as Assassination threats against Donald Trump, analogous to the existing article, Assassination threats against Barack Obama. This article is discussing protests, not assassination attempts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I originally come from Russia, where "being politically active" & "trying to murder someone" are often one & the same. I do notice however that the protest article does not limit itself to only the peaceful variety & also discusses the multitude of violent ones (including the Michael Steven Sandford assassination attempt), so that led to some confusion about where exactly the line was drawn. CitationKneaded (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Voter Intimidation

@ NorthBySouthBaranof, why was my inclusion of voter intimidation removed from the methods sidebar? What do you think the riots & assaults against Trump supporters were if not voter intimidation? "Violence or the threat of violence: In its simplest form, voters from a particular demographic or known to support a particular party or candidate are directly threatened by supporters of another party or candidate or by those hired by them. "

For example:

• June 2 – Protests and riots occurred outside a Trump rally in San Jose, California. During a series of protests, hundreds of anti-Trump protesters waving Mexican flags climbed on cars, and harassed supporters of Donald Trump. There were reports of violence including instances of bottles being thrown and assaults against Trump supporters.[92][93] A police officer was assaulted.[7][93][94] At least one American flag was burned by protesters.[95] Video footage went viral of a female Trump supporter being pelted by eggs thrown by protesters.[96]

• August 19 – Protesters harassed, pushed, and spit on Trump supporters outside a fundraising event in Minneapolis.[103]

...would any reasonable person not construe that as voter intimidation? These are numerous cases of people being physically assaulted (or threatened w/ physical harm) for voting a certain way. CitationKneaded (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfaithful Electors

Should the handful of Unfaithful Electors be mentioned as part of the protests? I mean, it is essentially a protest, and by someone with some semblance of institutional power to do something to show their dissatisfaction, at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 09:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Although if we do that, we should make an analogous page called "Protests against Hillary Clinton", to cover both sides of the story.CitationKneaded (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think the faithless elector voting against Trump is probably appropriately described as a protestor — for example, The Guardian notes here that "With counts still ongoing in California and Texas, the number of electoral college members who attempted to cast a protest vote was likely to reach at least nine. ... The one Republican expected to cast a vote against Trump – Chris Suprun in Texas – led a lonely stand that fell well short of the 37 Republican defections that would have been needed to block the president-elect’s rise to the nation’s highest office." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Though if we really do follow this out to it's logical conclusion, were the votes for Trump then likewise not protest-votes against Hillary Clinton (considering he ran on an anti-establishment platform)? CitationKneaded (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Death Threats against Electors

NorthBySouthBaranof, why does my section on the numerous death threats against electors voting for Trump keep getting deleted in favor of your version about one instance of a faithless elector against Trump receiving death threats? It places, how you say, "undue weight on the actions of that tiny fringe", no? CitationKneaded (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you identify reliable sources identifying these threats as "protests" or "protest methods"? If not, inclusion would be improper WP:SYNTH. Neutrality^talk 00:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What exactly do you think was the motivation behind harassing & even threatening w/ death electors casting their votes for Trump? Do you honestly think these were random pranksters? Or perhaps it's obvious to any reasonable person that the harassment & threats were politically motivated? Again, where is this arbitrary line drawn b/w "riots" & all the other violence against Trump supporters? Perhaps it's that cultural difference coming up again, but... I'm not seeing it. Could you please explain your POV on how you think anyone could see this as not specifically politically motivated? Also, this still does not address the point of undue weight on one case vs multiple cases.CitationKneaded (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence. The problem isn't whether the harassment was politically motivated, but whether there's a reliable source which describes it as a protest. If no such source exists, then this belongs elsewhere in Wikipedia, maybe List of United States presidential electors, 2016. ^Falling_Gravity 06:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump State Visit protests

I believe information should be added to this page regarding the recent protests across the UK, pushing for Donald Trump's state visit to be cancelled. Such information includes references to the thousands who protested in Manchester, Cardiff, Glasgow, Edinburgh, London and other cities. It should also reference the petition 'Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom', which as been signed by almost 1,800,000 people, as well as the sister petition, 'Donald Trump should make a State Visit to the United Kingdom', which has garnered over 220,000. In addition, it should be included that this protest has been endorsed by multiple politicians, including Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London), Jeremy Corbyn (Leader of Labour), Tim Farron (Leader of Lib Dems), Caroline Lucas (Leader of Green Party), and Nicola Sturgeon (Leader of SNP). I suggest also mentioning that leading campaign groups have called for 'the largest protest in history' to take place if such a visit actually happens.

Speech500 (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Speech500 — Go ahead, but may I suggest titling it "Donald Trump UK State Visit protests" as there are bound to be more unless he isolates himself entirely. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump's reactions

I think Trump's reactions to the protest is underrepresented here, particularly his backtracking and calling for a cease in injuring protesters. Anyone find more information for it? I feel like his responses to the protests are extremely important since that's the point of protests: enacting change. Laughiumfuntrate (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• You may feel that, but I don't think that's the kind of reaction those protesters are looking for. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Death threats

Despite the edit summary used here by CFCF, the fact that people threatened Donald Trump with death manifestly is relevant to an article about protests against Trump, inasmuch as the threats occurred in the context of protests against him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• With all respect, 90% of that content is not about that, and the very verbose text didn't even say these were "in the context of protests against him"; the title of the reverence suggests it was via Twitter. Now, given Twitter, and given how contentious the election, and given the thousands of graphic death threats all over the country against Obama, we're going to need something more credible and with more meat on its bones. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The content was sourced to references such as this, which is not a citation to Twitter itself. Rather, it is a citation to a newspaper reporting on what was occurring on Twitter, which is something entirely different. The content was clearly relevant and ought not to have been removed. Bad behaviour by people who express opposition to Trump obviously should be mentioned. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Political Rallies (needs source)

"There were occasional incidents of verbal abuse or physical violence, either against protesters or against Trump supporters. While most of the incidents amounted to simple heckling against the candidate, a few people had to be stopped by Secret Service agents. Large-scale disruption forced Trump to cancel a rally in Chicago on March 11, 2016, out of safety concerns." I think this paragraph, under Political Rallies, needs a reference? Laughiumfuntrate (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 15:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

New England Patriots players

At least 6 New England Patriots players have announced they will not visit the White House if the team is invited to honor their Super Bowl win. [1] Most of them have said in some way that it has to do with Trump(only Dont'a Hightower has given a different reason). Would this be a form of protest worth mentioning here? 331dot (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Day Without Immigrants 2017

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

Deploraball

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

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

General Strike

General strike

See also: Day Without Immigrants 2017

An Evening of Resistance Building in Boise, Idaho, on the occasion of the general strike; diverse demographics and advocacy groups were involved in an example of intersectionality.

A nationwide general strike (inspired by a piece in The Guardian by novelist Francine Prose) calling for a "24-hour occupation of public space in protest of the Trump administration's refusal to Honor the Constitution of the United States of America" is scheduled for February 17, 2017, the Friday before the Presidents Day weekend. The non-violent protest calls for people to not spend money, not go to school, and not go to work on that day, unless necessary.

---

The General Strike has been overshadowed by the Women's March and Day Without Immigrants, but it did take place. It's fair to say that it fizzled out, but folks did organize and it receive coverage, so it should be mentioned parenthetically. kencf0618 (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/talking-to-new-yorkers-who-went-on-strike-to-protest-trump http://www.villagevoice.com/news/hundreds-gather-in-washington-square-park-for-first-general-strike-of-2017-9689444

kencf0618 (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Discussion at Talk:Riot

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

Day without women

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

Lede edit: 9 March 2017

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

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

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

Notability of Assassination Attempt on Trump

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

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

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

Sandford decided that "if Trump was elected, it would change the world...somebody had to stand up for America."[3] Prior to the assassination attempt, Sandford had displayed no interest in politics.[5] Following his arrest, Sandford expressed to his father his concern about policies of Trump's such as building a wall along the United States-Mexico border and halting immigration to the United States by Muslims,[6] calling Trump a "racist".[10]

Sandford spent the following year planning, ultimately deciding to attempt the assassination while Trump was addressing a rally in Las Vegas, Nevada on June 18, 2016. He acquired a ticket for the event, and also reserved a ticket for a subsequent rally to be held in Phoenix, Arizona, in case an opportunity did not arise during the Las Vegas rally.[15]

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

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

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

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

Follow-up on RfC

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

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

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

I would suggest waiting as well. I hadn't looked at the article for a long time, but now I get what you're saying. At least wait at a minimum until the planned protests have happened, provided that more do not pop up. At a maximum? 4 to 8 years depending on the 2020 elections. Unless there's some special rule/feature in Wikipedia that allows you to fix the article without people adding on to the lists, you're just going to have to be patient. JaydonBrooks (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Follow up on the RfC Part 2

Right now, I'd suggest making a list of all the unnecessary protests included in this article and protests without one or more non-local source. (Non-local sources include the major news channels; i.e. Fox, CNN, BBC, MSNBC, ABC, NPR) That way it would be easier to just check off a list of what needs to be removed. JaydonBrooks (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Local or non-local sources really doesn't matter much -- rather, it's the quality of the source. The Los Angeles Times is an excellent source with credibility.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:GNG does not mention the concept of local. Local sources are the best positioned sources to report what is happening in places other than the major common news sites (major cities and capitols). And for the pro-Trump crowd, this includes most of that giant swath of red across most of the United States. In other technical areas, we use small specialty publications because they are the best positioned to know the subject. We discount sources based on failures of their credibility or reporting process. Trackinfo (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

National Pride March

I created Draft:National Pride March and invite page watchers to help with its expansion. I am also wondering if the planned protest should be mentioned in this article briefly? There are sources on the draft's talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I should have noted, I am mentioning the draft here because this article clearly mentions Donald Trump. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Bodega protests

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Unlike Sir Joseph's sarcasm, this protest was a cohesive event that involved over 1,000 store owners. That is literally a thousand times more than the insignificance of his example. His protest was not covered by the NY Times or the Guardian, these were. That folks is the difference between notability meeting WP:GNG and not. As I commented above, the events of January 21 dwarf any subsequent protest. The general point is there are a lot of groups (and subjects) that are generating protests. Each is protesting TO get their issue's moment in the sun. As our reporting goes, this is a cumulative effect we are documenting. There are potentially a lot of these kinds of entries coming over the next four years. Trackinfo (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Self-evident nonsense to characterise this as 'small' or only 'locally covered'. Pincrete (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion I suppose it could be moved to Timeline of protests against Donald Trump, but that was a pretty relevant moment. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on splitting this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose split. The article isn't too big per the relevant guideline. It's irrelevant that an arguably equivalent article is much smaller. That said, the "Protests during Trump's presidency," is going to have to be trimmed way down over the next 4 years. There's a lot of recentism in there. (I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose split. per DrFleischman, no need also no advantage to converting to a list AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: this article works well as a main article. Summoned by bot. Prcc27❄ (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (summoned by bot): "For comparison, we have Protests against Barack Obama, but it's short". Well, quite! More seriously, I agree with those above arguing that the article isn't too long as it stands. The suggestion to split the article into campaign and presidency ones seems a good one, but only when there is too much material for a single article, and I don't think we're there yet. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose split I don't see how a lot of this material is going to stick around. Sure, it's relevant enough now that editors can make a case for inclusion, but in ten years a lot of this material will not matter to the overall subject (the campaign and presidency of Trump). Only a handful of these protests will get continued coverage and analysis. As time passes, this article should (and most likely will) shrink. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Some information could be copied into articles about specific protests themselves, but splitting it would make it much more difficult to find. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Day Without a Woman

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

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

LGBT protests against Donald Trump

Page watchers and passersby are invite to help expand LGBT protests against Donald Trump, which is currently incomplete and needs expanding. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"Not My Presidents Day" article merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@JFG: Thanks. Well, IMO, the article should never have been nominated for deletion, and the merge vote was surprising to me. Anyone who actually took time to research the topic would have easily confirmed notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Is it appropriate to remove the merge banner at the top of this page. Another editor and I are verifying there aren't content gaps in the NMPD article, then nominating it for Good status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. — JFG ^talk 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 24 closed with no consensus. There have been several discussions on different pages, so I am archiving this discussion in an attempt to tie up loose ends. Please start a new discussion section if necessary, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

"Multiple cities"

I have removed the phrasing "multiple cities" from the lede; the lede should be a brief summary of the body text and it adds nothing to readers' understanding of the issue. Furthermore, adding "multiple cities" to that particular section creates an imbalance in that we do not say that the protests took place in "multiple cities" — there is thus no particular reason to highlight that in "multiple cities" some of those protestors were violent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, your revert of my edit was simply a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT edit. Also mind WP:DONTREVERT saying not to revert an edit just because it didn't make the article better in your mind. Anti-Trump riots have occurred in multiple cities and I can gladly provide lots of sources for that. TheBD2000 (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a "justdontlikeit" edit — I provided a specific rationale here as to why I don't believe that phrasing belongs in the lede. That phrasing gives greater emphasis to the minor, isolated acts of violence than is justified based upon the reliable sources cited in the article. Not everything belongs in an article lede — we don't say that there were "protests in multiple cities," ergo there's no reason to say that there was "violence in multiple cities." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but the fact is that my edit did not violate any Wikipedia rule. Ergo, there's no reason to revert it. You previously claimed that my edit violated WP:UNDUE, but the page only states that minority views should be given minimal attention. This is a fact, not a view. "Multiple" means "more than one", and there were obviously riots in more than one city. You may not think that it's necessary, but that is no reason to revert it. TheBD2000 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Since it's been two days and you've made other edits but you haven't replied, I'll assume you're done with this issue and I'll re-add my version. TheBD2000 (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, and the next step for you if you think that construction is required, would be to open a request for comment to gain broader input and form a broader consensus. If there's a broader community consensus that that wording is appropriate, so be it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reviewed the sources you cited, and they cite incidents of violence in only four cities: Portland, Washington, D.C., Oakland and Los Angeles. That is not "many cities," that is four cities out of roughly 20,000 incorporated cities and towns in the United States. The sources do not support your claim, and therefore it is inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. All edits must cite a reliable source, and your edit is not supported by any. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want, you could include the phrasing "in four cities, some protestors have rioted," and that would be supported by the sources cited and would be acceptable to me. I don't imagine that has the same effect that you appear to want, but it has the singular virtue that it is verifiable in reliable sources, as required for all Wikipedia content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I can put "in several cities" which is defined as "more than two but not many". TheBD2000 (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Or we could just use the word "four," which is more precise and is what is directly supported by the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Article for May Day protests?

Resolved

Is anyone planning to create a separate article for today's May Day protests? I think there's enough coverage in reliable sources to support one. Not sure what it should be named though. Funcrunch (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I created 2017 May Day protests before seeing this discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Since you added the new article to the template for this page (which is how I, belatedly, found out about it), I thought that you would be looking at this article as well. Funcrunch (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: I just added the page to my watchlist. :) I'll mark this section as resolved since the article has already been created and the community is debating its inclusion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

March for Truth

I went ahead and redirected each of the following pages to this article: March for Truth, March for Truth and Transparency, and People's March for Truth and Transparency. Since every protest article seems to be nominated for deletion unnecessary, I assume starting a draft at Draft:March for Truth may be best. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

National Pride March / LGBT Resist March?

Is the National Pride March / LGBT Resist March worth mentioning in the "planned protests" section? There is an ongoing draft for this event at Draft:National Pride March. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe wait until the article is out of draft form, then add a link to it in the planned section. (And then wait for the inevitable trip to AfD...) Funcrunch (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Sounds good, though I don't think an article about the event is required in order to mention the upcoming protest, much like the March for Truth. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly not required; just a suggestion to head off possible objections (though some of that may be inevitable). Funcrunch (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Noted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Many" in lead

Since this article is under a 1RR restriction and I already made one revert today, I'm bringing this issue to the talk page for discussion. This edit by TheFancyFedoraWielder asserts "Many of the protesters present at each event have been Anarchists, Socialists and Communists." I do not believe this statement (which with five sources is also overcited) is supported by the sources listed, four of which discuss specific protests held in Berkeley (which were actually counterprotests) and on May Day. Funcrunch (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Provided there is adequate RS verification, the ideological composition of these protests is extremely relevant and should not be removed from the lead. That said and with due regard for SYNTH, the sources need to be referencing more than a specific set of protests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

We could equally say, however, that the protests included many progressives, liberals, independents and anti-Trump conservatives - sourcing such a thing would be trivial. At that point, you're basically just listing every political persuasion except fascists. I mean, I guess we can say that, but I'm not sure it belongs in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: "multiple/several cities"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been an undergoing dispute regarding whether to mention the fact that the riots occurred in several cities or to mention the exact number of cities in place of the word several. Read the section Multiple cities to see the full discussion. TheBD2000 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
This RfC has been re-factored by Winged Blades ^Godric at 18:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC) per WP:RFC/HOW.

Survey

• Comment-Can you post the sources? Seraphim System (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Here are my sources, Seraphim System. [3] (Washington, DC) [4] (Portland, OR; New York City, NY; Chicago, IL; Baltimore, MD; Minneapolis, MN; Los Angeles, CA; Crimes were committed in all of these cities) [5] (Atlanta, GA; Miami, FL; Oakland, CA) That is ten cities and I'm sure I can find even more. TheBD2000 (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources you cite say that protestors blocked traffic in Baltimore, Atlanta, Miami and Minneapolis, which is perhaps criminal but hardly can be described as a "riot" or "violent." There is no statement in your cited sources that any crimes were committed in the New York or Chicago protests. So again, yes, we're left with evidence of some violence in protests in Portland, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and Oakland. If you disagree with this analysis, please cite the specific statement in each source which says there was violence or rioting in those cities. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment-As I have noted above, I am perfectly fine with following the sources, which do say that in four cities named in the sources, some protestors were violent (not all the sources use the term "riot" therefore that would be inappropriate). Why TheBD2000 insists on using imprecise language rather than the exact sourceable number is mystifying to me, though it suggests that he wishes to depict the level of violence as being greater and more widespread than the sources say was actually the case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It should reflect the source, as should use of the word riot, which is appropriate for the protests - unless you are discussing specific instances that involved violence (usually against Trump supporters.) Not all protesters who rioted were violent. Seraphim System (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Use Direct Quotes (Summoned by bot.) If the sources say "several" (or "riot" or "rascals" or whatever,) quote them as saying as much. If not, not. Costatitanica (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Exact number and quote sources. — JFG ^talk 00:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mention of Riots in Lead

The following sentence is in the article's introduction:

"While most protests have been peaceful, some protesters have rioted, destroyed property, and attacked Trump supporters."

Given that there have been protesters in the millions and rioters and violent protests in the thousands at most, this means that this represents less than one one-thousandth of a percent of the protesters. I believe this should therefore not be mentioned in the lead as it is so insignificant. What are others' thoughts? Kylelovesyou (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Given that there has been violence, that sentence seems appropriate to lede. But given that there have, in fact, been so few violent incidents and masive crows at a large number of protests, I'm gonna go ahead and swap in "almost entirely" for "most."E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Trump resistance

Consolidate the information regarding anti-Trump movements into the most heavily researched page (currently Protests_against_Donald_Trump). 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Not all the forms of resistance are protests, though. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point. For example, there have been several prominent organizations that 1) have formed in reaction to Trump's election and 2) aren't directly involved in organizing protests. Indivisible movement, Flippable.com, Resistance School... I'm sure there are more. I think the Trump resistance article could definitely stand on its own, so I don't think it should be merged. Bobnorwal (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The anti-Trump resistance include members of the Democrat Party, the liberal biased news media and the so-called "Never-Trumpers" movement. Additionally, it is speculated that a Deep state or a Shadow government exists in the United States and coordinated the resistance. Not really the same as Protests against Donald Trump

Let us eat lettuce (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (Spelled properly) The protests are just one symptom and a voluminous symptom at that. We do not need to merge and reduce this subject, we have many sidebars to allow for expansion without affecting this one article. The resistance has other manifestations that are political and organizational. And that article is hugely incomplete at this time. Those aspects need to be expanded within the trump resistance article while adding this as a sidebar. Trackinfo (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with David Weigel in that the Trump resistance wiki is hugely incomplete. May I suggest the incorporation of elements of my sandbox I.E. Trump resistance and subheading Initial Resistance Efforts. I may be wrong but, but The itemized activities are legitimate activities of resistance. without Resubmitting or pasting them into the Talk page of Trump resistance can this be reviewed?? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nihilistic NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• @NewsAndEventsGuy, Let us eat lettuce, Trackinfo, Bobnorwal, and N I H I L I S T I C: in case they want to weign in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump resistance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a guess but I think most of us have already commented over there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

refs for this thread

References

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Trump resistance which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do pages like Opposition to Donald Trump redirect here

I guess people are unaware that there's anything else going on in opposition to Donald Trump besides a few protests? There are more than 1,000 Democratic candidates running in the 2018 congressional race. But I guess that has nothing to do with Trump? Mister Ernest Thayer (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree there is plenty of material in the RSs for a broader article, and there have been attempts to write one, but so far none have garnered sufficient attention from competent editors to survive AFD. If you want to try starting one, I suggest doing a WP:USERDRAFT and if you want help posting links at various pages inviting people to contribute. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment March

I redirected Impeachment March to this article. Feel free to expand, if enough coverage exists to justify a standalone article. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I should have some pix from the SF march up on Commons by tomorrow. Funcrunch (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Fantastic! Thank you. If you have any thoughts re: whether or not a standalone article is appropriate, I'm curious (knowing the article will likely be AfD'd, given recent Trump-related article creations). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Looks to me like there's at least as much news coverage of this event as there was for the March for Truth, so I think a standalone article is justified. Need to take a break from editing now, but if you do start a new article feel free to copy over the text I've already posted in this one. Funcrunch (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done See Impeachment March. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Future of this article

I made some minor contributions to this article by adding some contributions in the way of footnotes to mainstream news sources.

What is the future of this article going to be? The article lists 23 protests in the first 6 months of Trump's presidency. American/European politics is growing more polarized due to issues such as immigration and identity politics. So I am assuming the opposition to Trump is not going to let up even if he manages to substantially improve America's economy.

If am correct, the article could easily grow to over 120 protests. And if Trump is re-elected, the article could grow to over 240 protests. The article could easily become unwieldy.

Also, in politics, for every action there is often a reaction. Shouldn't the issue of Trump attracting large crowds for his rallies be noted? Trump generally attracts these large crowds without the use of entertainers to boost crowd sizes. During the election, Hillary Clinton generally was not able to attract the same large crowd sizes to her speeches without the use of entertainers. And shouldn't the Polish people's receptivity to Trump's speech in their country be noted? I bring up these issues in order to have the article adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Knox490 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the answer to your first question is simply that we'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it. Note that unwieldy articles can be split – see, for example, Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama, which would be excessively long if it were a single article, so is split into nine. In response to your second question, I would say that information on protests in support of Donald Trump do not belong in an article on protests against Donald Trump, for the same reason that praise for Wikipedia is not included in Criticism of Wikipedia, and so on. I would however point you to List of rallies for the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and List of post election Donald Trump rallies. Perhaps neither of those articles are quite what you're looking for – for example, they don't include rallies held in support of Trump which Trump did not attend. But that would be an issue to discuss at those articles' talk pages, rather than here. (Finally, I'd like to politely remind you to keep talk page comments focused on improving the article under discussion. Your feelings about the reasons for political polarisation in the U.S. are not relevant here, nor is anything to do with Hillary Clinton as far as I can tell. Keeping things laser-focused on improving the encyclopaedia helps to avoid unnecessary antagonism and disputes.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)