Talk:r/The_Donald

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the R/The Donald article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

R/The Donald has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 16, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

no consensus, 15 December 2016, see discussion.
no consensus, 30 July 2016, see discussion.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Presidential elections / Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

(March 29, 2017) and (July 12, 2017) The Verge articles regarding the subreddit's stance on "Net Neutrality".

Minimizing radicalizing effect

Why no mention in the article of the T_D poster who murdered his dad after his dad called him a Nazi?

https://www.businessinsider.com/former-milo-yiannopoulos-intern-killed-his-own-father-alt-right-circles-online-trump-2017-10

merge patriots.win into the section on R/The_Donald

A page called 'Scored (Social Media)' was created about patriots.win. contents was moved to page 'Patriots.win'. However, contents should probably be merge into the The_Donald as standalone article doesn't add any value. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content on Patriots.win came from here. I've just reverted that page back to a redirect for simplicity. Anarchyte (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

r/The Donald to r/The_Donald

Since it had an underscore in the Reddit wriiting, shouldn't it have one here? I know pages have to start with a capital or something, but since the subtitle has a lowercase "r" in front I figure this should work, however I could imagine that as the intent was to have a space a space also could be appropriate VETBAITEDLV (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

84.15.184.44 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of new website

Would be nice if this article has a screenshot of that new website that was moved from r/The_Donald. Just not quite sure if it's worth the spending of a fair use image. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New academic source

Was published at the end of April, it seems.

r/The_Donald Had a Forum: How Socialization in Far-Right Social Media Communities Shapes Identity and Spreads Extreme Rhetoric - American Politics Research

Might be a useful addition to the article for the Good Article nomination going on, Yoshiman6464. Silver seren^C 18:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren: Thank you so much! I'll look into it if I can. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 08:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 review is transcluded from Talk:R/The Donald/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Yoshiman6464 (talk · contribs) 15:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 02:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article shortly. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: Thank you so much! In anticipation of the upcoming election, I nominated this article a while back as it highlights a past controversial subreddit about Trump. Since its user base splintered post-ban, I believe it's good to nominate r/The_Donald now. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvio issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm going to put this on hold until Yoshiman6464 Can address my comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] On hold until Yoshiman6464 can address my feedback. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Article is well sourced, neutral, follows MOS and all of GARC. Pass. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 08:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you have citations in the lead? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a bit of overlinking going on throughout the article, I took care of some of it but that's something to look out for. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Just looking at the sources, there are some less reliable ones used such as salon, Forbes, The daily beast, newsweek, International Business Times, Techcrunch, youtube, FoxNews, HuffPost, The Inquisitr, and Mashable. Some of these sources are more unreliable than others and I may need to seek out a second opinion on how big of a deal this is. If you could replace some of those that would be good. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I asked around off-wiki and I'm okay with you keeping the salon, The Daily Beast, techchrunch, and huffpost as those are more borderline but the other sources should be replaced considering this is a political article. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image was accompanied by a photoshopped picture of an aged Byrd in Klan garb, which was meant to falsely portray Clinton and Byrd as Klan supporters. Byrd had severed ties with the Ku Klux Klan in 1952. Appears to be unsourced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Reddit Director of Communications stated that the subscriber discrepancy was a simple labeling error wherein the count for "daily unique visitors" was mistakenly labeled as "subscribers" and that the error would be partially fixed by the end of the day. appears to be unsourced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When asked why the r/The_Donald community was not banned from the website, Huffman replied that "Banning them probably won't accomplish what you want. However, letting them fall apart from their own dysfunction probably will." Appears to be unsourced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: I have made all the changes that you wanted. I removed the citations in the Lead, while moving some of them in the body of the article. I clarified and/or removed any uncited sources. I also removed all the unreliable sources. And finally, I cleared some of the overlinking in this article. Let me know what you think of this article. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The youtube and medium links should ideally be replaced but if that is not possible let me know. I'll proceed with my review for now. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked every 8th ref ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]) and found no issues so stopped checking I will continue to spot check as I go. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

It was ranked as one of the most active communities on Reddit. When was it ranked one of the most active (if the article says when later on then you don't need to add that to the lead but if it doesn't then maybe add that) IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
including an overhaul of the Reddit software I feel like this part could be removed from the lead since it doesn't make much sense without more of an explanation however adding an explanation doesn't seem warranted for the lead. Maybe rewrite as Activities by members and moderators of the subreddit were controversial, and site-wide administrators took steps to prevent the subreddit from having popular content displayed on Reddit's r/all forum, which the company's motto describes as "the front page of the Internet". IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
custom CSS Spell out acronyms in full upon first usage. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rewrite Reddit banned the subreddit for frequent rule-breaking, for antagonizing the company and other communities, and for failing to "meet our most basic expectations". as Reddit banned the subreddit for frequent rule-breaking, antagonizing the company and other communities, and failing to "meet our most basic expectations". IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

On June 27, 2015, shortly after Donald Trump announced his campaign for the presidency at Trump Tower, the subreddit was created as a place for "following the news related to Donald Trump during his presidential run". mentioning where he announced his campaign seems unnecessary in my opinion. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GOPer with 'landslide victory' potential Could you put what GOPer stands for in square brackets beside the term? IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In November 2016, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman reported that the subreddit's moderator team had changed "at least four times" due to the community revolting. Could you clarify if this is about the mods of the R/The donald subreddit or workers for reddit? IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a 501(c)(4) organization Does this just mean non-profit? IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe change Starting in February 2017, the subreddit was notably excluded from Reddit's updated homepage, r/popular, along with other "narrowly-focused politically-related subreddits". to Starting in February 2017, the subreddit, along with other "narrowly-focused politically-related subreddits", was notably excluded from Reddit's updated homepage, r/popular. for clarity. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the beginning of January 2017, after BuzzFeed published the Steele dossier Fpr context purposes could you include a one line explanation of what the Steele dossier is? IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the subreddit maintained a Discord server called "Centipede Central", which peaked at 16,000 active users when did it peak? IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When asked for comment, a Reddit spokesperson stated that Reddit had strengthened its hate speech and violence policies over the last several years. When asked about users from r/The_Donald posting in the r/newzealand subreddit after the attack, the moderators of r/newzealand noted that the users often employ dog-whistle verbiage, making it difficult to discern which content posted should have action taken against it. could you change one of these sentences so they don't both start with "when asked"? IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Influence

Because the Influence section is so small I feel like "Relationship to Trump" could be moved under influence as a subheading. But let me know what you think. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prominence on Reddit

Through the use of "sticky posts", a moderation function of Reddit that allows selected posts to be placed on top of all other posts on the subreddit, the moderators of the forum were "gaming" the algorithms[77][78] in order to dominate the content on the r/all page, which is a representation of the most popular content on the website. This sentence doesn't really make sense to me. I've reread it about 5 times trying to figure it out and just can't is there any way you could make this sentence flow better and make more sense? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

In December 2016, the subreddit gained media attention when it linked a knee injury sustained by NBA player Andrew Bogut to the conspiracy theory Could you clarify if this is about the pizzagate or Donald subreddit? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several members of the subreddit planned a march on Washington, D.C. Did this march ever take place? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media reception

I think you may have messed up a ref here as there is a part of the text that just is <refSeptember/> name=. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Motherboard interviewed a moderator of the subreddit, who said "[t]he people from /pol/ who can behave, which is probably most of them, stay. The people who don't behave usually wind up getting banned for rule 3." Is there any way you could explain what rule 3 is? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

I think with a few adjustments this article could definitely meet GAC. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: Thank you so much for the comments. I will address your comments throughout the next week. I'll let you know when I am 100% done. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiman6464 Just a reminder that as of tomorrow this review will have been on hold for a week. If you cannot start to address my feedback within the next few days I will have to close this review as unsuccessful. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense My apologies for the delay, I am NOW free to check the article. I'll send you my comments by the end of the weekend. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense I finally checked the article; I addressed every comment that you have written down. I logged all of my changes in the article's history page. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on incorperating my feedback! The changes look great! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 08:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.