Talk:Never Trump movement/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

A good start

A good start to a very important article. Convention July 18-21, and 'bartering' leading up to it, will be very interesting. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Defining terms

Senator Ted Cruz described the of national convention types, (some may happen):

Contested convention: no candidate has the simple majority on the first vote.
Open convention: same. Votes are taken until a hopeful has more than 1,236 votes.
Brokered convention: all rules are off (if possible) and anti-Trump forces decide the Nomination.
Brokered convention: Could this also happen with repeated voting and 'deals' being brokered?

Commentators and writers sometimes confuse and mix the terms. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

NYT article

I put my my article from the NYT back in. It's not an opinion piece; it's a news article. I think it belongs in the Lead (where I originally put it), but will leave it in the the background. Costatitanica (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The quote is someone's opinion and doesn't add to the encyclopedic understanding of the subject. Quotes should be used very sparingly. The lead is a summary of the article, not simply a place to put favored content. Please see WP:LEAD. I would be interested in hearing what makes the material in question more important that the plethora of other similar material that appeared in the news in the past day or so.- Mr X 01:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's someone's opinion. This article is about opposition to Trump. When people are opposed to something or someone, they almost always have an opinion. That's why they're opposed in the first place. And a movement is often made up of people with leaders who've expressed their opinions.

I would be interested in hearing what makes the material in question more important that the plethora of other similar material that appeared in the news in the past day or so

I picked an article that I thought was relevant. I'm not sure what you want. As you note, there have been a plethora of such articles. Given your coat rack position, I doubt you would want me to include all of them. Costatitanica (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

NeverTrump.com

MrX, would it be permissible to mention, elsewhere in the article, that the movement has an ongoing petition (particularly as this is a significant feature of the movement)? If so, would it be permissible to cite the petition as a reference rather than an external link? Similarly, would it be permissible to discuss within the article the movement's use of the popular #NeverTrump hashtag (possibly along with the number of occurrences on Twitter? I ask this, not to promote the movement - anyone interested will have no trouble using Google to locate the petition - but to provide information pertinent to the breadth of the movement. 71.88.53.178 (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to mention the petition, but it should be cited to one or more secondary sources, not the petition itself. As longs as we do that, I don't object to also adding the petition itself as a supporting source.- Mr X 19:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Arguments For And Against Never Trump

I think the article would be better of with arguments for and against (Republicans/ Conservatives) continuing to oppose Trump. I think it would easier to read that just having a jumble of 'reactions'. Costatitanica (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point, the idea that the Republicans could run any candidate that could beat Hillary seems to have gone out the window. This would require a massive rules change to open up the convention again, and that would so embitter Trump supporters that they wouldn't vote for the Republican candidate, and Trump might run as an independent candidate. On the other hand, if Trump is the candidate, he will lose badly to Hillary, and then Republicans will have a justification for changing the rules for the next Presidential primary, perhaps with a superdelegate system like the Democrats have, where establishment Republicans can keep the nut jobs from winning. Of course, there's still the risk that the anti-establishment portion of the Republican party may split off, but that may be the incentive the Republican party needs to move back towards the center, pick up some independents and conservative Democrats, and become a viable contender in the Presidential race again. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about that now. The question (for people who despise him, obviously) is whether to 1) Hold your nose and vote for him. 2) Run as, or support, a 3rd party candidate. 3) Stay home 4) vote for Hillary.

In any case, I have my opinions and I'm sure you have yours, but neither is really relevant. If you have a sourced item, fine. If not, not. We probably shouldn't even be having this discussion given the notice at the top of the talk page. But the heck with that, I guess :) Costatitanica (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Confusion Regarding Movement Labels

I propose that this article be preserved as the location for the general, still-coalescing movement of (largely conservative) individuals opposed to the notion of Trump becoming president of the United States, rather than an article pertaining to any one anti-trump movement. There is confusion, maybe only on my part, because there is 1) a global dislike of Trump, 2) a nationwide dislike of Trump, 3) a conservative dislike of Trump, 4) an ambiguous-level of dislike of Trump collected under the vague banner of "NeverTrump", "#NeverTrump", "DumpTrump", etc. Any suggestions on how to proceed concerning the direction of this article as we move forward? 71.88.53.178 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What if this "still-coalescing movement" is one of the anti-Trump movements? This article will evolve as Trumps' detractors become more organized which will require media coverage. We can't preserve articles for what might be, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that describe what already exists. I'm sure this article will be undergoing regular changes from now until November. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The use of the word "preserved" is probably inappropriate, probably since it inadvertently references Wiki-speak that I am unfamiliar with. To clarify what was meant: I was looking into the petition started by what is now variably referred to as the NeverTrump PAC, the Never Means Never Pac, and the #NeverTrump Movement. Based on the articles I referenced for the content I added (regarding the petition), and based on NeverTrump.com's own website, all three of these titles refer to the same group, I believe. But the #NeverTrump title is used by several other groups/individuals, as well, some with varying messages (e.g., stop Trump from getting the nomination, stop Trump from getting the White House, conservatives against Trump, all walks opposed to Trump, etc.). I caught myself wanting to change the article title to "#NeverTrump Movement" so as to provide clarity, but realized this would exclude other groups, as well as individuals opposed to Trump but not officially part of a/the "(#)NeverTrump" movement. Basically, I think this article should remain broad enough to encompass this trend, while still remaining strict enough in definition to exclude, say, democrats voting for Clinton. 71.88.53.178 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be subsections for the various organizations in opposition to Trump, excluding the Democrats, as their opposition is part of the normal political process. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Anti Trump versus Never Trump

I've added some info from people who are utterly opposed to Trump. I think the article should be divided between people who have simply expressed vehement opposition to Trump and ones that promise to actually not vote for him even if he's the nominee. It should also note people who shift from the latter category to the former, if and when that happens. Costatitanica (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)]

(I wrote that yesterday, before he won Indiana and became the presumptive nominee.) Costatitanica (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is not about people opposed to Trump; it's about the organized effort to prevent his nomination. This is firmly established in the lead sentence.- Mr X 01:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect, and you should stay your cutting weapon before getting up to speed on the matter at hand. "And we will do our part to deny Donald Trump the Republican nomination and ensure that he never becomes Commander-in-Chief. Never means never." (https://nevertrump.com/) 71.88.53.178 (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is not a WP:COATRACK for everyone with an opinion about Trump

This article is about an organized movement, not an indiscriminate collection of quotes from everyone with an opinion. In fact, the only quotes that should be included are those that have been covered extensively by third-party sources. This is covered in our bedrock policy WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUEWEIGHT. Some recent edits seem to be using this article as a WP:COATRACK.- Mr X 01:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the article was a coat rack. It looks nothing like the articles cited in that essay. In fact, I think you've turned it into more of a stub. At any rate, what really matters is NPOV. If you feel my edits were biased, please explain why or, better, add the opposing side. Simply deleting things you find 'awkward' doesn't quite cut it. Costatitanica (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

MrX, you do seem to make your cuts quite liberally; your talk page has certainly reflected such throughout your time here. As I said below, I think your intentions are good. However, the outright slashing of large portions of material which people have worked to collect and put together comes across as quite rude and inconsiderate. I have seen this done differently - not by fiat, not automatically - where removals are proposed on the talk page and discussed. Instead, you seem to be judge, jury, and executioner (which is not to say you do not do a lot of good for this encyclopedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.184.59 (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

MrX, I included the quote concerning Mr. Sullivan as I thought it impertinent to cite his name without reference. The article in question has received a good deal of attention. Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.53.178 (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not following you. I think it's OK to briefly explain the noteworthy views of a notable person who has articulated a view about the stop trump movement. That doesn't require, nor does the article benefit from a direct quote. In this context, New York Magazine is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. It's also problematic when the content starts off with "Trump is not just a wacky politician..." - Mr X 01:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I was following the existing spirit of the article, where notable names were mentioned or listed and associated opinions were quoted. Whether or not you agree or disagree with these opinions, it is a fact that the people in question hold them (which is quite relevant when discussing a current and pertinent movement). However, I agree that it is problematic given the objective position of Wikipedia, and I also don't wish to see this or other articles devolve into quote-spamming. I am listing two prominent conservative journalists, David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan, with simple references to articles supporting their positions on the topic at hand. I take it you would like to see these articles come from sources other than themselves in order to prove the authors' importance? I was confused because... Brooks and Sullivan... it is kind of strange to have to prove their popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.53.178 (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MrX, not so much that the article is a coatrack, but that there's a key difference between having anti-Trump views and being part of a concerted anti-Trump movement. As currently framed, this article is about concerted efforts and therefore should not list all of the people who have, for instance, tweeted that they won't vote for Trump. Those aren't concerted efforts, they're personal views. I think the easiest way to fix this discordance is to reframe the article by getting rid of the word "concerted" in the intro and by retitling the section "Efforts" to "Notable participants" or somesuch. I am not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine removing the word concerted, since there are now multiple efforts with various degrees of organization. At the same time, I think we need to remove the names of people who are merely passively "not endorsing" or "not voting" for Trump, regardless of how notable the people are. An IP editor just added the Bushes. There is nothing more in the source than speculation that Jeb "endorsed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in March but used the endorsement mainly as an effort to stop Trump." The source says nothing about either George trying to stop Trump.- Mr X 17:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Content Dump

I don't have patience to fight with Mr X. I'm going to put my stuff here on the talk page and let the chips fall where they may. (I may add stuff as I come across them.)

Conservative columnist Ben Shapiro in an article titled I Will Never Vote For Donald Trump. Here's Why, stated: "In every election cycle, the establishment insists that we unify behind a candidate who does not reflect conservatism because elections are always a choice between the two worst options. They blackmail conservatives into supporting candidates who undermine the message and morality of our mission. Now Trump does the same. The establishment created the Donald Trump phenomenon with their 'best of two bad options' logic, and now Trump is using that logic to destroy conservatism openly. The establishment doesn’t object to Trumpism. They only object to Trump. Strip the drunken boor antics from Trump, and you’ve got John McCain who will lie transparently to pander to the populist wing.

We don’t have to be complicit... Alexander Hamilton once wrote, 'If we must have an enemy at the head of government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.' Let us not be our own enemies.""SHAPIRO: I Will Never Vote For Donald Trump. Here's Why". Daily Wire.</ref> He later re-iterated his stance in an article titled What Next For #NeverTrump? Never Means Never. <ref>http://www.dailywire.com/news/5293/what-next-nevertrump-never-means-never-ben-shapiro "Conservatives who back Trump to defeat Hillary are not merely willing to toss conservatism into the trunk – they’re willing to allow Trump to take it out to a hole in a cornfield, Casino-style, beat it savagely, and bury it alive. At least we won’t get Hillary, they say as they grab a shovel."

Opposition To Trump After His Becoming Presumptive Presidential Nominee

According to the New York Times, "Now that Donald J. Trump is the presumptive presidential nominee, a parade of prominent Republican leaders is breaking with the traditions and rituals of party unity and offering him a blunt message:

Nope. Never. I can’t. I won’t." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/us/politics/trump-gop.html

Costatitanica (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's some more:

Paul Ryan: 'I'm just not ready' to back Donald Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-gop-nominee/

"Ryan's position makes him the highest-level GOP official to reject Trump since the real estate mogul became the last candidate standing in the party's nominating contest. His move gives down-ballot Republicans cover to hold off on supporting Trump. It could also keep his agenda in the House from being overtaken by Trump's policy positions.

Ryan said he hopes to eventually back Trump and "to be a part of this unifying process." The first moves, though, must come from Trump, he said.

Ryan said he wants Trump to unify 'all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of."

"And we've got a ways to go from here to there,' Ryan said."

Ten third-party candidate names at top of Never Trump’s list

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/278929-ten-third-party-candidate-names-at-top-of-never-trumps-list

#WeCanDoBetter: 'Never Trump' Republicans Turn to Dreams of Drafting 'Adult' Third-Party Candidate

http://www.people.com/article/never-trump-republicans-third-party-candidate

"In a Facebook manifesto published Thursday morning, rising-star Republican and Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse argued that neither political party is working and called for a one-term, "problem-solver" candidate for this "messy moment."

"Why shouldn't America draft an honest leader who will focus on 70% solutions for the next four years? You know ... an adult?" he asked before closing his nearly 1,500-word open letter with the hash tags #WeCanDoBetter and #GiveUsMoreChoices. "

"George H.W. Bush, for the first time since his own presidency, is staying mum on the presidential race. Neither he nor his son former President George W. Bush have plans to endorse Trump, their respective spokesmen told PEOPLE.

Nevada Sen. Dean Heller told the Associated Press he "vehemently" opposes Trump, though he vowed he will not vote for Clinton."

"Sen. John McCain argued that stopping Trump is also about keeping down-ticket Republicans like himself alive.

"If Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket, here in Arizona, with over 30 percent of the vote being the Hispanic vote, no doubt that this may be the race of my life," McCain said at a fundraiser in Arizona last month, according to a recording of the event obtained by Politico. "If you listen or watch Hispanic media in the state and in the country, you will see that it is all anti-Trump. The Hispanic community is roused and angry in a way that I've never seen in 30 years.""

Costatitanica (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I think there's some usable source content here. It just needs to be summarized and contextualized as prose, as opposed to dumping a listing of quotes into the article.- Mr X 16:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

No fundamental disagreement about summarizing. I do think direct quotes have the advantage in that the quotation marks around them make clear that it the source of the quote's opinion and not Wikpedia's. An editor's 'summary' and 'contextualization' always runs the risk of distortion (not necessarily intentional). That's why I prefer 'straight from the horse's mouth' as my default. Obviously I realize that we can't just cut and paste entire articles, but I don't think that a few sentences is too much. We aren't running out of cyberspace anytime soon. Costatitanica (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's a link to google news "Never trump" items.

Costatitanica (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Reactions/Critiscm of Never Trump Content Dump

Per anonymous user's suggestion, I'm creating this subsection

Republicans Gingrich, Hannity, and Carson Fire Back at Paul Ryan

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2016/05/06/republicans-fire-back-at-paul-ryan-n2159067

Costatitanica (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

National Review Anti Trump

Here's a link to "against trump national review" google search

N.R. devoted a special issue earlier in the campaign to denouncing Trump

Costatitanica (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"Trump's empty administration"

From Politico: "Top Republican political leaders aren’t the only ones shunning their party’s presidential nominee — a vast number of highly skilled managers and policy experts, veterans of recent GOP administrations who would normally be expected to fill key positions for a new White House, are also vowing to sit out a Donald Trump presidency".

"...the absence of policy veterans in a new administration would have a substantive effect on the running of government."

Costatitanica (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Jews, Christians

http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/where_do_jewish_conservatives_stand_on_trump "Weinstein, like many Jewish thought-leaders in the conservative world, says he not only will not support the inevitable Republican nominee — he would prefer another four years of a Democrat in the White House if Trump is the only alternative. And this is not only because of the danger he believes Trump poses to America; he also sees Trump as a long-term threat to conservatism and fears the movement may not recover from a Trump presidency."

"Although all conservatives and Republicans in the #NeverTrump crowd say they will never cast a vote for the real-estate developer and reality TV star, they differ in what they will do. Some, like Shapiro, say they will vote on Nov. 8, but only for “down-ballot” races like the Senate and House. Others, like Weinstein, say they will vote for Clinton as the anti-Trump vote, absent a third-party conservative option."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/how-donald-trump-has-split-the-christian-right.html "Now that Trump has triumphed, however, there's a stirring among Christian conservatives that goes far beyond the usual pre-convention demands that the party and its candidate make social issues a priority and eschew any heresies. It's best reflected in the war of words that has broken out between Trump and his camp and Russell Moore, chief political spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention. Throughout the 2016 primaries, Moore has excoriated Trump and warned conservative evangelicals to reject his devilish charms. But now he's lashing out at Trump-supporting evangelicals with a level of contempt usually reserved for liberal secularists (per this passage from his recent New York Times op-ed):

'A white American Christian who disregards nativist language is in for a shock. The man on the throne in heaven is a dark-skinned, Aramaic-speaking “foreigner” who is probably not all that impressed by chants of “Make America great again.'"

Costatitanica (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump campaign eyes #NeverTrump blacklist

"As Trump moves to work in closer concert with the Republican National Committee apparatus, some campaign aides and allies are pushing him to block lucrative party contracts from consultants who worked to keep him from winning the nomination, according to four sources familiar with the discussions." "The blacklist talk — which sources say mostly targets operatives who worked for Never Trump groups, but also some who worked for Trump’s GOP presidential rivals or their supportive super PACs — strikes against a Republican consulting class that Trump has assailed as a pillar of a corrupt political establishment. It’s a sweet bit of turnabout for Trump aides and consultants who in recent months were warned that their work for the anti-establishment billionaire real estate showman could diminish their own career prospects."

Costatitanica (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Tone/Neutrality/Whatever

From just a cursory examination, it seems to me that this article is a bit biased in favor of its subject, and appears to cherry-pick information to suit an anti-Trump case. Is it just me or is that what's going on here? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 04:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please be specific. The article as a whole is not biased in favor of its subject, but some of the newer material may be.- Mr X 10:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The final entry in "Government officials" is a little redundant, and it's obviously a quote from members of the movement that the article concerns. I mean, the list under Efforts is a little long as it is, but that redundant and unspecific point seems to me like one of the more glaring problems with neutrality here. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 13:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is not a listing of people who don't support Trump

I have removed the extensive listing of people who don't support Trump, or who have not endorsed him. I imagine that such a list would number in the millions, but this article is about the Stop Trump Movement, and active efforts by organizations and people to prevent his nomination. - Mr X 15:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that this article should be about Stop Trump movement and not about non-supporters (etc), your sledgehammer approach may be counterproductive to whomever spent the time to gather this information.

From this, Time (magazine) said "... Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, a leader of the GOP’s #NeverTrump movement who has been a vocal critic on television." So a leader was deleted. My guess is more are referenced as 'Stop Trump movement affiliated. 141.218.37.118

Removal of Bret Stephens from list of Republican journalists and commentators who oppose Trump

Hello - I have read the RFC section above, but still I must ask about the removal of a recent addition I made to the journalists list - Bret Stephens is the foreign affairs columnist for the Wall Street Journal and won a Pulitzer Prize for his writings at that publication. He has repeatedly criticized Trump, and recently did so on Fareed Zakaria's show on CNN. I don't understand the argument that Stephens is not part of the Stop Trump (or Never Trump, or whatever one wants to call it) movement but, say, George Will or David Brooks or Ben Shapiro are. Any comments on this? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering if it would be best to have two articles - one on the Never Trump movement, and a separate List of Republicans and conservatives who oppose Donald Trump or the like. Just an idle thought. Neutrality^talk 02:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are many people listed in this article who don't belong, per the subject scope and the above RfC. I certainly would not stand in the way of creating an article listing people who have publicly said they will not support, endorse, or vote for Trump.- Mr X 03:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd wait a few more weeks and possibly after the party convention to make another article. At that point, it will be more clear regarding the conservatives making intentional efforts towards stopping Trump, versus those just unwilling to support him, versus those that do support him. As for the movement, I think it is still able to evolve quickly, especially if somebody (David French??)http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-31/kristol-eyes-conservative-lawyer-for-independent-presidential-run steps up to run an Independent candidacy. At that point, it will be much, much clearer who is and who isn't involved in the movement based on their support for either the Independent candidate or Trump, respectively. MrVenaCava (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead

The last sentence of the lead reads as follows: Cruz's campaign is still active as of today regardless of whether he suspended his campaign or not. At first I was about to only remove as of today but maybe the whole sentence is no longer fact and needs to be removed. Thoughts? Buster Seven Talk 12:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely remove it. It belongs in Cruz's article, if anywhere.- Mr X 13:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Buster Seven Talk 21:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article list people who have merely stated that they will not endorse, support, or vote for Trump?

There is a clear consensus that the article should not list people who have merely stated that they will not endorse, support, or vote for Trump. Cunard (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

RfC: Should this article list people who have merely stated that they will not endorse, support, or vote for Trump, without having made any active effort toward preventing his nomination as part of the Stop Trump Movement?- Mr X 02:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess that sort of begs the question of whether this article should be more "Stop Trump" or "Never Trump". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Default to no unless reliable sources specifically associate them with the movement. We have to follow what reliable sources say. ~ Rob^Talk 02:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
No. Otherwise you'd have to list just about every Democrat in the United States.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
No, per my previous comments on this page. The article is about the Stop Trump Movement (I should know, I started it), not a list of everyone who will not support, endorse, or vote for Trump. The disputed material is entirely out of scope and renders the article a WP:COATRACK.- Mr X 17:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
No The movement is not clearly defined and we should not identify people as members of it unless there is consensus in reliable sources that they are. TFD (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
No – Logical fallacy. — JFG ^talk 07:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
No. If there's anything notable in someone's opinion about Trump, it should be placed in that person's own article (again, if it is remarkable enough to be included). Longbyte1 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
No - While the list of non-supporters grows daily and the names of some is newsworthy, it doesn't mean they are members of any anti-Trump movement. Maybe after November 8, a more accurate membership list can be created. Buster Seven Talk 12:09, 19 June 2016 (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.

Romney

While Romney's efforts to stop Trump are documented in this article, I noticed Romney isn't actually included on the list of Never-Trumpers. Do you think it would be redundant to include him there too, or do you think we should? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, since this is not the never-Trump article. Any names listed in this article that (accoriding the cited sources) are not actors in the Stop Trump movement will be removed per the RfC above.- Mr X 16:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It does seem like Romney is a key actor in organized efforts to stop Trump. See this, for example. He has actively tried to recruit a third party candidate and was supportive of David A. French's potential bid. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree.- Mr X 17:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

My question is, since he's mentioned in the prose section of Trump opponents, is it redundant to also mention him in the list section? The list section is introduced as "Other Republicans who have refused to support Trump include..." So that made me think it would be redundant, however, other people already mentioned in the section (Erick Erickson, William Kristol, etc.) are mentioned in both places, so perhaps Romney should be in the list too? Safehaven86 (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would be redundant, but that list is going away for the reasons articulated in the RfC. The list doesn't belong in this article. There may be a few people listed who are active in the Stop trump movement which is why I haven't already removed the entire list. It will take time to review all of the sources.- Mr X 18:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what's going on here. We still have an enormous list. And it makes a lot more sense to include Graham and Romney in the list and remove the word "other" than to not include them. john k (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD?

This article, which claims "Never Trump" as a synonym, was created some hours after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Never Trump" movement was closed as delete. @MrX: Were you aware of this? I see you didn't participate in that AfD. Not saying it's the same content, of course, but I'm surprised that I don't see someone bringing this up already... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I became aware of it after I created the article. There is a lot of confusion among sources about whether the terms are synonymous or not. So much for fact checking.- Mr X 15:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors still adding lists of people who aren't voting for Trump

This article is about a movement, not a list of people who don't like Trump, or who are not voting for him. We recently had an RfC on this, so edits contrary to that consensus will be removed unless a new consensus is established. I'm opening this section so that editors wishing to add these lists of people will explain how the sources connect those people with the Stop Trump movement.- Mr X 23:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, these are the only individuals that are allowed to be listed on this page?

Republicans who are part of organized Republican groups that make public statements that Trump should not be nominated or elected;
Republicans that are engaged in organized behind-the-scenes efforts to prevent Trump’s nomination or election that have been reported on by reputable sources.

Simply being a Republican and making an individual public statement that one is not voting for the Republican nominee does not make one eligible for this page, even though that adds to the effort to prevent Trump’s nomination or election in a small way.

Elaboration?

— Andy Anderson 01:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a not a list article at all. It's also not an abstract concept in which we can ignore the word "movement" and add anything that can plausibly be associated with stopping Trump. This is an encyclopedia article about a specific organized movement started by Erick Erickson. It failed to gain any momentum and fizzled out well before the Republican convention. The scope of this article does not include a listing of people who have publicly criticized Trump, refused to support him, or who have said they won't vote for him. Feel free to start such an article if you think it's notable as a cohesive subject, but as the result of the RfC clearly shows this is not that article. There should be very few people mentioned in this article because very few people were involved in the movement. Anyone mentioned in this article should be discussed by a reliable sources as someone actively involved in the Stop Trump Movement, not simply someone trying to stop Trump.- Mr X 01:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

If that’s the case, you have a lot of reversion to do, even without the list the article goes way beyond what you’re describing. Anyway, I’ll move the list to its own article. — Andy Anderson 02:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aanderson@amherst.edu (talk • contribs)

OK, the deed is done, I created a separate list and removed it from this article (but included a couple of See Also links). — Andy Anderson 05:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aanderson@amherst.edu (talk • contribs)

Anonymous

I don't think the recent addition of Anonymous' anti-Trump actions is in scope for this article, because the lead specifically says this is an article about efforts by conservatives & Republicans to stop Trump. I don't think Anonymous falls under that category. Thoughts? Safehaven86 (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree...not notable enough for its own article but also doesnt really fit here. (User:2001:E68:542D:988F:2CB9:2B28:302:512E - talk) seems pretty set on adding that material to wikipedia. Ive already removed it from the White Rose page and will continue to keep an eye on that situation. Subverted (talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)