Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Brewery

I think saying where this beer went adds to the completeness of the article - it's getting a fair bit of press, maybe it should just reference 'a Chicago-based chain Pizzeria' or something like that to avoid any PR creep on the page?Victor Grigas (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

My issue overall with the information about the notability of the info, Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. All the other companies are notable, this specific reaction seems less so. The very last part I removed seemed even less relevant than the first two sentences, because it isn't related to trump. The bar is in Trump's building so that affects him; the beer was named as an insult to his hair, again directly relating to him. Who bought the beer (while I suppose the charity they're giving it to was picked because of his comments) is less notable/related to the topic of the article. I have no issue mentioning the name of the Pizzeria, if the information is included.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok you sold me on that. Perhaps this aspect could be added to the page about Gino's East?Victor Grigas (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. It would be a good addition to that article, perhaps with some of the other information about the incident overall for context.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey go for it! I have to go to bed. Happy editing! :)Victor Grigas (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose the brewery's inclusion. As someone else has said, Wikipedia is not a tabloid and this is very trivial. The brewery belongs with the countless other minor reactions that don't deserve inclusion either: the piñata, the celebrity opinions, etc. You also overdid it with the references; the only reason it got so much coverage is because of its vulgarity not its intrinsic noteworthiness. This random brewery isn't notable enough to have a wiki article- why should they be included here. Do you honestly believe the brewery's reaction (it's not even included by name) is of the same relevance as NBC's or Televisa's? Seriously, there are more relevant reactions like Miguel Angel Osorio Chong's (Mexico's Vice President equivalent) or the fact that so far Mexico, Costa Rica and Panama have announced that they won't be sending their representatives to the Miss Universe contest. Please remove it. AuroralColibri (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly too many words and refs. The only thing that makes it a bit less trivial is that it was a custom brew only sold at Trump’s bar. Certainly less important than the statements by NASCAR and the Golf organizations that are not mentioned. If at all in the list, probably should be a listing of other reactions from small organizations all in one line. Objective3000 (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@AuroralColibri: Done, with no objection to Objective3000's suggestion if implemented later.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Trump quote "They're rapists" versus "their rapists"

Both references in the article and numerous more quote Trump as saying "they're rapists" e.g. New York Times. Trump himself, in his official annotated statement on it says "they're rapists". This is very different from saying "they're bringing .... their rapists." Valenciano (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Valenciano:OK - grant your point, my mistake. Perhaps, however, my July 8 addition to the article (which I have just made) of a quote from Trump's July 6 written statement (accessible at the link you mentioned above), which helps to clarify what he really meant in his earlier June 16 comments on illegal immigration, will help to clarify generally what Trump's actual position is vis-à-vis this whole matter. @Thomas Paine1776: Professor JR (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Trump should be treated fairly. His remark mentioned a sequence of crimes and implies....'they're bringing their' for each crime mentioned, since he follows up with, .. "And some, I assume, are good people." @Professor JR:. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree regarding fairness and NPOV. I'm mainly monitoring the page to guard against the type of juvenile vandalism and POV-pushing (pro and against) which BLPs like this attract. The fact remains though, that all reliable sources report him as saying "they're" and it's original research for us to say differently, especially since it directly contradicts a transcript released by Trump himself. I've no objection to including his explanations in the article and indeed, for balance, they should be there. Valenciano (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Trump followed up with, .. "And some, I assume, are good people." Trump's opposition has wrongly taken the selected remark out of context. Again, Trump should be treated fairly. Agree with @Professor JR:. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

But, that would indicate he's saying the majority are rapists. And, he's quadrupled-down on that. Yes, there must be balance and fairness. But, his positions are abundantly clear from his repeated statements. Objective3000 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Speculation on your part. The point was about crime. Trump's opposition has wrongly taken the selected remark out of context. Agree with @Professor JR: Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm really unclear what change you're proposing to the article? Valenciano (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Democrat?

What about "The Donald's" previous support for all things Democrat: abortion, path to citizenship, etc, and the money he's given to Dem canditates? Why no mention that he received a medical deferment from service in the military upon graduation from college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to add it if there are appropriate sources for the information. 217IP (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, have at it! Add those things in, if you can cite valid sources to back them up. Professor JR (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversies section

The talk page for Hillary Clinton includes a FAQ that says: Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see here — and the same was subsequently done for some other political figures' articles, including those running in the 2012 presidential election and those likely to be running in the 2016 election.

To be in compliance with WP policies, and especially those for 2016 presidential candidates, this section should be removed and the content included in context elsewhere within the article. Are there any arguments as to why this should not be the case? 217IP (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus the bulleted list of severed business associations seems inappropriate in this BLP, namely it seems to cross WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE in length and detail for a BLP. IHTS (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If they are notable controversies, I think they should be included. But tweets, or the hearsay statement of a controversial joke, by an ex-employee in the early 1990s? Is this notable for inclusion? I'm not sure, and provisionally removing it. Avaya1 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed other major politicians don't have a controversies section - for example, there is no such section in the article for Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton. Anything notable in there can be moved into the body of the text. Avaya1 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your edits - good work. Thanks. 217IP (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Minority crime tweet

This is content in the other controversies section:

On June 5, 2013, Trump tweeted: "According to Bill O'Reilly, 80% of all the shootings in New York City are blacks – if you add Hispanics, that figure goes to 98%, 1% white". Trump also tweeted: "Sadly, the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics – a tough subject – must be discussed".

There are two news sources on the tweet but they don't really provide any sort of commentary or analysis. It is essentially "Donald Trump tweeted this and here's a quote from someone who was offended". In an attempt to reorganize the controversies subject (which violates policies as discussed above this on talk page) - where should this information go, if anywhere? Trump has had dozens of news articles about his tweets spanning over many years. I don't see why we would include this one but not other controversial tweets. I don't know of policies against including them, but it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to include every tweet on this article that makes it into the news. 217IP (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

References

This section was removed by another user so this is a moot point and can be archived. 217IP (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

'Race Relations' section Mathmensch added to the Trump article

(addressed to me, moved here from my talk page --Mathmensch (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)) This is not in any way acceptable on Wikipedia as a political position. It is hearsay about a joke from the early 1990s, expressed in a book written by an ex-employee. It is questionable whether reporting hearsay comments is even notable for inclusion on wikipedia at all, let alone attempting to dress it up as a 'political position' for a presidential candidate. I understand that you might want to express your political views about certain candidates, but Wikipedia pages are not the places to do it.Avaya1 (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(revised edition by Avaya:--Mathmensch (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)) This is not in any way acceptable on Wikipedia as a political position section. It is hearsay about a joke from the early 1990s, expressed in a book written by an ex-employee. It is questionable whether reporting hearsay comments is even notable for inclusion on wikipedia at all, let alone attempting to dress it up as a 'political position' for a presidential candidate. I would argue against its inclusion anywhere on a WP:BLP. Wikipedia pages should be giving notable and accurate information, not for reporting hearsay and gossip alleging that someone once said a politically incorrect joke. Avaya1 (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree this information should not be included in this article. BLP has a very high standard for sources, especially for material that is contentious and inflammatory about the subject of the BLP. 217IP (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear 217IP,

First of all, the information that I included was not that Trump did in fact say it, but instead the article described the allegations, which recieved huge media attention and are therefore relevant. The sources were well-respected newspapers en masse.

Further, since Donald Trump himself stated 'The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true.', the probability that the statement was made is rather high. And the further statements of Trump (which are recorded on video tape) also make the happening of that statement more plausible. Since people need to know about it if it happened, this is an argument for inclusion. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 12:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Avaya1,

I have noticed that you do not think that statements of Donald Trump about other races do not qualify as political opinion. Since racial issues have dominated the political discourse in many countries, I wonder on what your view is based? Furthermore, to delete the section altogether is not the right decision, we should instead talk about moving this somewhere else if you regard it as apolitical.

I do not want to express my political views about that candidate, but instead I want to express the political views of the candidate.

A hearsay comment, which has had so much media attention, and furthermore was not denied by Trump himself, I do see as very relevant for the article and for all people who want to make an informed decision regarding the election.

And by the way, the section I added was named 'race issues' and not 'race relations'. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe Mathmensch's edit summary should be dispositive:

"Reverted edit of Eclipsoid, since first of all, the claim of the paragraph was not that Trump actually said it,"

This is actually a strong argument for exclusion. If we aren't saying that Trump actually made those statements, there's no reason at all to include them in his biography. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary. Donald Trump has not denied saying it, and the statement has recieved huge media coverage, as proven by the sources I provided (a quick Google search brings up much more articles about those very statements). It is VERY important for the reader of Wikipedia to know if Trump insulted black people, since I assume that few people would vote for a candidate who does such things (in my opinion, one should NEVER insult somebody on the basis of race). --Mathmensch (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my argument using a parable. We still do not know for certain all the details of the physical world around us, and yet there are tons of Wikipedia pages discussing plausible conjectures. Now apply this reasoning to the present article. We don't know if he said it, but even if there is only a probability that he did it's relevant. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody cares about your parable. What matters here are Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, which expressly prohibit putting this kind of unfounded garbage in a BLP. Eclipsoid (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My parable was intended as a way to illustrate that the inclusion of the section in dispute is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hence, it has, in my opinion, a certain relevance here. And I fail to understand how a well-sourced, relevant (as argued) section should be garbage. This harsh use of words is not recommended. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Another comment on the allegations (which Eclipsoid repeated on his talk page) that I was arguing against my own edit. Dear Eclipsoid. You base your argument on saying that it would not be adequate to quote allegations by a former Trump employee, which have recieved broad media coverage and were not denied by Mr. Trump himself, because we do not write that Mr. Trump certainly made this statement. To the contrary, it is considered good style to include to the article where the information comes from, who said what, and what does Mr. Trump himself say (he said that probably the allegations are correct).

I also note that you consider me not competent. I reply by telling you that I do consider you competent, although I am absolutely certain that you are wrong about this particular issue (which is not a problem, this happens to me too, as can be seen from my talk page).--Mathmensch (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Look again. I base my argument on the fact that (as you, yourself, have so helpfully pointed out) Trump didn't actually make the comments. That pretty much ends all intelligent discussion of whether or not to include them. Eclipsoid (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Eclipsoid,

I have NOT, really NOT, pointed out that Trump didn't actually made the statements. I did not do that. You can check all my statements, nothing has been deleted. What I did say is this: I said that the passage which I included to the Wikipedia did NOT state that Trump made the comments, BUT stated that he was accused of making the comments, and that he himself confirms that he probably made them, which is well documented by a primary and a number of secondary sources.

Trump himself stated that he probably made the comments. Hence, there is indeed a possibility that the comments were made. Further, O'Donnall claims to have heard the comments. AND the comments recieved a lot of media attention, also in the light of Mr. Trump's recent statements about Mexico. Hence, my conclusion is that the section should indeed be included to the article.

And further, I hope that the discussion has remained intelligent so far, and once again call for a more friendly use of language. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It is important that people get to know the points of view of their candidates, and that people have enough information to assess what they would do in office. And a part of this process might happen through Wikipedia, and this would be a very good thing. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What's important here is that we edit the encyclopedia in accordance with its policies, the most important of which is WP:V. If we can't verify that Trump said something, then it doesn't belong in Wikpedia. Period, the end. Eclipsoid (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I once again find your argument invalid. Indeed, we can't verify that Mr. Trump has said it. This is precisely why we don't write: 'Mr. Trump has certainly said this and that', but instead we write 'O'Donnell has reported that Mr. Trump said this and that, and Mr. Trump said that O'Donnell's account was probably truthful.' --Mathmensch (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And perhaps I should mention once again that the latter statement is verifiable quite well. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I conclude my today's contribution to the discussion by wishing you the best and most convenient of all afternoons, and hope that you will see your errors of reasoning in the close future. With best regards, --Mathmensch (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Rationale for the repeated inclusion of the section in question

A topic often discussed in the context of Donald Trump are the remarks he made about mexicans. In this context, a number of articles ([1], [2], [3], [4]) mention O'Donnell's book and the allegations presented within it. Hence, relevance of the subject is given. Further arguments for relevance are that

• Donald Trump's statements might give hints at policies which he might implement as president, which is why they are highly relevant to the American reader,
• and that the statements might allow for a more accurate assessment of the person Donald Trump.

Furthermore, as I mentioned, Donald Trump himself has said that he probably has made the statements in question.

In accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view, I had avoided presenting O'Donnell's and Trumps opinions about whether Trump said it or not as facts. Instead, as you can read in the two-sentence paragraph, they are explicitly presented as opinions.

Since Eclipsoid and Avaya1 have not successfully argued why the passage shall be excluded, and since I have logically argued that it should be included, I will include it now as announced a day in advance to both users. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 19:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The content is adequately sourced and neutrally written, but without a broader context, it seems to simply be anecdotal and not really worthy of inclusion in this biography.- MrX 19:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary, comments of a public personality are an essential component of a biography. See for instance Pierre Lalo, Richard Wagner#Controversies, Maurice Ravel#1920s etc. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 19:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps a nicer example: John D. Rockefeller#Monopoly --2001:4CA0:0:FE00:0:5EFE:A94:F85A (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The measure of whether comments of a public personality are an essential component of a (Wikipedia) biography is the extent of coverage in reliable sources in proportion to coverage of other comments made by the subject in reliable sources (WP:WEIGHT). I'm not sure if that's the case here, but my main concern is that "...Trump once said..." does not, in any way, equate to a "political position".- MrX 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The statements seem to be discussed by many media; see the sources in the article as well as the additional sources provided above (admittedly there is a nonempty intersection). Furthermore: There is a context of a number of similar remarks. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 20:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the NPOV section you quoted is about the weighing of different opinions on the same matter, comparing their relative representations. Since O'Donnell and Trump agree on that Trump probably has made the statements, I see no contradiction here. It is not a minority viewpoint that Trump made these statements. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 20:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And although I doubt that a clear statement on a political matter can be said to be nonrepresentative of the political position, I still point out that it might give an indication. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 20:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Setting aside possible weight issues (which I have not delved into), racist comments are not indicative of a political position unless we have sources that unequivocally make such a connection. While the content may be OK somewhere in this bio, I doubt that it belongs under political positions.- MrX 22:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"racist comments are not indicative of a political position unless we have sources that unequivocally make such a connection" - I would rather say: Racist comments can not be described by Wikipedia as indicative of a political position unless we have sources..." Then you have a point IMO; although good sources for this may well exist, those sources are currently not available to me. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 08:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Although I think that the existence of this gives strong hints. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 09:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Vaccination statements

I plan to add a reference to a Steven Novella blog post about his statements about vaccination, and improve the redaction of the paragraph to a stance more close to scientific consensus, according to the standards of Wikipedia.--Jardouin (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph on vaccination was moved to a more ambiguous stance. I suggest to go back to the previous version that is more close to the standards of Wikipedia. --Jardouin (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

How much money did Trump inherit?

How much money did Donald Trump inherit (from all sources)? I've seen estimates ranging from $40 million to $400 million. This is a basic fact that the biography should include given that the subject's main fame/notoriety is for his alleged business success. Benefac (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Trump's Vietnam draft status and the events surrounding its disclosure in 2011

On 18 July 2015, I (gaas99) inserted the following text in the early life section of the article:

Mr. Trump was of draft age during the Vietnam Conflict. In an interview in 2011 on New York station WNYW he stated "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number." Selective Service records retrieved by "thesmokinggun.com" from NARA records show, however that although Trump did eventually receive a high selective service lottery number, the principle reason for his not being drafted was his receipt of student deferments (2-S) while attending college and the receipt of a medical deferment (1-Y later converted to 4-F) prior to the lottery to which he referred.

References

Shortly thereafter, "Professor JR" made some edits to the text and to the section title. I had no problem with his changes and thanked him for them. Several hours later "Eclipsoid" deleted the paragraph (as modified by "Professor JR") with the explanation "Trump's draft deferment is already explained in the preceding paragraph. This material is of very low significance other than partisan muckraking." The material was not mentioned in the preceding paragraph. On 19 July, user "Callinus" added material to the Trump article, including the info contained in my initial edit. Eclipsoid proceeded to delete the section of the Callinus post concerning Trump's draft status without any explanation or entry in any talk page.

The following is a transcript of the discussion I (gaas99) have had with Eclipsoid to date on his talk page:

Hello Eclipsoid,

I disagree with your deletion of my addition to the Donald Trump article regarding his selective service / military status during the Vietnam conflict

1) He is a declared Presidential candidate and any and all information regarding his US military service (or lack thereof) is certainly of interest to all readers and significant information. This information has become particularly significant in light of Mr. Trump's recent statements regarding John McCain's Vietnam service.

2) I find no reference to his selective service status or military status in the preceding paragraph (or anyplace in the article). The only possible reference is the mention of his college attendance which does not touch at all on his medical disqualification from service

3) I do not consider this material "partisan muckraking." The references quoted represent a fairly wide range (political right to middle) of respected publications from The National Review to CBS news, all of which still have active links to their articles four years later. There are, of course, numerous additional references which could be cited but I felt that some of these might be questioned for bias being further left.

Gaas99 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"Declared Presidential candidate" encompasses quite an assortment of people: Joe Walsh, Pat Paulsen, Christopher Walken, Stephen Colbert and Vermin Supreme come to mind. Are we pretending that readers actually care about the military records of these individuals? No, merely being a declared candidate would not seem to be the appropriate test for this. Should Trump survive into the primary season and emerge as a serious contender for the nomination, then it would be something to add to the article. Or were it to become a topic in the campaign, for some reason. Then it would acquire weight. But at this point, no, it is undue weight to mention this kind of trivia in his biography. Eclipsoid (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Fox news recently found Trump leading in their poll of Republican voters "Friday's Fox News poll found Trump leading with support from 18% of Republican primary voters nationwide" [1].

Unless you dispute the accuracy and impartiality of Fox, I think that the seriousness of his campaign is established. Must we wait until November 1, 2016 before mentioning the (undisputed) facts of his selective service status and his response when questioned about that status? He has quite publicly stated his opinion of John McCain's service during the Vietnam Conflict. Are we not entitled to question the qualifications of the speaker (Trump) to make such statements?

In any case, that is not the question here. The question is "is the information I presented factual, is it impartial and is it adequately sourced". You felt compelled to make a wholesale deletion of the information I presented but did not dispute the facts. You stated it was adequately discussed in the previous paragraph but it was not. You dismissed my addition as "partisan muckraking" but one of my sources was from a respected conservative political journal. IMHO my additions belong in the article and with your permission I will restore them as edited by "Professor JR".

Gaas99 (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The question is "is the information I presented factual, is it impartial and is it adequately sourced". Entirely wrong. Sourcing is but a threshold to inclusion, and only comes into play after criteria of due weight and relevance are met. Here, I have already explained why this material fails those tests. You're right--I'm not disputing any facts; I'm saying these particular facts don't belong in the article. Do try to remember, we're discussing a biography. It's not a narrative account of his current political campaign or an exhaustive statement of his political stances. Eclipsoid (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So am I to conclude that the exact date of his grandfather's wedding is more significant than his military service or lack thereof?

I fail to see the significance of your statement that "It's not a narrative account of his current political campaign or an exhaustive statement of his political stances." My edit did not refer in any way to his current campaign or his political stances. Your argument seems to be that the events are too insignificant to mention. If so, why are you going to such lengths to keep it out of the article?

I note that in addition to your deletion of my edit, you have deleted the subsequent insertion of the same material by "Calinus" and, as in my case you did not notify him/her of that deletion. In his case you did not even mention it in your explanation of the deletion. It is beginning to smell like an edit war.....

In any case, it is time to move this discussion to the article's talk page and see what others think..

Gaas99 (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Jump up ^ http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/politics/donald-trump-poll-2016-elections Poll: Donald Trump continues rise, Scott Walker gets bump "CNN.com" Retrieved 18 July, 2015 Gaas99 (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The 2011 media interview is discussed at length in the US press today. The fact that McCain is the 2008 presidential candidate makes his comments about McCain worthy of inclusion in this page - this is informative in Trump's approach to the establishment Republican party and his interactions with the Republicans who nominated McCain in 2008 - this is worthy for inclusion in this article because of overwhelmingly widespread media coverage and long-term significance given McCain's nomination in 2008. User @Eclipsoid: seems to be used as a single purpose account, this month making editing nearly exclusively to remove unflattering material from articles on Republican candidates. -- Callinus (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Removing Jeff Lord article added by @Thomas Paine1776: in this edit per WP:SUMMARY STYLE -- Callinus (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Imo, the relevance of Trump's draft history to his presidential bid is beside the point. The draft info should be part of the article simply because it is of biographical interest. It's present in the articles of other notable people who lived through that era (e.g. Bill Clinton, Muhammad Ali, Ted Nugent, and of course there's a whole article devoted to the controversy surrounding George W. Bush's military service). So the question is not, "Why should this info be in the Donald Trump article?" The question is why shouldn't it be? The onus is on those who don't think it belongs here to justify why not. -- Hux (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment There can be no question that Trump's draft history should be included and we must vigorously defend this decision against any attempts to airbrush it out. Noel darlow (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Eucharist issue

Trump frequently makes seemingly self-contradictory statements when he says one thing then has to walk it back. At one Christian right rally he said that he doesn't ask God for forgiveness then walked the statement back, expressing that Eucharist is "a form of asking for forgiveness."

Including lengthy quotes, or analysis of parts of them, or potential impact on evangelical voters should be placed in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. -- Callinus (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with removing the quotes and I don't think they belong in the campaign article either. Third party analysis is much more informative. Quotes should only be added if they are needed to clarify the analysis.- MrX 12:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Joking about dating his own daughter

Shall we mention this or does it constitute as trivia as per WP:Trivia ? http://boingboing.net/2015/07/13/whatthefucktrump.html --88.104.136.214 (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPGOSSIP it seems it shouldn't be included. WP:WELLKNOWN also says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article". I do not find this particular incident noteworthy, and I am not sure boingboing counts as a "high quality source" which is required in BLP articles. It could also be argued that including such a trivial item that happens to be negative violates WP:BLPSTYLE per "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." I would consider the people who care about this statement as a tiny minority. 217IP (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Snopes has this on the mention of him dating his own daughter.Sabelum (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2015

In the section titled POLITICS, third paragraph, last sentence the word change-denialing is used. I believe climate-denial is the correct phrase. 71.218.234.32 (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Done used "climate change-denying" as that was modifying his statements Cannolis (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Trump remains a major figure in the real estate industry in the United States and a media celebrity.

The reference does not support this statement so another supporting reference should be substituted or the statement should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.36.190 (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Text in the introduction generally doesn't need citations if the material in question is supported by citations later in the article, see WP:CITELEAD.– Gilliam (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Dutch Reformed Church

This article contains the phrase "a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, which is a Presbyterian denomination". Is that really an adequate description? The Dutch Reformed Church is most notable for having claimed to provide a theological underpinning to apartheid rather than just being one of many, mostly quite respectable, Presbyterian denominations. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither statement is true. It is a Reformed church with a small-p presbyterian form of governance. The connection to apartheid is incorrect as there is no more basis in Reformed theology than in Methodist or Anglican - and British industrialist were among the key players promoting the policy. Rmhermen (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The phrase is misleading, but it is a quotation. The best way to fix this is to remove the direct quotation. It is possible for a Presbyterian to attend a Reformed Church, however. Apartheid would be relevant if there was some connection to South Africa, but I don't see that there is. I will amend the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Lindsay Graham comment

Lindsay Graham is not really notable, he polls at 0 to 1% and its already mentioned in the campaign article. Looks like a WP:POV fork.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Which comment are you referring to? Please try to be more detailed before invoking WP:LAWYERING Rockypedia (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is only one Lindsay Graham comment. How is it notable: Lindsay Graham name calling and then having his phone number given out? The comment is already in the campaign article. Lindsay Graham won't even be in the debates. Doesn't seem notable. No need to include it in this page. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's notable - Lindsey Graham's number in the polls have zero to do with the notability of that action. The fact is, Donald Trump took the private cell number of a sitting US Senator and displayed it to the world, in retaliation for that senator calling him a jackass. It's covered by hundreds of news sources. When has that ever happened before?

Here's an even better question: is it coincidence that every single piece of material you attempt to remove from this page and the Trump campaign page could be viewed as negative (although they're all factual) towards Trump? Check your edit history - I'm not sure you should be involved in these pages at all, and that may require some admin attention. You're not trying to improve the Trump pages, you're trying to whitewash them, and it's painfully obvious. Rockypedia (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Trump's presidential campaign has its own article. That's where coverage of the Graham incident should go. Eclipsoid (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Of course it should be on the campaign article, but that doesn't automatically preclude it from being on the main bio page as well. With the level of coverage it received, it's easily notable enough for his bio page. Also, as another editor already pointed out, Graham is polling at 0-1%, so he's barely in the race, making the whole incident even less related to the campaign. Rockypedia (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The racist attacks against Hispanics; the minimization of John McCain's (and by implication all POWs') sacrifices; the violation of privacy of a sitting elected official. These are not [merely] campaign issues, they're civilized behavior issues. 2600:1006:B11F:BBE0:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• We are not here to establish that Trump is a racist and it is certainly of no import whether you approve of his behavior or wish to label it in any particular way. Just so you know. Eclipsoid (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That characterization reflects much of the discussion of his comments in mainstream media. This is the talk page, not the article. Just so you know. 2600:1006:B11F:BBE0:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That may very well be true. Or, they could be tactics. Or, many other things. But, you would need strong refs to put something like that together as part of a BLP article in an encyclopedia. More appropriate in a campaign article. Objective3000 (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight to running for president in lead

Recently, OrganicEarth has added text to the first sentence of the lead multiple times that indicates Trump is running for president. Multiple editors have reverted this, including MrX and Cwobeel, citing WP:RECENTISM and the existing full paragraph describing his candidacy that exists in the lead. I also agree that this places undue weight on recent events. It is better to simply call him a politician in the first sentence and expand later in the lead. WP:RECENTISM definitely applies here. I've pinged all involved editors to resolve this edit war. ~ Rob^Talk 14:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy and clarity matter. As per the above discussion (re:politician), he meets the definition because he is a candidate. So let's be clear. Another editor has also made a similar change because ambiguity and abstraction are not encyclopedic. We aren't well served using vague, abstract and ambiguous language and then explaining what we mean later. He is a candidate and hasn't, as far as I am aware, held any political offices. OrganicEarth (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead should be trimmed. I would remove: "In 2010, Trump expressed an interest in becoming a Republican candidate for President in the 2012 election, but in May 2011, he announced he would not run." I would also remove "Trump's early campaigning has seen him catapult to high levels of popular support to the consternation of the Republican party leadership.[18] Since late July 2015, he has been at the top in the public opinion polls for the Republican Party nomination.[19][20]" This is I think too much.

This seems like a reasonable idea. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The remaining sentence could be merged into the opening paragraph "On June 16, 2015, Trump formally announced his candidacy for President of the United States in the 2016 election, seeking the nomination of the Republican Party.[16][17]" I think noting he is running for president once would be fine. Polling data and his decisions not to run for office in the past belong in the body of the article. OrganicEarth (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeating content does not add to accuracy or clarity. His candidacy should only be advertised once in the lead. If you disagree then please start an RfC, or use some mechanism to show that there is consensus for your proposed edit.- MrX 14:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the RS -- they heavily emphasize his surprising jump to the lead against all predictions and to the anger of the GOP establishment. these are facts agreed on by al;l the experts and are of national importance as they are shaping big league politics. Rjensen (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

MrX, did you read what I wrote? That's exactly what I've suggested. Stating accurately and succinctly ONCE that he is a candidate for president and removing the other newsy bits that belong in the article body. OrganicEarth (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen: The proper emphasis is given by including his candidacy in the lead once. Do you disagree with that? Including the polling information is debatable.- MrX 15:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but the statement that he has "catapult[ed] to high levels of popularity" is dubious. He's polling at 20% or so with Republicans. And polls change. Which is why I don't think this belongs in the opening paragraphs.

What about his thinking about running in 2011 and deciding not to? Can we remove that? OrganicEarth (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I support moving the information about the non-existent 2011/2012 run to the body. That definitely doesn't belong in the lead. ~ Rob^Talk 18:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

GOP reaction to Trump's poll numbers

An editor removed a somewhat opinionated piece of writing in the article today, and it was readded. I've reverted again to err on the side of caution, as this comes somewhat close to a WP:BLP violation if not properly sourced. See [5].

The additional statements are heavily opinionated, and reflect negatively on Trump. They also do not appear to be fully supported by sources, as GOP leaders aren't going to come out and say they're annoyed Trump's in the lead, even if they are. At best, we're stating speculation of a journalist as fact. At worst, we're reporting something inaccurate. If such a statement isn't thoroughly sourced, this violates WP:BLP. Pinging involved editors: @Anythingyouwant and Rjensen: ~ Rob^Talk 13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. There may be sources that would support the idea that Trump's polling numbers make some republican leaders uncomfortable, but those sources don't quite do that. Also, "much to the consternation of established Republican leaders" would need to be reworded for tone.- MrX 14:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement is exactly accurate. Here are some recent quotes: 1) politicsusa: "Donald Trump’s momentum is a source of great consternation to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus and to billionaire donors like the Koch Brothers." 2) The Hill: "The GOP establishment is almost universally hostile to Trump....For now at least, Trump is close to the very top of the polls. This is the cause of some consternation among Republicans, though some are holding out hope that Trump’s allure will fade under the debate spotlight." 3) US NEWS "The prospect of the bombastic real estate developer sharing the stage with actual serious candidates is causing no small amount of consternation among Republicans and other pundits. For example John Sununu, the uber-establishmentarian former White House chief of staff and New Hampshire governor, said...." 4) Seattle Post‑Intelligencer: Jul 9, 2015 "The private consternation of Republican nabobs over Donald Trump received statistical backup Thursday...." etc etc. In my opinion, this encyclopedia should give preference to the exactly correct terminology when it's widely used in the RS. Rjensen (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

At minimum, the statement at the end of the lead requires better sourcing. EJ Dionne is a liberal Democratic opinion columnist, and therefore not a proper source for the thoughts of the GOP establishment. User:Rjensen, if you insert some of the sources you think are appropriate, then we can reevaluate. But the Bush campaign, for example, has expressed delight about the Trump candidacy, because it will wipe out Bush's other competitors (i.e. deprive of "oxygen", and prevent other candidates from building name recognition that Bush already has achieved) before Trump's campaign allegedly implodes. See Jeb Bush’s Camp Sees an Upside to Donald Trump’s Surge in the G.O.P., NYT (August 2, 2015). Does that sound like consternation.?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(EC) There's a synth issue - avoid synthesising multiple primary opinion sources. It may be better to have a single, cited ATTRIBUTEPOV|attributed quote of an individual person (such as Reince Priebus or Chuck Todd) Todd stated on meet the press "And a majority of folks we asked say you're doing more to hurt the Republican Party than help" - or a VER statement on numbers = there could be developments if poll numbers come out after the first debate this week. -- Callinus (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Without breaking out my tinfoil hat, also beware of journalists reporting speculation as fact to juice up the story. Without a specific source that backs up GOP consternation (i.e. direct quote from a person), it's difficult to determine whether a quote like "The GOP establishment is almost universally hostile to Trump" (The Hill, see above) is fact based in sources or the journalist's opinion. Given the WP:BLP issues inherent in stating that an entire political party dislikes one of their candidates, any language suggesting that must be either exceptionally well-sourced or narrower in scope (direct quote of a single person, no implication of rest of GOP agreeing, for instance). As for the second part of the revert that no-one's brought up yet, the surprise of journalists about a candidate's success is just simply not noteworthy or encyclopedic. ~ Rob^Talk 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems to go against the principle that Wikipedia is not news. I think we have to look at what has enduring notability, not provide running commentary.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It is the job of political Journalists to tell us what the political establishment is actually thinking. They are agreed in stating that the GOP establishment is opposed to Trump. "Consternation" refers to an unpleasant surprise, and that fits the situation, and is in fact used by professional journalists. In my opinion, the strong negative reaction of the GOP establishment is 1) a well-established fact; 2) an important event in the history of the Republican Party; 3) a very important aspect of the Trump campaign for president. Rjensen (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but I also do not believe it's been properly sourced. Adding that information back to the article while discussion is ongoing is not particularly helpful, especially under a misleading edit summary such as "tweaks": [6]. None of the sources you've listed above (or in the article) support the statement that the Republican Party has taken actions to oppose Trump. ~ Rob^Talk 04:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it is an important fact that the Republican leadership opposes Trump. It is fully sourced by the standard reliable sources of experts on American politics. As far as I can tell, after a lot of Google searches, there's not a single expert who believes otherwise. BU Rob13 objects to "the statement that the Republican Party has taken actions to oppose Trump" --no such statement or suggestion appears in the article. Rjensen (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement "Trump's early campaigning has seen him catapult to high levels of popular support despite strong opposition by the Republican party leadership" (emphasis mine) in the lead implies an actual opposition, not a general feeling of dislike. ~ Rob^Talk 07:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

good point. I took it back to the "consternation" version which seems to me to be a simple statement of fact as reported by numerous RS--the political journalists who are not spokesman for the GOP or for any candidate. Rjensen (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. The sourcing is better than it was to start, so I'm satisfied with returning to "consternation". ~ Rob^Talk 01:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And consternation is greater.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Mexican immigrants comments

Trump's comments on Mexican immigrants, as they have led to NBC and many others cutting ties with him, may deserve to be quoted in the article. If not in the beauty pageants section, where they were just removed from as a quote, then maybe in another section. Where in the article should we quote those comments, if at all? --Distelfinck (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The quote is problematic in that it's too long and unwieldy--such that it brings undue weight to the event--but can't really be shortened without altering its meaning. Thus, it is better to merely describe what was said, describe what happened as a result, and move on. In the grand scheme of Trump's biography, that's really all the attention it deserves. Eclipsoid (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"That's all the attention it deserves" is the opinion of someone who's interested in deleting anything on the Trump page that has a negative/critical aspect to it, regardless of how well-sourced it is and how noteworthy it is. The comments have received massive coverage, not just on the day they were made, but even now, they continue to be discussed - it's arguably one of the most high-profile things Trump has ever said. Your opinion on this matter is obviously biased, as your edits on this page have been consistently in the vein of white-washing. Can you explain that? Rockypedia (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It can just as easily be pointed out that insisting on a freaking block quote is the doing of someone intent on trashing this BLP with his POV-pushing. Especially when they are willing to edit-war over it.

Yes, the comments received a lot of coverage, but if you weren't so intent on forcing in every negative detail available, you might take a moment to realize that Donald Trump has been a public figure for nearly 40 years, and that what is happening this week might not deserve the kind of microscopic fleshing-out that you are attempting. Eclipsoid (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I assume good faith in the deletion. But, the network pullouts of the pageants, and the large number of significant other ties broken as a result of these comments makes the claim of undue weight very weak IMO. Several large business agreements have been broken. These few words have had a great impact, and therefore great weight. Objective3000 (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't insist on a block quote. MOS:BLOCKQUOTE clearly states that once a quote goes over 40 words, a blockquote is appropriate. The original quote was under 40 words, and your associate Thomas Paine1776 (talk (who has been topic-banned from Trump, btw) was the one to add more of the quote that pushed it over 40 words. That's when I did the proper formatting.

Added to this, I'm not forcing in "every negative detail available" - I'm merely restoring things that pro-Trump people have been deleting that are clearly noteworthy. If you insist on continuing to delete them, we can easily take this to a discussion on the Edit war/3RR noticeboard. Up to you. Rockypedia (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

At the very least not including a footnote/link to examples of Trump's comments is ridiculous. He made them in his presidential candidate speech, not in some private conversations, as the vague sentence currently in the article seems to imply. And I'm definitely in favour of quotation. If Trump's defence of his comments "Who's doing the raping?" is worth quoting, then so is the original comments. His defence cannot be more notable than the original comments. Genesiswinter (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)(talk) 17:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-American citizen, I think that these comments should be included in the text – I'd say a blockquote of the entire commentary may be too far, but you can't say that those comments aren't notable for Wikipedia. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Work it into the main body of the text. Adding it as a 'controversies' section, is POV (who selects what is controversial?) and not found on articles of equivalent figures.Avaya1 (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious what is a controversy and what isn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with User:Jack Upland. Donald Trump caused an uproar over several of his comments. You have to be so far off the deep end of indecisiveness to not recognize he's very controversial. That, or a Trump Apologist. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 17:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A reasonable person might look at this article, note that the highly controversial and richly-covered comments made two weeks ago are not included, and wonder "Why?" After which he might look at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, see that the comments are included there, and then conclude that the wider community of Wikipedia editors has decided that is where they belong.

That's what a reasonable person might do. Eclipsoid (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, understood. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 18:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

However, if someone by chance had not heard of these "highly controversial and richly-covered comments" (clearly meeting the requirement for notability), it is Wikipedia's responsibility to relay those comments to that person, as they have impacted the public's view of Trump and thus deserve to be mentioned on this article in addition to his campaign article.AJO191 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015

Please add, under External links, the following template link:

• {{DMOZ|Regional/North_America/United_States/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Candidates_and_Campaigns/President/Candidates/Donald_Trump}}

This will allow some trimming of the existing links, and also discourage further additions. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC) 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done - I BOLDLY added it. Since there is no consensus, someone may remove it. - MrX 17:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for someone to add material

{request edit: I'm not editing at the moment, but I have to say that I really think someone should add the following rather notable quotation from Trump's notable presidential announcement. I do think it's fair to say that Trump's inflammatory comments have been extremely notable, and even more notably, led to many companies severing their ties with Trump. I think the full quote is worthy of inclusion, in all its naked, glorious notability: “When "Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

–Real estate mogul Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech, June 16, 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/ http://gawker.com/a-comprehensive-list-of-everyone-trying-to-sever-ties-w-1715314213 http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/29/nbc-to-donald-trump-youre-fired/?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/25/univision-severs-ties-with-donald-trump-and-beauty-pageants/ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/01/his-remarks-are-taking-a-financial-toll-on-donald-trump/

I think that someone should add the quote and Trump's firings to the article.Kingshowman (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman}

There's an extensive discussion above on this topic. Note that it is included at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Kuru (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Kingshowman (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I read the aforementioned discussion, and I personally unequivocally side with those who argued for inclusion. I don't understand what the force of the arguments against including it were at all. The comments themselves caused a great deal of news coverage, were part of an extremely newsworthy event (his presidential announcement) and resulted in the termination of a number of notable business partnerships. I don't see how the notability of the quote is at all questioned by those who opposed, other than some specious overfocus on the present argument. Wikipedia articles include far, far more trivial events all the time. But I don't think the issue matters very much at all and I'm fine with your decision. I'm not going to lose sleep over it or press it further, just registering my agreement with those who argued for adding Trump's words to the article.Kingshowman (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Article mentioned in the news

There was an article on The Verge and The Washington Post about this page being blanked for like a picosecond earlier today. I really don't know what to say. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Well it's the fifth Google result for Wikipedia right now...Maltice (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It was blanked for two non-consecutive minutes on one day. Not worth one news article, much less multiple. Rmhermen (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

But that's the thing it was worth (at least) two news articles.--88.104.131.229 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mentioned that this article was mentioned in the media. Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Politician

Trump is running for President, and leading in the polls. He is a politician all right. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. Trump meets definitions of a politician, and this article should reflect that, whatever the thoughts regarding his candidacy are.

"a person actively engaged in politics, esp. party politics, professionally or otherwise; often, a person holding or seeking political office: frequently used in a derogatory sense, with implications of seeking personal or partisan gain, scheming, opportunism, etc." - Webster's New World College Dictionary

"One who is actively involved or skilled in politics, especially one who holds a political office." - The American Heritage Dictionary ~ Rob^Talk 02:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's ask: does Trump walk, talk, & act like the other 16 GOP politicians running for president?. I think so. he's about the most famous candidate in the US these days--he hires campaign staff in key states; he organizes election rallies where he gives campaign speeches & asks for your vote; he stumps the early primary states; he criticizes the incumbent Obama he's trying to replace; he attacks his party rivals like Walker & Bush; he makes promises that "if elected I will do this and that"; he debates the other candidates (this Thursday in Cleveland); most important: he officially registered as a candidate with the federal election commission. Note the Wall Street Journal headline when he lost some business deals because of his political remarks: "Donald Trump the Politician Burns Trump the Businessman". Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The word 'politician' has been removed from the lead; our article on politician states "A politician is a person holding or seeking an office within a government" which Mr. Trump is doing(running for President); thus he is a politician. I'm not sure why this is being removed. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think some people think that 'politician' means someone who holds political office, not someone who is running for it. They are wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if Pat Paulsen is a politician then so is anyone who files papers to be on the ballot for public office. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

notes

References

Net Worth

I'm sorry but placing his net worth at 4-8 billion is so unbelievably vague, wide ranging and inaccurate as to be false. It doesn't matter if his net worth is 4 billion, or 8 billion, having a net worth on Wikipedia listed as "X dollars plus or minus about 4 billion" is just absurd. This is not a few dollars, a few thousand, or even a few hundred thousand... this is a billion we are talking about... and the imprecision is in the range of 4? 50% deviation of the max possible net worth is considered an accurate approximation? You cannot be serious. I suggest not having an income figure listed that is so laughably enormous in its range that it could be overshooting by 4 billion dollars. It could also potentially be wrong at 4 billion as that is the total worth estimated by forbes and even admitted by them to be guesswork at best that gives enormous leniency to Trump. I recall other estimates saying his actual net worth (Trump likes to include things that he doesn't actually own in his net worth and tends to assign absurd valuation to them [ex: Miss America ~$400 million] to inflate his... worth) as being conservatively estimated at 700 million. And even that is giving Trump credit that's undeserved by going on and on about how he's such a successful self-made man when 400 million came from his father. I'm going to change it to the less ridiculous # as cited by Forbes, not the # cited by Trump himself to "prove" he was rich that was "done by super impressive accountants.. trust me" during his campaign announcement. ..I mean, even for Wikipedia a deviation of 4 BILLION DOLLARS, c'mon guys. 68.180.28.140 (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to weigh in here, but I'm just posting to ping Professor JR, who reverted the above IP editor and refused to discuss the matter on his talk page, citing a nonsensical "personal policy" of not responding to IP editors. If you revert someone's edit, and they take the time to explain their actions, you should have the decency to respond and explain your stance. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the support. I figured no one would even see the response professor Jr gave me regarding the edit and his policy of no-discussion. Thank you for taking the time to look into the matter, even though it wasn't asked of you and you did so of your own volition. 68.180.28.140 (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC) -edit: It would seem professor JR has, subsequent to your above post, deleted the conversation on his talk page between myself and him in its entirety, citing the following comment as explanation in his revision history - "deleting the pointless rants of an anon".

Forbes magazine is provably biased against Trump and should not be used as a source for his net worth. Example, their billionaire beat reporter Clare O'Connor calls him a racist here in a recent article. Find an unbiased source. 5Q5 (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The article now shows Trump's net worth at $10 billion in four locations, citing the FEC filing. But, I don't think the FEC filing reports on net worth and this isn't supported by the cited articles. The $10 billion number is something that he claimed on the day he made the FEC filing. And, he has stated other numbers. Shouldn't we use an RS like the Forbes article that was used prior to this? Objective3000 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bloomberg today estimates Trump's net worth at $2.9 billion. Objective3000 (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

They estimate it at least $2.9 billion.--Iady391 (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, they estimate it at $2.9 billon. Please re-read the article. Objective3000 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were right. I got it mixed up with another article.--Iady391 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Return it to the Forbes estimate, that is the project-wide source for estimates of net-worth. Avaya1 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Forbes is the best source for net worth barring some truly spectacular coverage. Trump claiming the $10 billion figure does not make it so. ~ Rob^Talk 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iady391: Is there a reason you added back the $10 billion figure to the infobox? Without heavily qualifying that, we're putting that on equal footing with the Forbes estimate, which I believe is clearly against the consensus here. I'm not against including more information about it in the article somewhere, but putting it in the infobox is misleading when it appears clear that Trump is not telling the truth about his net worth. ~ Rob^Talk 15:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved to net worth section. Iady391 | Talk to me here 15:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ Rob^Talk 17:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have twice reversed another editor who removed the Forbes $4.1 billion figure from the infobox and replaced it with Trump's $10 billion self-estimate (more than a billion since his campaign was first announced). Trump's net worth, including his own self-assessments, is discussed in more detail within the article. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Forbes has lowered its estimate of Trump's wealth to $4 billion, citing damage done to his brand by his campaign. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected this in the article, since the sources already existing there back up the $4 billion figure. ~ Rob^Talk 04:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Donald Trump is interviewed by HollywoodReporter and is asked about his wife.

Headline-1: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine"

• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/donald-trump-murdoch-ailes-nbc-816131

QUOTE: When will you get Melania out there talking about you? "Pretty soon. She wants to do it. She is a very confident person. You've seen her on The View, and you've seen her on different shows. Larry King. You've seen her being interviewed. She's got a great style, and she would be an amazing first lady with heart." -- AstroU (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine

• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/donald-trump-murdoch-ailes-nbc-816131

QUOTE: "What would Melania care about as first lady?" She would care very much about women's issues. We're talking about mostly medical issues but women's issues. She was very strong on that with me the other day. Ivanka and Melania said, "You're not getting fairly treated on your feeling toward women." My mother was this incredible woman. I have known incredible women. I have many women executives, frankly, that are better than my men executives. I pay them the same or more." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

The article in Hollywood Reporter[7] is amazing!
FYI, here are a few (from the many) issues he answered:

• The FCC and net neutrality
• Do you regret the Rosie O'Donnell "pig" answer?
• Is Ronald Reagan your model? [No.]
• Your remarks on Mexicans and illegal immigration.
• Your comments about women have been called sexist.
• On abortion,
• On gay marriage. Have you been to a gay wedding?
• This is a dead issue for the GOP at this point?
• What media do you consume?
• Do you believe in legislating equal pay?
• How do you view Hillary right now? [Answer: Hillary has problems far greater than the nomination]
• Anyone in the GOP primary race you'd consider as your vice president?
• Whose side are you on in Deflategate — Tom Brady or Roger Goodell?

On Tom Brady: Tom is an unbelievable guy. He's a very good friend of mine. I have his number right here someplace. Whatever. Here, look, he just called me. (He holds up a Post-it that says "Tom Brady's New Cell #.")
-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- The many, many issues in the interview will be great for editing this article.

Trump on the Border

FoxNews just asked their frequent guest, Karl Rove, if the aggressive stance of Donald Trump will hurt or help the Republican image. Rove says he has a concern, "But first, let's go over some basics of his plan [crafted with Senator from Alabama, Jeff Sessions.] Rove then uses his familiar chalkboard, saying it is what other Republican candidates want also:

• Increase ICE
• Local law enforcement
• Deport Criminal Aliens
• E-Verify
• End Catch+Release
• Defund Sanctuary Cities
• Increase penalties w/visa-overstays.

I'll put this over to his WP "Trump Campaign" page. -- AstroU (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment (born in the USA) was discussed. Trump wants to keep families together by sending anchor babies back with their illegal-entry parents. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC) (US vs Wong is a tested constitutional right.)

See Birthright citizenship in the United States for more information on the concept. Please keep in mind that the term "Anchor baby" is considered to be a pejorative term for infant US citizens. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Vaccination

In the section on politics there is a sourced statement that seems to have little to do with politics: "Statements of Trump's hinting that vaccination would cause autism were subject to criticism in various media by the scientific community." Belief in fringe theories is not political in nature. Should this be in another section? Dimadick (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

They are in the context of general science-denying. That generally does fit into politics and is relevant to that section. In this particular case, government agencies regulate medicines and vaccines, and his stance to ignore scientific proof against vaccines causing autism is relevant as he's seeking office as the chief executive overseeing them. Did you have a better place for this information in mind? ~ Rob^Talk 13:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2015

Trump and Melania divorced early August 2015. They decide it was best for both of them, because Melania couldnt take the stress of the presidential campaign.

75.89.161.114 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done - Please provide a source. - MrX 16:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Early life and education

I have read reports that Trump is disliked by some Republicans (ie the Bush family etc) because he is not WASP. But as his mother was British (born in Scotland means British..Scotland despite all the noise is not a separate country) he has a WASP connection. What I find strange and interesting however is that NOWHERE are there ANY details of his mothers upbringing or education which I believe took place entirely in England. Does anyone have any details about this? The Britishness of his mother seems ro be completely obscured. The paragraph about his grandfather's wedding, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Early_life_and_education, is not entirely correct. In 1902 the city was part of an enclave belonging to the Kingdom of Bavaria. It hasn't been part of its mainland, respectively isn't part of modern day Bavaria at all.

One of the following two choices would be a better fit

• Kallstadt, Kingdom of Bavaria
• Kallstadt, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.10.236 (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need to know so much information about his grandparents, etc??? Couldn't we just say Kallstadt, Germany? Readers can go to the Kallstadt article if they want to know its history.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it has been  Done Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The article states that his sister is a former federal circuit court judge, whereas the Wiki on his sister and everything else I've read lists her as a current federal appellate court judge. It might be rather important because as an active appellate court judge she's in theory eligible to be appointed to SCOTUS, putting her in play as a presidential issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.112.97.111 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm responsible for the "former" adjective, having drawn that interpretation from her Wikipedia entry which states that "on June 30, 2011, Barry assumed senior status and was ultimately succeeded by Judge Patty Shwartz." Perhaps we could state that she has "assumed senior status", i.e., that she is effectively retired from day-to-day responsibilities (as she's 78 years old) though is still regarded as a judge, but that is rather wordy. Easier just to remove the word "former", so I'll do that. Regardless of her status, BTW, she could still be appointed to the Supreme Court. She wouldn't even have to be a lawyer. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Main profile picture

I think the main profile picture should be changed.

If you look at all the other candidates, they have professional favorable pictures. This picture is slightly ugly and needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.224.215 (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

See above discussion. Iady391 | Talk to me here 22:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

As time goes on, perhaps the Trump Campaign can supply a good picture, like the cover of "Hollywood Reporter" appearing today on the DrudgeReport.com -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of good pictures, a simple google search bring them up:

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danschawbel/files/2011/10/donald-trump.jpg http://www.fixthisnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/trump.jpg

I don't understand what's taking so long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.224.215 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free for all people to read and use as they please, and that includes images. Which is why we can't just upload to Wikipedia any picture we like from media sources or the web. Copyright is a real thing, so every image here is donated by its owner (i.e. the photographer) and appropriately licensed for free and open use, with the understanding that it's no longer subject to copyright claims. Professional photographers are generally loathe to give away their work for nothing, which is why so many relatively prominent celebrities and media figures have (relatively) unflattering photos here, since they were snapped by fans with the wherewithal to upload them. The debate (above) is between the best donated images we currently have; if you click on any image, you can get more information on who took it and what license was agreed to. If YOU'VE taken a good picture of Trump, by all means, sign up for Wikipedia and upload it, or contact the photographer of an image you prefer and encourage them to do the same. Mr. Trump and his organization is free, of course, to improve the article by donating better images; we'd love to have images of a younger Trump, images of him with Miss USA contestants, etc. But they have to agree to donate them, with the understanding that Wikipedia's fair use license in turn allows anyone in the world to use the image (sourced to Wikipedia) as they please. Contrary to popular belief, there's no prohibition against someone improving his or her own article. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Vesuvius: that makes sense, I'll see what I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.224.215 (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Vesuvius Dogg (talk): If the Trump family, his friends, representatives, contractors, or employees want to edit any Trump-related article, then WP conflict of interest applies. "COI editing is strongly discouraged.". . .If a conflicted person elects to proceed, then: "The Wikipedia Foundation's terms of use require editors to disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any contribution for which they receive, or expect to receive, compensation.". . .and "Editors with a COI who are not being paid are advised to declare their interest too if they involve themselves with affected articles." They are encouraged to donate media files for articles as a non-controversial way to participate. The WP:COI article gives all the details in dealing with this situation as well as info on the public relations code of ethics. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Mea culpa, you are absolutely right, I was thinking narrowly in the sense of photography but obviously expressed myself quite poorly in that last sentence. I should have said, as you did, that editors with a connection to their subject have a self-disclosure obligation. THANK YOU for re-directing the thread to the specific WP policy. (On a related note, I do think Wikipedia needs to encourage more photographers who are currently unaware of our needs and the various copyright license hurdles. I recently helped bring American Pharoah to FA status, thinking the whole time there are probably thousands of fan images out there with the potential to improve the article further. How to get them?) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If I were Mr Trump, I would be ashamed of the current picture, where he by the way looks like a zombie preparing to eat some brains. The Donald will be hosting more events so try to take another one and contribute it to Wikipedia. Also I suggest to check Flickr (search under All creative commons but check if the license is right anyway) there are many pictures of Donald Trump. Edit: Picture was changed. — Itsyoungrapper (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

A bad pic choice in more than one way. IHTS (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No one would like any picture that gets used, some want him looking smuggy, some want him looking younger some want him looking less yellow..we can't please everyone..I preferred the previous pic, it was the best image we had of him where he wasn't making a stupid face, the current picture is fine, don't expect those "professional" pics, they are only for actual politicians running in the elections..generally people who starts threads with "Picture should be changed " are always anons who have NO IDEA how wikimedia and image licensing work..its best to ignore them because ALL of them think we can just pic a good picture off the internet and use it..its not that easy..--Stemoc 02:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think people want a picture that doesn't look like Trump. A good hair day.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is Mayer?

Under the Legal affairs sections, paragraph twelve, in the discussion of his filing against Bill Maher, it says: "I don't think he was joking", Trump said. "He said it with venom."[196] Mayer replied that Trump needed to learn the difference between "what a joke is and what a contract is". My question is who is this person, "Mayer"? Not even a gender is implied. This is the only place in the article the name appears. Do the authors mean "Maher" or has something been deleted that would have provided context for the identity of this person? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wordreader: It was intended to be Maher; I've corrected the typo. Thanks for pointing it out. ~ Rob^Talk 08:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Too many orangutans typing.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The typo was mine. (Should I be laughing?) IHTS (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Orangutan

It is hard to summarise this incident in a comprehensible way, because the incident is rather strange. It appears Trump sued Bill Maher for breach of contract, not defamation. Hence the claim for $5 million. Therefore, quoting Trump saying, "It was venom", confuses this issue. It probably should also be made clear that Maher was making fun of Trump's attack on Obama.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The original text was incomprehensible as well as misleading, in ways unrelated to the legal basis of Trump's suit (which the sources used don't specify). IHTS (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it's probably still incomprehensible. I was mystified when I read the previous text, and edited it for clarification, and now it's been edited again. Reuters does say it's a contract issue, which is why he would be claiming $5m from Maher. If you don't know what the legal issue is, why are you claiming it is misleading? Are you worried that someone might think Trump was half-ape???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The text is a lot less incomprehensible after my copyedit. I don't know how the text got in the state it was before my copyedit (nor do I care). If Reuters says it was a contract issue, that makes sense, and that's great. At no time did I say the legal basis of the suit was misleading in the summary - I was referring to other things about the original text that were misleading (I didn't name those elements, I simply corrected them). I have no issue with adding mention about contract breach being legal basis of the suit - that probably would be a good improvement, as you earlier suggested. IHTS (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I added some context, the best I could do short of quoting Maher's joke at length (readers can get it from the story link). Better now? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I copyedited. But am wondering if Maher's add'l comments (the ones after his "what a joke is and what a contract is" comment) are superfluous to the story, increase length unnecessarily, and/or are even inappropriate for Trump's BLP. IHTS (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I think it's hard to summarise. I think Maher's comments provide some context for the lawsuit. As the defendant, his perspective is very relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Just how is calling Trump's attorneys morons, based on conjecturing they "don't know that apes & humans can't mate", providing "context for the lawsuit"? Maher's "perspective" was comedic. How much more (comedic insult) is needed from him in Trump's BLP? Where do you cut it off? (I suggested an appropriate cutoff above.) IHTS (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Maher is saying that his offer wasn't seriously intended (apes and humans can't mate) and hence Trump's lawsuit is baseless. This is a valid legal argument, not just a comedic insult. It counterbalances Trump's comment about venom, which implies the lawsuit is about defamation.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)