→POV lead.: i'm not sure why you're digging so deeply to try to get around the pretty straightforward guidance in MOS:LEAD |
Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) →POV lead.: tweak and sign |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 555: | Line 555: | ||
: Such facts should be removed per BLP. If reinstated, I propose that they could briefly be tagged ''[not verified in body]'' to alert other editors and forestall edit-warring. --[[User:Dervorguilla|Dervorguilla]] ([[User talk:Dervorguilla|talk]]) 08:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
: Such facts should be removed per BLP. If reinstated, I propose that they could briefly be tagged ''[not verified in body]'' to alert other editors and forestall edit-warring. --[[User:Dervorguilla|Dervorguilla]] ([[User talk:Dervorguilla|talk]]) 08:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
::I think you're making a mess by trying to get around [[MOS:LEAD]]. First of all, if template documentation conflicts with an existing guideline, then it should be obvious that the template documentation needs to be updated to match our guidelines. We use guidelines to describe our best practices—not obscure template documentation. Secondly, you're misinterpreting the template documentation. That template can be used to flag ''unsourced'' items in the lead, if they're not sourced or covered later in the article body. In this case, the lead material is sourced, so the template is inappropriate. Likewise, your citation of BLP isn't relevant, since the material in question is well-sourced and meets BLP criteria; there is absolutely no justification to remove such material on BLP grounds. Finally, the template does ''not'' mandate removal of material from the lead; rather, it is meant to flag the need for a citation for unsourced material in the lead (this should be obvious from the title of the template, which includes the words "citation needed").<p>I'm not sure why people are working so hard to get around the relatively straightforward guidance in [[MOS:LEAD]]. Separately, no interpretation of the template documentation can excuse Anythingyouwant's misrepresentation of [[MOS:LEAD]], but that is a behavioral issue for another venue. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 16:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
::I think you're making a mess by trying to get around [[MOS:LEAD]]. First of all, if template documentation conflicts with an existing guideline, then it should be obvious that the template documentation needs to be updated to match our guidelines. We use guidelines to describe our best practices—not obscure template documentation. Secondly, you're misinterpreting the template documentation. That template can be used to flag ''unsourced'' items in the lead, if they're not sourced or covered later in the article body. In this case, the lead material is sourced, so the template is inappropriate. Likewise, your citation of BLP isn't relevant, since the material in question is well-sourced and meets BLP criteria; there is absolutely no justification to remove such material on BLP grounds. Finally, the template does ''not'' mandate removal of material from the lead; rather, it is meant to flag the need for a citation for unsourced material in the lead (this should be obvious from the title of the template, which includes the words "citation needed").<p>I'm not sure why people are working so hard to get around the relatively straightforward guidance in [[MOS:LEAD]]. Separately, no interpretation of the template documentation can excuse Anythingyouwant's misrepresentation of [[MOS:LEAD]], but that is a behavioral issue for another venue. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 16:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::Are you accusing me of deliberately lying, [[User:MastCell]]? This is the fourth time in the last week that you have accused me at this page of "misrepresentation", and that's what the word means.[http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/misrepresent] How many more times can I expect this from you at this article talk page? If such serious and insulting attacks are "for another venue" then why do you insist on using this venue again and again and again and again? Editors often interpret policy and guidelines somewhat differently, and I am happy to discuss this particular one, and revise my views about it as I already have. At first, I discussed the policy here from memory [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANeilN&type=revision&diff=734093280&oldid=734092604 at the explicit suggestion of an administrator] ([[User:NeilN]]), and then I went and checked it to see if I got it wrong, and I then quoted the pertinent part at length so everyone can read it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&type=revision&diff=734533322&oldid=734531749] Editors can edit the lead, but then if it is not supported by the body of the article the two must be harmonized so the lead summarizes the body; but no contentious material can be put into the lead, without support in the article body, if that material is unsourced. This lead does not include footnotes, so any contentious material put into this lead without support in the body fails [[WP:BLP]]. If you disagree with my understanding of policy, please feel free to explain why you think I'm mistaken, and please try to do so without saying yet again that I'm a goddamned liar. Thanks.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===POV lead (redux)=== |
===POV lead (redux)=== |
Revision as of 16:50, 17 August 2016
Donald Trump was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Friendly search suggestions
Page views for this article over the last 30 days |
---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
Rape lawsuit
Given the potentially contentious nature of these accusations, I'm not going to add this to the article myself, but I think there ought to be a discussion here on the talk page over whether and how the subject of this lawsuit should be covered in the article. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- The lawsuit exists. But, it doesn't appear to have been picked up by reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- At least at this point, this is very fringe and poorly-sourced. It does not belong in this bio.- MrX 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing "fringe" about it. It's simply not notable at all so far and thus we keep it out per BLP.--TMCk (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is fringe in that is only being covered by QUESTIONABLE sources, outside of the mainstream.- MrX 22:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- No. There is indeed a lawsuit and the allegation is officially out there. It certainly isn't enough for inclusion tho.--TMCk (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- [ http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- We seem to all be coming to the same conclusion.:)Objective3000 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Great minds think alike. :) Either that or we are really all sockpuppets of Randy in Boise... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- We seem to all be coming to the same conclusion.:)Objective3000 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- [ http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- The lawsuit has now been covered by Lisa Bloom of The Huffington Post [1]. The article is marked as a blog post, though the author is a noted columnist and civil rights attorney, so it probably meets our reliability and verifiability criteria per WP:NEWSBLOG. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- An opinion piece on a blog which makes no attempt to be unbiased does not satisfy WP:BLP. WP:REDFLAG specifically states that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". When multiple mainstream media (not blogs) give coverage and analysis, then it might be fit for inclusion (keeping WP:UNDUE in mind as well). Right now nobody is talking about it, so it would be a BLP violation to put it in the article. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. It's going to get in, and there's no unbiased editorial oversight on this BLP subject. So much worse is on its way... Doc talk 07:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, admins who attempt to keep this subject "neutral" will themselves be further "subjugated". So get on board before it's too late. Doc talk 07:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Further, non-blog, non-opinion coverage is now available from Uproxx (What You Should Know About The Child Rape Case Against Donald Trump), Complex (How the Child Rape Lawsuit Against Trump Could Hurt His and Clinton’s Campaigns) and Democracy Now! (Trump Faces Lawsuit Accusing Him of Raping 13-Year-Old Girl). I'm not terribly familiar with the first two sources, but the third is definitely reliable. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we are anywhere near the level of coverage that would support including something like this. All we actually know is that a civil lawsuit has been filed, and that fact has not been picked up by mainstream sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Aren't lawsuits themselves notable?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) Only if they get significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Lawsuits are very common, especially against Trump. At this moment there are many, many civil suits pending involving Trump. There have been 1,300 people suing him and 1,900 people being sued by him over the past 30 years, including 70 new cases in the past year, at least 50 of which are still active. [2] These are from his real estate, construction, and other business dealings. Subcontractors saying they weren't paid, this kind of thing. None of them rate a mention here. This (suspiciously timed) lawsuit is getting a little coverage, but not currently at the level or from the sources that would make it notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Aren't lawsuits themselves notable?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we are anywhere near the level of coverage that would support including something like this. All we actually know is that a civil lawsuit has been filed, and that fact has not been picked up by mainstream sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. There is indeed a lawsuit and the allegation is officially out there. It certainly isn't enough for inclusion tho.--TMCk (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is fringe in that is only being covered by QUESTIONABLE sources, outside of the mainstream.- MrX 22:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing "fringe" about it. It's simply not notable at all so far and thus we keep it out per BLP.--TMCk (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- At least at this point, this is very fringe and poorly-sourced. It does not belong in this bio.- MrX 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Tired rehash of "Remember when X raped and murdered a 13 year old girl?" Completely unreliable and unsuitable per WP:RS and WP:BLPCRIME. It would need significant coverage, on the order of Bill Cosby's allegations to be added. --DHeyward (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Are you referring to this, by any chance? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I found two sources that seem to pass the test: the the International Business Times (which is generally regarded as mainstream and reliable), and Sputnik (owned by the Russian government, which is hardly biased against Trump; Putin and Trump are rather chummy, in fact). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see that as impressive enough for a BLP. If it hits a couple of major U.S. reliable news sources, it could be included with great care. It's very delicate material. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- U.S. sources? That seems really very biased. International sources should hold more weight when considering notability of something happening in the U.S., I would say, by indicating international attention is being paid to the matter. (this doesn't indicate my opinion on inclusion, just commenting on the U.S. vs. international coverage sub-thread) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- IBTimes does not agree that it "is generally regarded as mainstream", FiredanceThroughTheNight. See IBT Media, 2015 Media Kit: "Why do we exist? International Business Times aims to help the development of the global economy ... by closely following market trends and key events that are not necessarily covered by mainstream media..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, The Guardian is certainly mainstream and reliable, although whether it is biased or not is another question. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think that comment about IBTimes is playing with words. They do not say they are not mainstream media. We also have News.com.au [3], the Independent [4], the Daily Mail UK [5], the Daily Mirror [6], the Daily Beast [7], AOL [8] etc. It just seems that the US media is largely ignoring the story. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I came here to see if there was any more information about the lawsuit and was really surprised that it wasn't included already. It is very relevant and there are multiple sources, so why isn't it in? Neosiber (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Unlike with criminal cases, there is no real bar to filing a civil suit. The subject of this suit is particularly sensational. And according to this source there are some valid concerns about whether the case is legitimate.CFredkin (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but why not mention it with caveats? Plenty of reputable news sources have.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did already add a mention of Johnson's lawsuit to Jeffrey Epstein's article (he was also accused in the lawsuit). It doesn't seem to have stirred up any controversy, either. One would think that because Epstein is already a convicted sex offender, the barrier for inclusion of any further accusations should be much lower. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Unlike with criminal cases, there is no real bar to filing a civil suit. The subject of this suit is particularly sensational. And according to this source there are some valid concerns about whether the case is legitimate.CFredkin (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I came here to see if there was any more information about the lawsuit and was really surprised that it wasn't included already. It is very relevant and there are multiple sources, so why isn't it in? Neosiber (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think that comment about IBTimes is playing with words. They do not say they are not mainstream media. We also have News.com.au [3], the Independent [4], the Daily Mail UK [5], the Daily Mirror [6], the Daily Beast [7], AOL [8] etc. It just seems that the US media is largely ignoring the story. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Update: Several hours ago, another woman (Jill Harth) also went public with sexual assault accusations against Trump. Unlike Johnson, Harth was not a minor at the time. See [9] and [10]. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously that's not as important as the size of his signature...--Jack Upland (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do not include, unless it gets a lot more widespread coverage than it has now. Currently it is being reported by a few foreign sources, a few not-exactly-neutral domestic sources, and lawnewz.com which broke the story. This is not enough coverage to include something with BLP implications like this. Maybe it will get there, if Trump fights back strongly (a practice which tends to attract more coverage than the original accusation). But a civil suit, from more than 20 years ago, withdrawn a few weeks after it was filed? Not enough. (Even if the coverage does increase it will be hard to present this information neutrally. The incidents supposedly happened in 1993. She filed a lawsuit four years later, 1997, in the midst of a separate business-related lawsuit by her partner against Trump; and she dropped her suit a few weeks later, after the partner's suit was settled. This is according to the Guardian. I don't know about you, but I find this timing sufficiently questionable to affect her credibility.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's up to us to act as detective and assess the credibility of allegations. I also don't see the problem with "foreign" sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Another update: Robert Morrow (Texas politician), the chairman of the Travis County, TX Republican Party, has publicly expressed belief in the allegations and withdrawn his support of Trump as a result, instead switching to Gary Johnson. This is already mentioned in Morrow's article. Given that Morrow was actually compared to Trump in the media following his election, this is somewhat ironic. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Notable and big stuff : i'll include it myself. Jombagale (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jombagale, your addition has been reverted and revdelled. Add anything like that again and you will be blocked. --NeilN talk to me 23:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but i may add that case, in a good manner and with sources. Ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jombagale (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jombagale, you can add the allegation if consensus exists. You cannot treat the alleged rape as a fact (which is what you did). I strongly advise you to make sure any contentious info you add has consensus. --NeilN talk to me 00:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see consensus here for adding a reference to this subject.CFredkin (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see a coherent response to the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieN, NeilN, etc, could we do something about the personal attacks on this page please? It makes for a toxic environment. Cheers. Muffled Pocketed 06:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- I will try to avoid provocative comments since it is offending people.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- The comment wasn't directed at you (although the PA was). I already gave the offender a warning.--TMCk (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, but I think I provoked the offending comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- The comment wasn't directed at you (although the PA was). I already gave the offender a warning.--TMCk (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- I will try to avoid provocative comments since it is offending people.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieN, NeilN, etc, could we do something about the personal attacks on this page please? It makes for a toxic environment. Cheers. Muffled Pocketed 06:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The rape lawsuit is now mentioned in Legal affairs of Donald Trump, and the section devoted to it is quite lengthy. If it's covered there, it might not need to be mentioned here, at least not just yet. (In comparison, Epstein doesn't have a separate article devoted only to his legal affairs, so there's no place to put the accusations against Epstein other than his own article, where they currently reside). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone just attempted to add it to this article, citing snopes.com and the Daily Mail. I've removed it on WP:BLP grounds. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Allegedly racist and fascist
Can someone explain why these obvious characterizations have not already been put into this article? I just added after "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist"... - the obvious additions that he is widely described as - "racist",[295] and "fascist".
I expect some people might object to this, because they think it is an insult. No, it's just actually what people are describing him as, and that should be in an encyclopedic article. If it fails to do so, it is utterly bias. This is also important given that the American Nazi party today sees Donald Trump as presenting a 'real opportunity'.
If you want statistics, just google "Donald Trump" and "racist" or "fascist". "Populism" isn't even half of what people are "widely describing". Wikidea 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- You forgot "bully", Wik. Citation [295](2): "Editor’s note: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully..."
- Citation [295](1) lost me at "COMMENTARY". --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- As for citation [296]: Newsweek ("Is Donald Trump a Fascist?") lost me at "OPINION"; New Statesman at the headline ("Is Donald Trump a Fascist? It Doesn't Matter"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Challenged, poorly sourced, removing immediately per WP:BLPREMOVE. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 03:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLP, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." Saying Trump is widely considered to be a racist fascist is an overstatement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Dervorguilla: I see you removed quite a bit more than the disputed content in your edit, which is poor form at best, and slow edit warring at worst, considering this. Please don't use removing BLP violations as an opportunity to further other disputes. ~Awilley (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for using clear edit summaries.
- I understand your concern, Awilley. To (further) clarify: I removed part of the material per FUTURE, part per FUTURE and BLPREMOVE, and part per BLPREMOVE only.
- I'm willing to remove each part as a separate edit. But this would likely exacerbate the edit-warring problem; my colleague would understandably feel that he had to revert two of my edits, not just one.
- What would you propose instead? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 06:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- My advice would be to revert the BLP violation, and then try to resolve the other matter without reverting at all. Try to understand your colleague's argument and point of view, then try to come up with a creative solution that both can agree on. If that fails, there are plenty of people here willing to weigh in and offer a 3rd opinion. ~Awilley (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Awilley: Thank you for removing ("per WP:BLP") material that had been added by Wikidea, removed by me, and reinstated by Calton against consensus. I think it was reinstated contrary to WP:BLPREMOVE policy and the ARBAPDS decision. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Awilley: You have appropriately advised me (per WP:CON) to "try to resolve the other matter without reverting at all" and "try to come up with a creative solution that both can agree on". Here's a creative compromise solution which doesn't revert.
- 'Trump is the second major-party presidential nominee in American history whose experience comes principally from running a business (Wendell Willkie was the first). If elected, Trump would become the first U.S. President without prior government or military experience.'
- ->
- 'Trump is the second major-party presidential nominee whose experience comes from running a business rather than from government or military service. (Wendell Willkie was the first.)'
- More concise, no conflict with WP:FUTURE policy, no actual loss of information. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- My advice would be to revert the BLP violation, and then try to resolve the other matter without reverting at all. Try to understand your colleague's argument and point of view, then try to come up with a creative solution that both can agree on. If that fails, there are plenty of people here willing to weigh in and offer a 3rd opinion. ~Awilley (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- While they may seem obvious to you, articles are supposed to represent mainstream opinions. Most consider it unlikely that Trump will jail political opponents or ban future elections. TFD (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Don't change the talk page heading will you? Are the editors above suggesting that people aren't widely describing Trump as EITHER racist OR fascist? If so, maybe they can explain their thinking with evidence? Google search shows that hit rates for ""Donald Trump is a racist" (over 5m) and "fascist" are significantly higher in each case than "populist". Wikidea 16:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- He's neither. Ask Dr Ben Carson. Unless you can prove it, we need to say "allegedly". There is no proof because he's not. He's opposed to illegal immigration, which simply means he is in favor of the rule of law. He supports legal immigration!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- The American Conservative has a new article entitled When Trump Fought the Racists.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Don't change the talk page heading will you? Are the editors above suggesting that people aren't widely describing Trump as EITHER racist OR fascist? If so, maybe they can explain their thinking with evidence? Google search shows that hit rates for ""Donald Trump is a racist" (over 5m) and "fascist" are significantly higher in each case than "populist". Wikidea 16:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Wharton School
Donald Trump did graduate from the Wharton School. The University of Pennsylvania is made up of schools. There's the Wharton School of Business, the Towne School of Engineering, the School of Nursing, the School of Allied Sciences, the School of Liberal Arts, and the Annenberg School of Communications. All schools have undergraduate and graduate programs. When you are admitted to the University you then choose the school. Trump did indeed receive his undergraduate degree from the Wharton School. I am going to restore the edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm concerned about the sourcing around the claim that Trump transferred to or graduated from Wharton, as opposed to the University of Pennsylvania. This Washington Post source says: He did well there, and then went to Fordham University, a Jesuit school in the Bronx, for two years, before transferring to the University of Pennsylvania and studied economics for two years, graduating in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree. He took undergraduate classes at Penn’s famed Wharton School of Business. Though he was not enrolled in Wharton’s prestigious MBA program, the Spring 2007 Wharton Alumni Magazine featured Trump, with this headline, “The Best Brand Name in Real Estate.” So was Trump actually enrolled at Wharton or did he just take classes there? The sources currently cited in the article don't support enrollment at Wharton, so at a minimum they need to be sharpened up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I reverted that and left the talk page note above. We should probably combine these sections. There's no such thing as graduating from UPenn. If someone told you they were a Penn graduate, you would ask them, which school? Even at graduation, you first go to the ceremony at your school where you receive your diploma, and then if you feel like it, you can attend the university wide commencement, where you receive a cardboard tube for your diploma. Also, please note that the MBA is the graduate program degree, Masters in Business Administration. It is also possible to receive a Bachelor's in Business Administration. The WashPo writer seems to not have done his/her homework. He is an alum of the school so certainly he'll be featured in the school's alum magazine. All the schools at Penn have their own alum magazines. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll add this source from the Boston Globe. It shows him wearing Wharton's colors. [11]. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also, Penn graduates in May, not June. The WashPo has it all wrong. Trump graduated in May, 1968, That needs to be changed, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think we need reliable sourcing for your statements (which may or may not be true, I don't know) before dismissing a usually reliable media outlet such as the Washington Post as unreliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also, if Wharton undergrad is just another school of many at Penn, then does it have its own special admissions process or higher admissions standard? If not, is it misleading or undue emphasis to mention Wharton in the lead section? (Just because Trump himself loves to talk about his Wharton degree doesn't mean we have to.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- You have to meet prerequisites to successfully enter the school. Apparently, his record at Fordham satisfied those requirements. There's nothing misleading about the Boston Globe article. The WashPo article is misleading, either deliberately obfuscating, or just plain sloppy work. The Boston Globe also has a photo of Trump wearing Wharton's undergraduate academic regalia. And since I'm not inserting the facts about Penn's organization of schools, I don't need to source that. But certainly, you could source their school admissions catalogue or email them for how things work there. The first two years are spent meeting prerequisties for your school. If you have satisfactorily met the prereq, you are admitted. It is extremely competitive. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding me. Do the WaPo and Globe sources conflict? If so, and if both sources are reliable, then the conflict must be described neutrally. On the other hand, if you're saying the WaPo source is unreliable, then you need to provide more compelling arguments than those based on your personal knowledge. What I mean is, please provide links for your assertions. As for my comment about "misleading," I didn't suggest the Globe source was misleading; I suggested that our article might be misleading if it says that Trump went to Wharton and Wharton was just one of many schools at Penn, no different than the others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think the Boston Globe article makes it plain that Trump went to and graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's no need to repeat yourself. Please listen to my arguments and respond. I make them in good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by, "just one of many schools at Penn." If you are saying that there is not distinction from graduating from one of the schools and that all degrees are from UPenn, then that is not the distinction that UPenn makes. They distinquish the schools. I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better than that except to say that it appears The Boston Globe has correctly stated where Trump graduated from. The WashPo appears to have skipped over the Wharton part. Yes, he graduated from Penn; from the Wharton School at Penn. I hope that helps. I'm trying my best here. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Most RS say that Trump went to the Wharton School. Even the DP [12]. Not sure what the issue is, but.--Malerooster (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by, "just one of many schools at Penn." If you are saying that there is not distinction from graduating from one of the schools and that all degrees are from UPenn, then that is not the distinction that UPenn makes. They distinquish the schools. I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better than that except to say that it appears The Boston Globe has correctly stated where Trump graduated from. The WashPo appears to have skipped over the Wharton part. Yes, he graduated from Penn; from the Wharton School at Penn. I hope that helps. I'm trying my best here. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's no need to repeat yourself. Please listen to my arguments and respond. I make them in good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think the Boston Globe article makes it plain that Trump went to and graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding me. Do the WaPo and Globe sources conflict? If so, and if both sources are reliable, then the conflict must be described neutrally. On the other hand, if you're saying the WaPo source is unreliable, then you need to provide more compelling arguments than those based on your personal knowledge. What I mean is, please provide links for your assertions. As for my comment about "misleading," I didn't suggest the Globe source was misleading; I suggested that our article might be misleading if it says that Trump went to Wharton and Wharton was just one of many schools at Penn, no different than the others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- You have to meet prerequisites to successfully enter the school. Apparently, his record at Fordham satisfied those requirements. There's nothing misleading about the Boston Globe article. The WashPo article is misleading, either deliberately obfuscating, or just plain sloppy work. The Boston Globe also has a photo of Trump wearing Wharton's undergraduate academic regalia. And since I'm not inserting the facts about Penn's organization of schools, I don't need to source that. But certainly, you could source their school admissions catalogue or email them for how things work there. The first two years are spent meeting prerequisties for your school. If you have satisfactorily met the prereq, you are admitted. It is extremely competitive. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
SW3 5DL, I feel like we're not oommunicating well. I'm trying to understand your perspective here. How do we know that the Boston Globe got it right and the Washington Post got it wrong? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you @Malerooster:. @DrFleischman:, I've made it as clear as I can. Try this link: Undergraduate Admissions at the Wharton School. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- That link is broken. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Try it now. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ok so my question isn't whether Wharton has an admissions process but whether it's different than Penn's other undergraduate schools. Or, more generally, why mention in an encyclopedia article that someone went to Wharton vs. Penn? If Trump had gone to Penn School of Arts and Sciences would we be saying that? Lots of universities have separate schools (often with separate admissions programs) but we don't mention what school the person went to. For example Barack Obama attended Columbia College but Barack Obama only says he attended Columbia University. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Try it now. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- That link is broken. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania offers an undergraduate Bachelor of Science in Economics degree. Typically most professional schools offer undergraduate degrees: law, medicine, dentistry, music, physed, education, engineering. The Hillary Clinton article says she "earned a J.D. from Yale Law School," not Yale University, although she was an undergraduate at the Yale Law School of Yale University. There are no hard and fast rules whether someone mentions the school or the university, but we should follow ordinary usage. TFD (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Re Clinton--what? I thought she went to Wellesley for undergrad and Yale for law school? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- You are right. Yale law degrees were considered undergraduate until 1971, and since then are considered graduate degrees. (The name of the degree was changed from Bachelor of Law to Doctor of Jurisprudence.) But we would not say that people who graduated before 1971 did not graduate from Yale Law School. TFD (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Re Clinton--what? I thought she went to Wellesley for undergrad and Yale for law school? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
At least the infobox is straighforward. We can adopt the style used at Barack Obama ("[[Columbia College, Columbia University|Columbia University]]", "[[Harvard Law School|Harvard University]]"), at Hillary Clinton ("[[Yale Law School|Yale University]]"), and by the US Department of Education ("Wharton" = "University of Pennsylvania" or "Wharton County Junior College", not Wharton School). As for the article body, we could conveniently use "the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania", since that's what UPenn calls it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Dervorguilla, I'm primarily concerned about the lead section, where concision is king and there isn't space to explain finer nuances. Should the lead say "the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania" (as it currently does), or "the Wharton School", or "the University of Pennsylvania"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well put, Dr. Fleischman. The Obama article says (in the lead) "Columbia University"; Johnson says "University of New Mexico"; Stein says "Harvard University". So we probably shouldn't say "Wharton School" (or "Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania") in the lead. I'd be good with University of Pennsylvania ("[[Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania|University of Pennsylvania]]"), which is analogical enough, and more helpful than "[[University of Pennsylvania]]". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not well put at all. What the other schools are doing, what Obama's page is doing, are not relevant here. I've added sources that clearly identify Donald Trump as a Wharton graduate. I've even included the commencement program that shows Donald John Trump graduating from Wharton. Yes, it is belongs in the lead. Stop. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- SW3 5DL, there are other policies and guidelines beyond WP:V. In this case we're talking about WP:LEAD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- DrFleischman, you appear to be determined to sanitize the article of all mention to the Wharton School. First, you preferred a source that was slightly vague and seemed to suggest he wasn't really a student there but had merely taken a few courses. Then when I made an edit that shows clearly he was a student, he graduated from there, and in fact was wearing Wharton's academia hood at commencement, you then switched to wanting to be concise in the lede. The majority, if not all, sources do acknowledge that Donald Trump did indeed graduate from the Wharton School. Yet you want to obfuscate and make it appear he was merely some general studies major at Penn. He was not. What other school at Penn would give him a Bachelor of Science in Economics? If you want concise as you now claim, then you should be thrilled with having Wharton in the lede and eliminate mention of the University of Pennsylvania, since the link will in fact show the University. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Your assumptions about my motives are way off, but it doesn't matter. Focus on the edit, not the editor, and try to obtain consensus for your position. I had multiple concerns about the references to Wharton. I'm rather satisfied on my verifiability concern and therefore I'm no longer contesting mention of Wharton in the body; but I still have concerns about neutrality which is why I'm contesting mention of Wharton in the lead section. You have not addressed these concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- DrFleischman, you appear to be determined to sanitize the article of all mention to the Wharton School. First, you preferred a source that was slightly vague and seemed to suggest he wasn't really a student there but had merely taken a few courses. Then when I made an edit that shows clearly he was a student, he graduated from there, and in fact was wearing Wharton's academia hood at commencement, you then switched to wanting to be concise in the lede. The majority, if not all, sources do acknowledge that Donald Trump did indeed graduate from the Wharton School. Yet you want to obfuscate and make it appear he was merely some general studies major at Penn. He was not. What other school at Penn would give him a Bachelor of Science in Economics? If you want concise as you now claim, then you should be thrilled with having Wharton in the lede and eliminate mention of the University of Pennsylvania, since the link will in fact show the University. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- SW3 5DL, there are other policies and guidelines beyond WP:V. In this case we're talking about WP:LEAD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not well put at all. What the other schools are doing, what Obama's page is doing, are not relevant here. I've added sources that clearly identify Donald Trump as a Wharton graduate. I've even included the commencement program that shows Donald John Trump graduating from Wharton. Yes, it is belongs in the lead. Stop. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well put, Dr. Fleischman. The Obama article says (in the lead) "Columbia University"; Johnson says "University of New Mexico"; Stein says "Harvard University". So we probably shouldn't say "Wharton School" (or "Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania") in the lead. I'd be good with University of Pennsylvania ("[[Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania|University of Pennsylvania]]"), which is analogical enough, and more helpful than "[[University of Pennsylvania]]". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This issue came up in a campaign for the presidency of the Philippines. Here is a link to an article that has images of the grad and undergrad diplomas.[13] Apparently the undergrad degree is awarded by UPenn and the grad degree by Wharton. This made me check my own undergraduate business degree (not from Wharton btw) and it says it is a awarded by the chancellor of the university on the authority of the business school. So techically it is neither from the university nor from the business school. TFD (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Not according to UPenn. He is officially listed as graduating from Wharton. It is not an issue of neutrality. Yes, he went to Wharton. Dr. Fleischmann has changed his argument each time it's been found wanting. He simply doesn't like it. And the source you're citing does not apply to Donald Trump, so it's WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources are what we use and that is not a reliable source. Sorry, but that is a ridiculous claim, and the so-called Wharton degree in the photo looks like an obvious fake. Reliable sources say Trump went to Wharton. Wharton says he went to Wharton. Trump says he went to Wharton. Just because Dr. Fleischmann says he didn't doesn't make it so. And btw, Dr. Fleischmann never mentioned this source you've presented. We use reliable sources. We go with what the majority say. They say Trump went to Wharton. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Donald Trump, Wharton Alumnus '68
- Donald John Trump, Commencement, Wharton School, May, 1968
- Donald Trump wearing gown w/Wharton academic hood
Donald Trump went to Wharton. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I do not know how you determined that the picture of the Wharton MBA diploma is an obvious fake. It looks a lot like the MBA diploma pictured on the UPenn bookstore website.[14] So does the undergrad diploma.
- UPenn has four undergrad schools: the College of Arts and Sciences, Penn Engineering, the School of Nursing, and the Wharton School. Transfer students may apply to any one.[15] Note that there is a link "Transferring into the Wharton School."
- TFD (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is this not definitive?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be. TFD (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you @Anythingyouwant: and @The Four Deuces: TFD. I had planned to call the Registrar today. Appreciate your efforts.btw, I had already provided a Wharton admissions link earlier to no avail here SW3 5DL (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be. TFD (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is this not definitive?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
SW3 5DL you are fighting straw men rather than listening to me. I never suggested that we remove Wharton from the article, and I am no longer questioning whether Trump transferred to or graduated from Wharton. I, and I believe Dervorguilla, are saying that even though the fact that Trump went to Wharton is verifiable, it doesn't belong in the lead section because it takes up a fair amount of real estate and the distinction between Wharton and Penn isn't sufficiently important to merit inclusion in the lead section per the guideline that says the lead should be a concise summary of the article's most important contents. I prefer mentioning Penn vs. Wharton because of the continued widespread misconception that Trump got an MBA from Wharton. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I support keeping it in the lead. The sentence says: "Born and raised in New York City, Trump is a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's degree in economics". So it's clear about it being a bachelor's degree. Removing it would seem to imply that he's less a graduate of Wharton than he is of UPenn, which would be inaccurate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with DrFleischman. A further argument for just saying UPenn instead of Wharton is that in common usage if someone says "I graduated from Wharton" they mean that they got an MBA from Wharton, not an undergrad degree. That's what Wharton is known for. Especially since it may very well be the case that an undergrad degree in econ from its School of Arts & Sciences is seen as more prestigious than an undergrad degree in econ from its Wharton School. This is arguable but especially if you're an economist you tend to view any econ BSs granted by business oriented institutions as "tainted", even if that business institution is Wharton.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, please show RS for that claim. Dr. Fleichman, you appear to be to be unable to let this go and now appear to be editing in a very disruptive manner. Please stop. The "taking up too much real estate" is your most ridiculous argument yet. As for your new claim that you are concerned readers will think he has an MBA, the lede clearly states he has a bachelor's degree in economics from Wharton. So, I would say, that's even more reason to keep it in the lede. Wipes out all confusion immediately for the reader, especially as many readers will only read the lede. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's a clarification. Anyway, I agree DrFleischman and I don't see them doing anything disruptive at all. Quite the opposite in fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, please show RS for that claim. Dr. Fleichman, you appear to be to be unable to let this go and now appear to be editing in a very disruptive manner. Please stop. The "taking up too much real estate" is your most ridiculous argument yet. As for your new claim that you are concerned readers will think he has an MBA, the lede clearly states he has a bachelor's degree in economics from Wharton. So, I would say, that's even more reason to keep it in the lede. Wipes out all confusion immediately for the reader, especially as many readers will only read the lede. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Trump University
The following was deleted from the Trump University section with a "doesn't appear to have long-term notability" comment:
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican."[1] Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have alarmed legal experts, who have expressed concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence.[2][3]
From what I have read, this is pretty historic. We have never had a Presidential nominee of a major party using his public position to trash the judge in one of his civil cases. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- At this point in the previous discussion, User:Anythingyouwant stated the following: "I would add this."
- Mentioning the HNBA boycott without mentioning the reasons for the boycott would not be NPOV, and all that seems like a lot of detail to go into this article. There is no mention of the HNBA boycott in the Trump University Wikipedia article. I would expect to see the HNBA boycott there if it were noteworthy, which I don't think it is. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently, you are merely repeating stuff that you said before, because you didn't like the replies before. See the old section that Gouncbeatduke just misleadingly re-named.[16]. Gounc also made it appear that I have already commented in this new section, but I did not, and have removed the duplicated comment of mine from this section.[17]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- It appears the thread GoUNC started before about Judge Curiel was hijacked and turned into a discussion about Vietnam. So although I probably wouldn't have renamed the thread and started a new one, I don't blame GoUNC for doing that. Can you work with them? Just a word of well-intentioned advice, the two of you need to start working together a bit more productively or I wouldn't be surprised to come back in a month to see an interaction ban or a couple of topic bans. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It was kind of hijacked whenAnother editor decided to copy and paste[18] a conversation that he and I were having at his user talk page, and then a subheader was removed.. I will try to insert better headers in that old section so that all conversations can continue there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)- @Anythingyouwant:, excuse me, I didn't hijack anything and I would appreciate you striking that. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am still trying to get some comment on Trump University. Anythingyouwant recommended including the HNBA boycott in his only-visible-by-following-links edits above. I think mentioning the HNBA boycott without mentioning the reasons for the boycott would not be NPOV, and all that seems like a lot of detail to go into this article. There is no mention of the HNBA boycott in the Trump University Wikipedia article. I would expect to see the HNBA boycott there if it were noteworthy, which I don't think it is. I keep repeating this because I have never seen ANY reply to it, just stuff about Vietnam. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant:, excuse me, I didn't hijack anything and I would appreciate you striking that. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- It appears the thread GoUNC started before about Judge Curiel was hijacked and turned into a discussion about Vietnam. So although I probably wouldn't have renamed the thread and started a new one, I don't blame GoUNC for doing that. Can you work with them? Just a word of well-intentioned advice, the two of you need to start working together a bit more productively or I wouldn't be surprised to come back in a month to see an interaction ban or a couple of topic bans. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently, you are merely repeating stuff that you said before, because you didn't like the replies before. See the old section that Gouncbeatduke just misleadingly re-named.[16]. Gounc also made it appear that I have already commented in this new section, but I did not, and have removed the duplicated comment of mine from this section.[17]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Mentioning the HNBA boycott without mentioning the reasons for the boycott would not be NPOV, and all that seems like a lot of detail to go into this article. There is no mention of the HNBA boycott in the Trump University Wikipedia article. I would expect to see the HNBA boycott there if it were noteworthy, which I don't think it is. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I support inclusion. It is highly significant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I support inclusion of the material (with the boycott info) too. Gounc, please stop pasting comments with my signature.[19]. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Question - kinda: Was the judge directly involved in the HNBA boycott (other than simply being a member) and did Trump know (and mentioned) anything about it when he started bashing the judge for his ethnic? Is there any other connection other than a coincidence?--TMCk (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- None of the well-publicized accusations about the judge's memberships (in "La Raza" etc.) have suggested any involvement beyond being a member, probably because membership itself suggests a degree of agreement and support. Most people don't say, "Joe may be a member of the KKK (or ISIS or the communist party) but it's insignificant without more evidence".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No and no.
The boycott was in response to the bashing by Trump, not the other way around.And no reliable source has suggested that Curiel has had any connection to the boycott beyond being a member of the HNBA. Regardless, the HNBA issue shouldn't hold up reinclusion of the content about Trump's comments about Curiel. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)- I would hold it up, because I think it's very pertinent. Much more pertinent than information about organizations that the judge does not belong to. Moreover, even if the judge did not belong to this organization, still it's an organization that has boycotted Trump, which seems notable in itself. BTW, the boycott preceded Trump's comments about the judge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- You are so right about the timing, my mistake. As for the notability of the boycott as distinct from the comments about Curiel, I'm inclined to disagree, as the coverage of the boycott by reliable sources has been minimal and only in connection with the Curiel comments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I would hold it up, because I think it's very pertinent. Much more pertinent than information about organizations that the judge does not belong to. Moreover, even if the judge did not belong to this organization, still it's an organization that has boycotted Trump, which seems notable in itself. BTW, the boycott preceded Trump's comments about the judge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think the connection is made by the fact that it is mentioned in the sources.CFredkin (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Question - kinda: Was the judge directly involved in the HNBA boycott (other than simply being a member) and did Trump know (and mentioned) anything about it when he started bashing the judge for his ethnic? Is there any other connection other than a coincidence?--TMCk (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- So the answer to my question above is no and no and thus unrelated to the bashing. We don't include highly misleading coincidences and any suggestion to the contrary would be a quite extreme POV not suitable outside partisan attack media and sure not in compliance with NPOV.--TMCk (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Hispanic National Bar Association boycott was in response to the bashing by Trump. This statement is 100% true. It was in response to Donald Trump's comments regarding Mexico sending rapists and criminals to the United States, which the Hispanic National Bar Association termed "divisive and racist". The claim that the judge was ever a member in "La Raza" is 100% false. It was as claim made by Fox News and was documented as false in both the NYT and Washington Post. Like the majority of Hispanic lawyers in the US, the judge is a member of the Hispanic National Bar Association, but he has never commented publicly on the HNBA boycott or if he supports it. I have to say, comparing the Hispanic National Bar Association to the "KKK (or ISIS or the communist party)" is one of the most explicitly racist comments I have ever seen on a Wikipedia talk page. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- The HNBA is very different from the KKK or ISIS or the communist party, and I never remotely suggested otherwise. They are all organizations to which people belong, but that does make them similar in all other respects, obviously. I favor restoring this edit. Falsely accusing other editors of making racist comments is outrageous, almost as outrageous as if you were to grossly distort comments by a presidential candidate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Hispanic National Bar Association boycott was in response to the bashing by Trump. This statement is 100% true. It was in response to Donald Trump's comments regarding Mexico sending rapists and criminals to the United States, which the Hispanic National Bar Association termed "divisive and racist". The claim that the judge was ever a member in "La Raza" is 100% false. It was as claim made by Fox News and was documented as false in both the NYT and Washington Post. Like the majority of Hispanic lawyers in the US, the judge is a member of the Hispanic National Bar Association, but he has never commented publicly on the HNBA boycott or if he supports it. I have to say, comparing the Hispanic National Bar Association to the "KKK (or ISIS or the communist party)" is one of the most explicitly racist comments I have ever seen on a Wikipedia talk page. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think the incident is probably notable enough to warrant a mention, though there must be a better way to phrase it. "Alarmed" and "expressed concern" is a fairly WEASELly wording. Who are these legal experts, and what concern did they specifically express? Getting specific here and attributing a statement would be better than speaking in vague generalities about "concerns". The WordsmithTalk to me 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Alam" is the term used in the title of the WP reference given, so I would stick with alarmed. "Horrified" might be more accurate. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I believe it's notable for the campaign article, but not Trump's bio. Unlike some other Trump statements, this one has already faded from the media's and the public's discourse. However if consensus is that it should be included, it should definitely be cleaned up to remove the POV verbiage and the boycott should also be mentioned for balance.CFredkin (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree, Trump's comments about Curiel have hardly faded. They keep coming back over and over again as prominent Republicans keep mentioning them as a reason why they're not supporting him. Susan Collins just yesterday, for instance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- But it's not Trump churning the waters on that. It's others who may be in trouble and want some political cover. That said, it does seem due weight to allow that para here for now, so long as it doesn't turn in to an undue litigation of the case here on his bio. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree, Trump's comments about Curiel have hardly faded. They keep coming back over and over again as prominent Republicans keep mentioning them as a reason why they're not supporting him. Susan Collins just yesterday, for instance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
More than one reliable source has mentioned Curiel's ties to the Hispanic National Bar Assn., which is boycotting Trump's businesses. It seems incredibly POV to me that we would mention Trump's comments without mentioning his stated rationale for them.
Curiel is a lifetime member of the National Hispanic Bar Association, which last year called for a boycott of all Trump business ventures -- although it is not clear whether Curiel personally agrees with the boycott. (CNN)[4]
Curiel’s membership was disclosed in the questionnaire he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he was nominated for a seat on the federal bench in 2012. He also listed several other organizations, including a life membership in the Hispanic National Bar Assn. That group, which describes itself as a nonpartisan professional organization representing the interests of Latino legal professionals, last year in a news release called for a boycott of “of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels and restaurants.” (LA Times)[5]
CFredkin (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'd have to reluctantly agree. Some Rule of the California Bar Association most likely prohibits an judge from personally supporting a boycott in public (though not in private); so all we know is that because Judge Curiel is paying his membership fees, he is indeed (passively) supporting it financially.
- But the Rules also likely require a judge to examine his conscience and determine whether he is indeed significantly biased in a given case -- and whether he believes he can set aside his bias while acting as judge in that case. We have some reason to think the judge has done so. Evidence: He's acknowledged that he did make one error adverse to Trump's interests; but he promptly acted to mitigate the harm to Trump.
- So both Trump and Judge Curiel may be correct. The judge may well have some personal bias yet be acting in a more-or-less unbiased manner.
- Also, Trump (perhaps at advice of counsel) hasn't acknowledged the real possibility that the judge may also feel a bias against at least "some" illegal aliens from Mexico who've been "pushed here" by the Mexican government (to quote Trump) because they were narcotraficantes. Remember that at least 20% of Hispanic-American citizens do support Trump -- in part for such reasons. And the judge has likely had to deal with some of the most repugnant alleged criminals in the category vilified by Trump. I would reasonably presume that Judge Curiel is biased in part against Trump and in part for Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I still think this belongs on the campaign page. My concern is that the section will grow and become undue. It would need to be paraphrased, both his comments and the response. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to include Trump's "stated rationale" for the reason the judge is biased, then you should stick with Trump's statements, and not some WP:SYNTH theory for why he said it. The only reason Trump ever stated for the reason he thinks the Judge is bias is "He's Mexican". Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan (not exactly a Democratic partisan) said Trump's rationale about the judge's bias were "the textbook definition of racist comments". Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Disclaimer: this is not perfect, nor does it have sources, but I will of course get them. My point is to get the gist of this while the house is quiet for a few minutes.
Here's what I've found so far, apparently sometime around the start of the year, 2016, Trump's lawyers tried to get one of the cases, I think it was the California case, dismissed, because the class action law suit plaintiff was dismissed from the case on motion from her lawyers because she wasn't going along with their narrative. That's a problem when your plaintiff agrees with the defendant and sinks your legal boat. The judge dismissed the plaintiff. Trump's lawyers filed a motion to for summary judgment/dismiss the case since the plaintiff was no longer involved. However, the judge allowed the case to go forward. Whereupon, Trump apparently said, either at a rally or a Sunday show, very soon thereafter, that the judge should have dismissed the case and was being "very, very, very, unfair" and biased against him because he wanted to build the wall with Mexico and the judge and/or his parents is/areMexican. That was the first questioning of the judge.
The second one appears to have come later in June, 2016 came when somebody wanted the release of sealed information. Trump's lawyers opposed it, and the judge said, Why yes, let's let everybody see it. Apparently, Trump again came out with his comments, except this time the judge took a second look and realized there was a legal reason for not releasing all that sealed stuff and ordered it resealed, but maybe that train had left the station, so. . .oops.Those appear to be the reasons Trump believes the judge is unfair because he's biased against him because Trump wants to build a wall with Mexico. If I have that not exactly right, it is not due to POV. It's parent brain.As to the question of should the section show what prompted Trump. Yes, if we are going to keep this here, then what I've written here, if it meets RS, can just be used with the RS. That's not a lot and I think it would calm down this argument. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect. She wanted to be dismissed from the case because of personal attacks by Trump (as well as a lawsuit by Trump which she won) [6] Gaas99 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect / misleading. The judge decided that there was now a compelling public interest in seeing the data due to Trump's running for President. Further, although Trump claimed that the data constituted "trade secrets" this claim was invalid since Trump University was no longer in operation [7] Gaas99 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that you do show POV and I don't believe that Trump's professed reasons should be shown Gaas99 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there a proposed edit?
@CFredkin: But the quote from the L.A. Times, that's not the proposed edit is it? Has anybody written an edit that would work? This going round and round is not productive at all. Somebody needs to write a proposed edit. Then we can decide, include or exclude. And give a WP rationale. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL:Here's what I would propose:
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican."[8] Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence.[9][3] In response to the criticism, Trump and his campaign have pointed out that the judge belongs to the Hispanic National Bar Association which has called for a boycott of all Trump's businesses.[4][5]
CFredkin (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @CFredkin:The context doesn't seem quite there. I had the impression he thought the judge was biased because he wants to build a wall with Mexico and the judge's parents are from there, though he was born in Indiana. And then he also mentioned the judge's affiliations including this one. If the context is there, then yes. I don't have a problem with it. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: Does this address your point above?:
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican."[10] Trump initially stated that he believed the judge, who was born in Indiana, was biased against him because of his controversial immigration proposals. Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence.[11][3] In response to the criticism, Trump and his campaign have pointed out that the judge belongs to the Hispanic National Bar Association which has called for a boycott of all Trump's businesses.[4][5]
References
- ^ King, Robert (February 27, 2016). "Trump blames legal woes on 'Spanish' judge". Fox News. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
- ^ DelReal, Jose A.; Zezima, Katie (June 1, 2016). "Trump's personal, racially tinged attacks on federal judge alarm legal experts". Washington Post.
- ^ a b c Kendall, Brent (June 2, 2016). "Donald Trump Keeps Up Attacks on Judge in Trump University Case". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 3, 2016.
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had 'an absolute conflict' in presiding over the litigation given that he was 'of Mexican heritage' and a member of a Latino lawyers' association.
- ^ a b c McConnell, Dugald; Todd, Brian (June 9, 2016). "Requesting judge's recusal in Trump case could be risky, analysts say". CNN.
- ^ a b c Moran, Greg. "Donald Trump fights to keep videos of his Trump University testimony private", Los Angeles Times (June 14, 2016).
- ^ http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/11/news/companies/trump-university-donald-trump-tarla-makaeff/
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-orders-release-of-internal-trump-university-documents/2016/05/28/2e960e5e-24f9-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_trumpmanagement-256pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
- ^ King, Robert (February 27, 2016). "Trump blames legal woes on 'Spanish' judge". Fox News. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
- ^ DelReal, Jose A.; Zezima, Katie (June 1, 2016). "Trump's personal, racially tinged attacks on federal judge alarm legal experts". Washington Post.
- ^ King, Robert (February 27, 2016). "Trump blames legal woes on 'Spanish' judge". Fox News. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
- ^ DelReal, Jose A.; Zezima, Katie (June 1, 2016). "Trump's personal, racially tinged attacks on federal judge alarm legal experts". Washington Post.
@CFredkin: Yes, brilliant. Cover's it all. I think you can post it Thread's gone stale. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- As I said before, mentioning the HNBA boycott without mentioning the reasons for the boycott would not be NPOV, and all that seems like a lot of detail to go into this article. There is no mention of the HNBA boycott in the Trump University Wikipedia article. I would expect to see the HNBA boycott there if it were noteworthy, which I don't think it is. Multiple editors have previously stated they are not in consensus with this, so posting it would not be with firm consensus. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
While the RfC on the proposal above is in progress, I think we should address the issues with some of the wording raised by User:The Wordsmith above. I propose the revised version of the second sentence below:
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican."[10] Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence.[11][3]
CFredkin (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Why is this article allegedly so biased?
Why are the editors blocking actual discussion of Donald Trump's racism and demagoguery? Today he advocates killing - maybe judges, maybe Hillary Clinton, maybe anyone: "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
What on Earth is wrong with the editors, incapable of reflecting any of this? Some simple solutions could include references to Trump's racism and authoritarianism by quoting any of the millions of articles discussing it, and then quoting Trump's denial, e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-i-am-the-least-racist-person/2016/06/10/eac7874c-2f3a-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html
But there is something seriously wrong, especially editors like User:Dervorguilla, whose only function seems to be to silence criticism. Wikidea 20:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Instead of gratuitously attacking your fellow editors, why not make some constructive contributions to the article? Golly Trump seems to bring out the worst in all of us. Rise above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let's add this guy to the list of people who want to silence others shall we? Wikidea 21:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, add me to your list. Muahahahaha!!! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let's add this guy to the list of people who want to silence others shall we? Wikidea 21:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is not up to us to interpret Trump's comments. Instead we are supposed to reflect how they are seen in mainstream sources. I watch the 24/7 cable news and right now they are talking about the Orlano shooter's father sitting behind Clinton and Susan Collins and GOP security analysts supporting her. TFD (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, Wolf Blitzer is talking about it now. Let's see if it gets any traction. TFD (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This article isn't mentioning Trumps narcissism ONCE. Seriously dear American editors, you have a narcissistic autocrat in your front garden who's about to enter your house. The reluctance to write down obvious and often mentioned and analysed psychological facts isn't neutrality. Be bold. Greetings from Germany, we had our fair share of autocratic leader cult here. Didn't went well at all. --Jensbest (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Being bold still means complying with our policies and guidelines, which include those concerning verifiability and neutrality. If you can do that while adding something about Trump's narcissism, then by all means do so! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- As a foreign editor I don't wanna interfere by editing here. But there are tons of serious articles by journalists, psychologists or other experts which clearly verify some serious mental problems of Mr. Trump. In the New Yorker-essay about the former ghostwriter of Mr. Trump, Tony Schwartz ("The Art of the Deal"), Schwartz calls him a sociopath. This isn't mentioned in the article - this guy had a long deep professional look into mind and soul of Trump. Not mentioned in the enwiki-article at all. Guys, really, neutrality doesn't mean to not mentioning facts about Trump. If this would be an article about a third world dictator, for sure all the written psychological expertise about him would be worked into the article. You need to do this in the Trump-article, too. Three lines about how Trump is thinking about the movie "Citizen Kane", but not one word about the mental condition. That's what I call a white-washed article. --Jensbest (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can agree that the "Citizen Kane" paragraph is useless (I never noticed it before). Something could be added about Tony Schwartz's opinion, given their relationship. Where, though? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I also agree that the Citizen Kane reference can/should be removed. However a statement by one person to the effect that Trump is a "sociopath" has no business in his bio, regardless of their past relationship. Would you support adding the statement by the Clinton's former friend, David Geffen, to the effect that the Clinton's are accomplished liars?CFredkin (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- We'd have to consider their credibility, or at least how the reliable sources present their credibility. I remember Geffen had an issue with Clinton not pardoning his friend. Schwartz has no comparable reason. Maybe it shouldn't be added. I'm not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- No ethically principled professional ghostwriter would break a nondisclosure agreement with a client. (Redacted) If so, it doesn't matter what he says.
- Unless...
- Unless Trump broke his agreement with Schwartz first, as by not paying him his share of the royalties. (Redacted)
- The majority of CEOs do have sociopathic personalities, according to most surveys. (Lawyers usually come in second.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Read. "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." (WP:OR, graf 1.) Looks like the policy doesn't apply to talk pages, Muboshgu. Sorry.
- But think of it this way: You did go 140,000 edits without an error. ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- We'd have to consider their credibility, or at least how the reliable sources present their credibility. I remember Geffen had an issue with Clinton not pardoning his friend. Schwartz has no comparable reason. Maybe it shouldn't be added. I'm not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I also agree that the Citizen Kane reference can/should be removed. However a statement by one person to the effect that Trump is a "sociopath" has no business in his bio, regardless of their past relationship. Would you support adding the statement by the Clinton's former friend, David Geffen, to the effect that the Clinton's are accomplished liars?CFredkin (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can agree that the "Citizen Kane" paragraph is useless (I never noticed it before). Something could be added about Tony Schwartz's opinion, given their relationship. Where, though? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- As a foreign editor I don't wanna interfere by editing here. But there are tons of serious articles by journalists, psychologists or other experts which clearly verify some serious mental problems of Mr. Trump. In the New Yorker-essay about the former ghostwriter of Mr. Trump, Tony Schwartz ("The Art of the Deal"), Schwartz calls him a sociopath. This isn't mentioned in the article - this guy had a long deep professional look into mind and soul of Trump. Not mentioned in the enwiki-article at all. Guys, really, neutrality doesn't mean to not mentioning facts about Trump. If this would be an article about a third world dictator, for sure all the written psychological expertise about him would be worked into the article. You need to do this in the Trump-article, too. Three lines about how Trump is thinking about the movie "Citizen Kane", but not one word about the mental condition. That's what I call a white-washed article. --Jensbest (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jensbest is correct about this. This page has been taken over by editors who are not willing to allow mainstream views of Trump's racism, demagoguery, and his escalation of violent hate speech. It is bias. Wikidea 03:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I suspect the failure to include such content is due not so much to bias as much as to a lack of collaboration and an excessive amount of WP:ABF and general nastiness. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The reason this article is so bias is because a huge number of editors currently editing it are pro-Trump POV-pushers. If you are interested in a NPOV, I hope you will stick around and revert some of their edits. It is impossible, given the 1RR per 24 rule, to stop them all unless more NPOV editors become interested in this article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Admin warning: Do not speculate if people are likely sociopaths. Non-admin reminder: Please remember to WP:AGF with your fellow editors. --NeilN talk to me 18:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- NeilN: I, Dervorguilla, acknowledge that I should not speculate on a Talk page whether (not "if"!!!) a person is likely a sociopath. :)
- May I speculate as to whether the ghostwriter of an autobiography is showing signs of countertransference issues? ("Countertransference is the process where the analyst unconsciously displaces onto the patient patterns of behaviors or emotional reactions as if he were a significant figure from earlier in the analyst's life." — Kaplan.)
- Just sayin'. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Dervorguilla, not if you're basing that on your personal opinion. Editors don't get to post their personal psychoanalyses of living people on talk pages. You should know this. --NeilN talk to me 12:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- NeilN: Thank you for your reply. You seem to be arguing that an editor may not speculate that a living person is showing signs of countertransference issues if the editor is basing his statement on his personal opinion. ("Not if you're basing that on your personal opinion. Editors don't get to post their personal psychoanalyses of living people on talk pages.") But compare the WP:TPG nutshell ("Talk pages are ... not for expressing personal opinions on a subject"), with the WP:TALK#USE guideline ("Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity ... and reach consensus"), and WP:BLPTALK policy ("Contentious material about living persons that is ... poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be ... deleted") (emphasis added). Here the editor in question appears to have posted an unsourced contentious choice-related opinion of a living person's conscious or unconscious issues (ghostwriter's countertransference), in reply to an eminent colleague's appropriate unsourced contentious choice-related opinion. (Sourced: "I remember Geffen had an issue..."; unsourced: "Schwartz has no comparable reason.") --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Dervorguilla, WP:BLPTALK is prefaced by, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." On the talk page, you may link to contentious material about a subject and start a discussion without it being deleted. You may not just add contentious material based on your opinion. In the example you provided, the first part actually appears in the Geffen article with a source. [20] The second part ("Schwartz has no comparable reason") is relatively uncontentious if no source claims otherwise. Not every negative is going to be covered by a source. For example, an editor can write, "Obama should not be considered an expert on space travel because he's never been to space" without providing a source. Bottom line: Do not post disparaging unsourced commentary or speculation about a BLP-applicable subject on talk pages. --NeilN talk to me 09:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- NeilN: Thank you for your reply. You seem to be arguing that an editor may not speculate that a living person is showing signs of countertransference issues if the editor is basing his statement on his personal opinion. ("Not if you're basing that on your personal opinion. Editors don't get to post their personal psychoanalyses of living people on talk pages.") But compare the WP:TPG nutshell ("Talk pages are ... not for expressing personal opinions on a subject"), with the WP:TALK#USE guideline ("Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity ... and reach consensus"), and WP:BLPTALK policy ("Contentious material about living persons that is ... poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be ... deleted") (emphasis added). Here the editor in question appears to have posted an unsourced contentious choice-related opinion of a living person's conscious or unconscious issues (ghostwriter's countertransference), in reply to an eminent colleague's appropriate unsourced contentious choice-related opinion. (Sourced: "I remember Geffen had an issue..."; unsourced: "Schwartz has no comparable reason.") --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Dervorguilla, not if you're basing that on your personal opinion. Editors don't get to post their personal psychoanalyses of living people on talk pages. You should know this. --NeilN talk to me 12:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- NeilN: I think we can both learn from Lunsford ("Fallacies of Argument. Begging the question is a form of circular argument, divorced from reality").
- Your argument: "The second part ('Schwartz has no comparable reason') is relatively uncontentious if no source claims otherwise." The reality:
- "Trump ... has made a point of pursuing legal action to aggressively enforce confidentiality agreements. The Associated Press reported earlier this year that nearly every Trump employee must sign ... nondisclosure agreements [which] bar them from releasing any ... disparaging information about the ... mogul... Trump accused [an aide] of making disparaging comments... Trump made the claims in private arbitration, another ... requirement written into his confidentiality agreements that seeks to keep the details of the disputes from a public airing in court."[1]
- ^ Day, Chad; Pearson, Jake (2016-08-12). "Trump, Former Campaign Aide Settle Confidentiality Dispute". Associated Press.
- Schwartz, too, has made disparaging comments about the mogul; and Schwartz, too, was once the mogul's employee. No details of the legal dispute are known to have been given a public airing. Your thoughts? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I said "if no source claims otherwise". And I'm not interested in wikilaywering with you. Bottom line: Do not post disparaging unsourced commentary or speculation about a BLP-applicable subject on talk pages. --NeilN talk to me 08:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Colleagues: I don't feel like I'm communicating well here. Can anyone set out more clearly what I'm getting at? (Do you think it's OK to post the unsourced questionable statement that "Schwartz has no comparable reason", which appears to help disparage the disputing counterparty? If yes, is it OK to post an unsourced response that Schwartz may actually have a comparable reason -- meaning, an issue with this counterparty? If yes, is it OK to say that this issue may be conscious or unconscious?)
- (It would clearly be OK to post that in the Schwartz case, no source has mentioned anything about Trump's "not pardoning his friend". But it would also be trivial, pointless, and unhelpful.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I said "if no source claims otherwise". And I'm not interested in wikilaywering with you. Bottom line: Do not post disparaging unsourced commentary or speculation about a BLP-applicable subject on talk pages. --NeilN talk to me 08:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Schwartz, too, has made disparaging comments about the mogul; and Schwartz, too, was once the mogul's employee. No details of the legal dispute are known to have been given a public airing. Your thoughts? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Might as well try to fix some of the problems now while there in a NPOV editor in the house. I added the following, this topic header is a good place to discuss it.
Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism.[1]
References
- ^ See:
- King, Ledyard (June 21, 2016). "Poll shows 'racist' comments about federal judge hurt Trump in Florida, Ohio". USA Today.
- Steinhauer, Jennifer; Martin, Jonathan; Herszenhorn, David (June 7, 2016). "Paul Ryan Calls Donald Trump's Attack on Judge 'Racist,' but Still Backs Him". The New York Times.
- Waldman, Paul (November 25, 2015). "Donald Trump is running the most explicitly racist campaign since 1968". The Week.
- D'Antonio, Michael (June 7, 2016). "Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows". Fortune.
- Gass, Nick (July 5, 2016). "Ryan to Trump: 'Anti-Semitic images' have no place in campaign". Politico.
- Schleifer, Theodore (June 11, 2016). "Mitt Romney says Donald Trump will change America with 'trickle-down racism'". CNN. Retrieved July 19, 2016.
- Fieldstadt, Elisha; Vitali, Ali (July 4, 2016). "Donald Trump's 'Star of David' Tweet About Hillary Clinton Posted Weeks Earlier on Racist Feed". NBC News.
This is not the first time Trump has been forced to disavow or distance himself from anti-Semitic or white supremacist connections... Leaders of his own party were publicly appalled. Trump eventually tweeted an official disavowal and blamed a faulty earpiece for his initial response. But anti-Semitic and white nationalist rhetoric has continued to dog the candidate. Trump has been accused of knowingly whipping up racist sentiment among his supporters. He denies it but declines to explain how anti-Semitic memes keeping making their way into his own tweets.
What do you think? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think this has already been discussed in the recent past.CFredkin (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I see "appealing to racism" as more easily provable than saying someone is racist. Maybe he is just saying these things to get elected. George Wallace never spoke about race until after lost his 1958 gubernatorial bid. Then he said "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor." and went on to get elected governor for four terms. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Removal of tag from top of article
I have removed the POV tag at the top of the article. Please don't add it back. The entire article is not biased. Everything is referenced. If there are specific sentences you'd like us to look at, please tell us here. But I think it's fine.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that there has been plenty of feedback on this subject so the tag is now unnecessary, and there are many other ways to increase feedback even more if necessary. It's absolutely wrong that all mainstream commentators view Trump as appealing to racism, much less appealing explicitly. The best thing is to describe Trump's appeals and let readers decide what to think of them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Anythingyouwant: Can you please remove the POV tag? User:Gouncbeatduke added it back, saying there was no consensus, but this is ridiculous. It just makes Wikipedia look bad. The article is not biased (which is the word they're looking for, by the way).Zigzig20s (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- I do support removal of the tag, as do other editors. Take a look at the documentation, and more documentation, for the tag to see when removal is appropriate. And here's an essay about it. The conditions for removal are satisfied.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the tag be removed as long as there is no consensus for it anyway, since "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."? Surely this applies to tags as well?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have raised the question here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the tag be removed as long as there is no consensus for it anyway, since "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."? Surely this applies to tags as well?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- I do support removal of the tag, as do other editors. Take a look at the documentation, and more documentation, for the tag to see when removal is appropriate. And here's an essay about it. The conditions for removal are satisfied.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Anythingyouwant: Can you please remove the POV tag? User:Gouncbeatduke added it back, saying there was no consensus, but this is ridiculous. It just makes Wikipedia look bad. The article is not biased (which is the word they're looking for, by the way).Zigzig20s (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that there has been plenty of feedback on this subject so the tag is now unnecessary, and there are many other ways to increase feedback even more if necessary. It's absolutely wrong that all mainstream commentators view Trump as appealing to racism, much less appealing explicitly. The best thing is to describe Trump's appeals and let readers decide what to think of them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, adding a tag is an edit and yes, it needs firm consensus to stay if challenged. --NeilN talk to me 16:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, well, two editors in this section (plus another) have objected to the tag atop the article. I have addressed the objections that motivated the tag, and I think it can now be removed because no satisfactory explanation has been given about why there's still a neutrality issue about the article as a whole. So, I'll remove it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Trump's alleged racism
@Gouncbeatduke has put forward an excellent starting proposal to stop the white wash of Trump's racism: "Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism."
One simple word can be added to this sentence: "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist" and racist.
There's two proposals. Let's do both. By the way, administrators have a special responsibility, and especially need to stop the continuation of the "Fox and Friends" state of this page. Wikidea 18:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Admins enforce BLP and discourage unacceptable behavior. Editors resolve WEIGHT and NPOV issues. --NeilN talk to me 18:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Can't we at least put a NPOV tag on this article? Maybe a few NPOV editors will then join the mix? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Can we please cool off on the accusations? That goes not just for Gounc but for everyone. Everyone has their own personal biases. Labeling and name-calling isn't productive. And a POV tag strikes me as overkill just because some of the editors here want to add a single sentence to the lead (or two words). An {{pov-inline}} tag for the "populist" sentence seems much more appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- He's obviously not a "racist". Ask Dr Ben Carson. This is getting tedious. Can we please refocus on his plan to bring high-paying jobs back to America?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe we could just rename Wikipedia to Fox&Friendsipedia, at least then people would know that they are reading articles where NPOV editing has been completely abandoned. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- He's obviously not a "racist". Ask Dr Ben Carson. This is getting tedious. Can we please refocus on his plan to bring high-paying jobs back to America?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Can we please cool off on the accusations? That goes not just for Gounc but for everyone. Everyone has their own personal biases. Labeling and name-calling isn't productive. And a POV tag strikes me as overkill just because some of the editors here want to add a single sentence to the lead (or two words). An {{pov-inline}} tag for the "populist" sentence seems much more appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Can't we at least put a NPOV tag on this article? Maybe a few NPOV editors will then join the mix? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I find this a very odd statement. Why should we ask Carson if he is a racist? Why should we focus the article on one aspect? We report. We do not draw conclusions or focus on whatever he would like us to focus on. Objective3000 (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Accusations of "racism" are very damaging, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a tabloid. We simply relay NPOV information from reliable third-party sources. If you want to rant, please find a forum. We are trying to do serious work here.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- And yet many of the editors on this article just spend their time removing references such as these[1]
- Accusations of "racism" are very damaging, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a tabloid. We simply relay NPOV information from reliable third-party sources. If you want to rant, please find a forum. We are trying to do serious work here.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I find this a very odd statement. Why should we ask Carson if he is a racist? Why should we focus the article on one aspect? We report. We do not draw conclusions or focus on whatever he would like us to focus on. Objective3000 (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ See:
- King, Ledyard (June 21, 2016). "Poll shows 'racist' comments about federal judge hurt Trump in Florida, Ohio". USA Today.
- Steinhauer, Jennifer; Martin, Jonathan; Herszenhorn, David (June 7, 2016). "Paul Ryan Calls Donald Trump's Attack on Judge 'Racist,' but Still Backs Him". The New York Times.
- Waldman, Paul (November 25, 2015). "Donald Trump is running the most explicitly racist campaign since 1968". The Week.
- D'Antonio, Michael (June 7, 2016). "Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows". Fortune.
- Gass, Nick (July 5, 2016). "Ryan to Trump: 'Anti-Semitic images' have no place in campaign". Politico.
- Schleifer, Theodore (June 11, 2016). "Mitt Romney says Donald Trump will change America with 'trickle-down racism'". CNN. Retrieved July 19, 2016.
- Fieldstadt, Elisha; Vitali, Ali (July 4, 2016). "Donald Trump's 'Star of David' Tweet About Hillary Clinton Posted Weeks Earlier on Racist Feed". NBC News.
This is not the first time Trump has been forced to disavow or distance himself from anti-Semitic or white supremacist connections... Leaders of his own party were publicly appalled. Trump eventually tweeted an official disavowal and blamed a faulty earpiece for his initial response. But anti-Semitic and white nationalist rhetoric has continued to dog the candidate. Trump has been accused of knowingly whipping up racist sentiment among his supporters. He denies it but declines to explain how anti-Semitic memes keeping making their way into his own tweets.
- Look, first of all, we should always be saying allegedly, unless this is a direct quote. The subhead is not a direct quote, so please don't keep removing the word alleged; that makes Wikipedia look bad. Now, Ryan was trying to distract the media from his picture with all-Caucasian interns. Trump highlighted the judge's ancestry, not his "race" (sic). This is a silly debate because we all know there is only one human race anyway. Finally, his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish; the EVP at the Trump Organization is Jewish; he wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. If you want to look for traces of "racism", please head over there. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- The sentence removed today with these references said "Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism". It didn't say he was racist or claim to know what is in his heart. Maybe he is just saying these things to get elected and doesn't believe them, it would not be the first time. George Wallace never spoke about race until after lost his 1958 gubernatorial bid. Then he said "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor." and went on to get elected governor for four terms. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Look, first of all, we should always be saying allegedly, unless this is a direct quote. The subhead is not a direct quote, so please don't keep removing the word alleged; that makes Wikipedia look bad. Now, Ryan was trying to distract the media from his picture with all-Caucasian interns. Trump highlighted the judge's ancestry, not his "race" (sic). This is a silly debate because we all know there is only one human race anyway. Finally, his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish; the EVP at the Trump Organization is Jewish; he wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. If you want to look for traces of "racism", please head over there. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I generally believe that this sort of inflammatory, subjective labeling doesn't belong in a WP article, much less in the lede.CFredkin (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I also find the POV tag overkill, and a {{pov-inline}} tag for the "populist" sentence would be less inappropriate. I also oppose any blanket statement in the lead that Trump is a racist or appeals to racism. Most such claims are based on his opposition to illegal immigration, and his desire to strictly limit immigration from countries with a proven history of terrorism, and both of those are in the lead so 'nuf said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Once again, the line removed from the lede today did not say Trump is racist, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim that it did. It said that there are many, many NPOV references for the fact that he has repeated said things that appeal explicitly to racists. He may just say them because he wants to get elected, not because he believes them. I also think the NPOV tag is useful for the lede section, because I think User:Wikidea is correct that it is not currently NPOV, and the current crop of editors is getting nowhere in fixing it, so maybe the tag will help attract some new editors to help fix it. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've edited my last comment accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Once again, the line removed from the lede today did not say Trump is racist, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim that it did. It said that there are many, many NPOV references for the fact that he has repeated said things that appeal explicitly to racists. He may just say them because he wants to get elected, not because he believes them. I also think the NPOV tag is useful for the lede section, because I think User:Wikidea is correct that it is not currently NPOV, and the current crop of editors is getting nowhere in fixing it, so maybe the tag will help attract some new editors to help fix it. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I also find the POV tag overkill, and a {{pov-inline}} tag for the "populist" sentence would be less inappropriate. I also oppose any blanket statement in the lead that Trump is a racist or appeals to racism. Most such claims are based on his opposition to illegal immigration, and his desire to strictly limit immigration from countries with a proven history of terrorism, and both of those are in the lead so 'nuf said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
20:54, 9 August 2016
Can someone please review this edit by Jasonanaggie and make changes as appropriate? Portions need to be reverted, as Trump didn't graduate from Fordham, and his degree was a B.S., not a B.A. I would make these changes but I'm limited by 1RR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Fixed this, thanks. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jasonanaggie:, you also need to restore the Wharton School in the lede.SW3 5DL (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Wharton School bit is currently being discussed here on the talk page in the thread above named "Wharton School." We haven't had any movement in a little while. Editors are encouraged to participate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I find it lucky for you that an editor who has never edited the article before August 6, would turn up yesterday and delete one of the very bits you were complaining about without even mentioning it in his edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Cool off please. If you are going to accuse me of socking then start an SPI. Otherwise, and the meantime, please try to be nice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I find it lucky for you that an editor who has never edited the article before August 6, would turn up yesterday and delete one of the very bits you were complaining about without even mentioning it in his edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:BRD applies here. This edit has been stable for years. I went back to February 2011. The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania has been in the lede in every iteration from then until you changed it August 6, without discussion, without consensus. Bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, I reverted, we've discussed. Someone came along and removed it again without discussion and without responding to a request to revert himself. Someone who has never edited the page before.
- We've discussed it at length with all your concerns about the sources not agreeing he went to Wharton and perhaps he was just a general studies student at the University. Nearly every article, if not all, about Trump and his education mention Wharton. I added the Wharton School Alumni Magazine source, and even the commencement program, both of which also recognize Trump as a Wharton graduate. I added the Boston Globe, which you don't think is a reliable source, showing Trump wearing his gown with the Wharton academic hood. Then you said, well it wasn't concise for the lede. You keep changing your argument. It seems to me this is really about you just don't like it. I am going to restore it. It is sourced, it is stable, it is not bothering anybody. Since this is BRD, it is up to you to discover that Trump did not go to Wharton and that he only graduated from the University with a general degree or whatever you now object to. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't restore it, as that would be disruptive. As it stands we have 2 editors making statements in favor of having this content removed from the lead section and 1 editor in favor of having it restored. If you want the content restored then gain consensus for it first. You have put attributed arguments to be that I have never made. In any case I will respond on the merits above, in the appropriate section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- SW3 5DL, I agree that this should be put to rest. This source [21] makes it clear to me that the Wharton material should stay: "...after his Wharton graduation in 1968." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Somedifferentstuff:, thank you. I agree. More sources have also been provided in the thread above Wharton School. Appreciate your comment. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- This education sidebar is already far more detailed than Clinton's. There is no mention of any of Clinton's degrees on her sidebar (She has a Juris Doctor degree from Yale, I have no idea what her undergrad was). This sounds like just more POV-pushing to puff up an empty suit. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wharton school on this page. Sources have been provided that show Trump did indeed attend and graduate from The Wharton School. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
RFC:Should Judge Curiel’s membership in the Hispanic National Bar Association be in the Donald Trump article?
Three editors continue to push for the inclusion of Curiel’s membership in the Hispanic National Bar Association and the HNBA boycott in the Trump University section (see the Trump University section above). To date, there is no mention of the Curiel’s membership in the HNBA or the HBNA boycott in the Wikipedia Trump University article, where I would expect to see it if it was significant. As are most Hispanic lawyers in the US, the judge is a member of the HNBA , but he has never expressed support for the boycott and there is no evidence he is even aware of it. The judge’s membership and the boycott was in a press release by the Trump campaign, but appears is very few NPOV press articles on Trump University and appears to be dismissed as FUD by most NPOV news sources.
Should Judge Curiel’s membership in the Hispanic National Bar Association be in the Donald Trump article? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Correction: In his neutral statement of the issue, my colleague Gouncbeatduke makes the unsupported claim that most Hispanic lawyers in the US are members of the HNBA (a lobbying group which generally supports President Obama's decisions). Because many Hispanic lawyers are members of CABA (which intensely opposes some of those decisions) and like groups, this claim may be in error. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- For Reference, here is what this BLP says already right now about Trump and this judge:
Trump repeatedly criticized a judge, Gonzalo P. Curiel, who is overseeing two of the Trump University cases. During campaign speeches and interviews up until June 2016, Trump called Curiel a "hater of Donald Trump", saying his rulings have been unfair, and that Curiel "happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that's fine",[1] while suggesting that the judge's ethnicity posed a conflict of interest in light of Trump's proposal to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.[2][3][4][5][6] Many legal experts were critical of Trump's attacks on Curiel, often viewing them as racially charged, unfounded, and an affront to the concept of an independent judiciary.[7][8][9][10][11][12] On June 7, 2016 Trump issued a lengthy statement saying that his criticism of the judge had been "misconstrued" and that his concerns about Curiel's impartiality were not based upon ethnicity alone, but also upon rulings in the case.[13][14]
References
- ^ Liptak, Adam (June 3, 2016). "Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say". New York Times.
Mr. Trump accused the judge of bias, falsely said he was Mexican and seemed to issue a threat
- ^ "Trial date set in Trump University lawsuit". CBS News. May 6, 2016. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
- ^ Rappeport, Alan (June 3, 2016). "That Judge Attacked by Donald Trump? He's Faced a Lot Worse". The New York Times. Retrieved June 4, 2016.
- ^ Ford, Matt (June 3, 2016). "Why Is Donald Trump So Angry at Judge Gonzalo Curiel?". The Atlantic. Retrieved June 3, 2016.
- ^ East, Kristen (May 28, 2016). "Trump attacks 'Mexican' judge in Trump U lawsuit". Politico. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
- ^ Finnegan, Michael (May 27, 2016). "Trump trashes judge overseeing Trump University fraud case, says it's fine that he's Mexican". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 29, 2016.
- ^ Kendall, Brent (June 3, 2016). "Trump Says Judge's Mexican Heritage Presents 'Absolute Conflict'". Wall Street Journal.
Donald Trump on Thursday escalated his attacks on the federal judge presiding over civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University, amid criticism from legal observers who say the presumptive GOP presidential nominee's comments are an unusual affront on an independent judiciary
- ^ Ford, Matt (June 3, 2016). "Why Is Donald Trump So Angry at Judge Gonzalo Curiel?". The Atlantic.
A growing chorus of American legal scholars from the left, right, and beyond says [Trump's] remarks threaten the rule of law. The real-estate businessman also has another problem: There's no evidence whatsoever in the public record to support Trump's claims about Curiel
- ^ DelReal, Jose; Zezima, Katie (June 1, 2016). "Trump's personal, racially tinged attacks on federal judge alarm legal experts". Washington Post.
Donald Trump's highly personal, racially tinged attacks on a federal judge overseeing a pair of lawsuits against him have set off a wave of alarm among legal experts, who worry that the Republican presidential candidate's vendetta signals a remarkable disregard for judicial independence
- ^ Walshe, Shushannah; Keneally, Meghan (June 3, 2016). "Legal Experts Worry After Trump Attacks Judge for Alleged Bias, Judge's Brother Calls Trump a 'Blowhard'". ABC News.
- ^ Edwards, Haley (June 3, 2016). "Donald Trump's Attacks On Judge's Ethnicity Brings Back Sordid History". TIME.
- ^ Rappeport, Alan (June 3, 2016). "That Judge Attacked by Donald Trump? He's Faced a Lot Worse". New York Times.
Experts in legal ethics say that seeking to discredit a judge is not a winning strategy and that the suggestion that Judge Curiel could not treat a case fairly because of his ethnicity raises questions about Mr. Trump's ability to appoint judges
- ^ Jackson, David (June 7, 2016). "Trump says judge comments 'misconstrued' amid GOP uprising". USA Today. Retrieved June 8, 2016.
I do not intend to comment on this matter any further
- ^ "Donald Trump's Statement on Trump University", New York Times (June 7, 2016). This includes the full text of the Trump statement.
Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Replies
It depends The editor who started this RFC wants to include an explicit statement (in the lead no less), that Trump has made appeals to racists or racism. To the extent that that is based on the Curiel incident, I don't see how you can include racism charges in this article, without including Trumps' statements that he believes a hispanic judge could be impartial, and that he was inferring bias on Curiel's part from actions that Trump thinks were unfair in combination with Curiel's ethnicity and membership in an organization which had specifically announced a boycott of Trump. What I see here is an attempt to exclude all exculpatory sources as to racism, while putting the very inflammatory racism charge in the lead and elsewhere in this article. To me, it seems very POVish, not neutral at all. Moreover, CNN and the LA Times are considered about as reliable and well-read as any sources at Wikipedia. Incidentally, the decision to boycott Trump had nothing to do with the Trump University case, AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Normally, I would say yes, as on the face of it, I don't see the harm. However, as I'm not well versed in this, and I anticipate that those being summoned by bot will also not be versed in the nuances of this, perhaps some background would be helpful. As for racism, as being mentioned by Anythingyouwant in his post above, such a claim would need far more than comments by Trump that he believes the judge is not being fair because he, Trump, is planning to build a wall with Mexico, and the judge is of Mexican heritage. Then a group, in which the judge is a member, boycotts Trump. How does that make the man a racist? Equally, how does this membership make the judge unfair? Show how he is racist if the real goal is to insert the claim of racism into the lede. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- SW3 wrote: "Then a group, in which the judge is a member, boycotts Trump. How does that make the man a racist?" I don't think it makes anyone a racist. Trump said the judge's memberships make one question the impartiality of the judge, meaning that Trump questioned the judge's impartiality for reasons that go beyond race. I must add that this RFC is malformed, because no one has suggested that the HNBA factoid should be included regardless of what other material is in this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- This guy misses the point completely - we simply have to reflect that other people widely see Trump as racist - and then we can even quote Trump saying "I'm the least racist person" - and then we're done. Trump is less likely to admit he's racist than he would plead "guilty" at a future criminal trial. Wikidea 18:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
For Reference, here is the specific text referred to in the RfC above. The bolded bit is what has been proposed for insertion...
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican."[1] Trump initially stated that he believed the judge, who was born in Indiana, was biased against him because of his controversial immigration proposals. Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence.[2][3] In response to the criticism, Trump and his campaign have pointed out that the judge belongs to the Hispanic National Bar Association which has called for a boycott of all Trump's businesses.[4][5]
References
- ^ King, Robert (February 27, 2016). "Trump blames legal woes on 'Spanish' judge". Fox News. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
- ^ DelReal, Jose A.; Zezima, Katie (June 1, 2016). "Trump's personal, racially tinged attacks on federal judge alarm legal experts". Washington Post.
- ^ Kendall, Brent (June 2, 2016). "Donald Trump Keeps Up Attacks on Judge in Trump University Case". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 3, 2016.
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had 'an absolute conflict' in presiding over the litigation given that he was 'of Mexican heritage' and a member of a Latino lawyers' association.
- ^ McConnell, Dugald; Todd, Brian (June 9, 2016). "Requesting judge's recusal in Trump case could be risky, analysts say". CNN.
- ^ Moran, Greg. "Donald Trump fights to keep videos of his Trump University testimony private", Los Angeles Times (June 14, 2016).
- Include, If we're going to include Trump's statement, I believe we should include his rationale/explanation for it as well.CFredkin (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Don't include I thought his rationale was that he's Mexican American, and this was a third or fourth attempt to make it make sense. It's spin. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include. Trump's statement must have context in order for any of it to make sense to the reader. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- There is no context missing since the membership was brought up after the fact. It was not the reason for Trump's initial "ethnic remarks". Basically nothing more than an after-the-fact excuse.--TMCk (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- [citation needed]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- There is no context missing since the membership was brought up after the fact. It was not the reason for Trump's initial "ethnic remarks". Basically nothing more than an after-the-fact excuse.--TMCk (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- You can't proof a negative, "Mr. Dershowitz". But of course you'd need to proof a positive to show a connection to the remarks.--TMCk (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:TracyMcClark, the sources cited above don't say anything about it being an after-the-fact excuse as you allege. If it was, those sources wouldn't have bothered mentioning it, or would have said it's an after-the-fact excuse. And anyway, being like Alan Dershowitz, I can give you this June 5, 2016 proof that Trump had lots of motives for blasting the judge, including his membership status, quite apart from race (emphasis added): "TRUMP: He's member of a club or society very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he`s got bias. I want to build a wall. I`m going to build a wall. I'm doing very well with Latinos, with Hispanics, with Mexicans. I'm doing very well with them, in my opinion. And we're going to see, you're going to see, because you know what? I`m providing jobs. Nobody else is giving jobs. But just so you understand, this judge has treated me very unfairly. He's treated me in a hostile manner."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anythingyouwant (talk • contribs)
- You can't proof a negative, "Mr. Dershowitz". But of course you'd need to proof a positive to show a connection to the remarks.--TMCk (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let's see. He started in February with this ethnic thing per "Trump blames legal woes on 'Spanish' judge". The membership seems to has been first pointed out in June when "Katrina Pierson, a spokeswoman for Trump, has expanded on the accusations of bias, wrongly suggesting Curiel is part of a group organizing protests at Trump rallies around California. Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a professional group that she appeared to confuse with the National Council of La Raza, an advocacy group.". And then comes your source which is an interview given, again, days later on June 5. So it looks like he even needed some help of the "biased media" to point out this membership.--TMCk (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Did Trump need the media's help to criticize the "club or society very strongly pro-Mexican"? I see no evidence he did. Anyway, I've got to go now. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let's see. He started in February with this ethnic thing per "Trump blames legal woes on 'Spanish' judge". The membership seems to has been first pointed out in June when "Katrina Pierson, a spokeswoman for Trump, has expanded on the accusations of bias, wrongly suggesting Curiel is part of a group organizing protests at Trump rallies around California. Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a professional group that she appeared to confuse with the National Council of La Raza, an advocacy group.". And then comes your source which is an interview given, again, days later on June 5. So it looks like he even needed some help of the "biased media" to point out this membership.--TMCk (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include Trump was alluding to the judge's ancestry AND his political affiliations. False accusations of "racism" (sic) were misinformed.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support inclusion
of the material highlighted in blue. It provides relevant info thoroughly, concisely, and without being inflammatory, it seems to me. Readers can draw their own conclusions.I've expanded the material about Judge Curiel, without yet including anything about the HNBA. The HNBA factoid offers a slight counterweight to the sources that reported Trump was off his rocker to think the judge might have any sympathy with anti-Trumpers, and I assume that's why CNN and the LA TIimes both thought this factoid was noteworthy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC) - Exclude: Three reasons. (1) The boycott has been hardly mentioned by reliable sources, not enough to merit inclusion in this very long article, most of whose content has been covered by the news media to hell and back. (2) The boycott has been heavily mentioned in the unreliable conservative fringe media, suggesting that inclusion would be non-neutral. (3) If we're going to include follow-up explanations and soft-pedaling by the Trump campaign for every one of Trump's controversial statements then this article will be overwhelmed by Trump campaign propaganda. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude for the reasons ably articulated by Muboshgu and DrFleischman. Neutralitytalk 21:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude - It's insignificant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude - little coverage of this "fact" outside of fringe sources, not significant. Note that it's a BLP issue so no consensus defers to excluding.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include. This material should be included in proportion to its significance to this topic, as shown by its weight in mainstream (high-circulation) high-quality sources (rather than by its weight in medium-circulation or medium-quality sources). See WP:BALASPS, WP:BLP, and WP:RSVETTING. In addition, the article should include this helpful material, per the highest-circulation
highest-qualitysource cited: "... Trump also alleged that the judge was a former colleague of a plaintiff's attorney. The attorney, Jason Forge, then admitted that he and Curiel had worked together in the U.S. Attorney's office." (Kendall, WSJ.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC) 09:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC) - Include Provides better context, and per WP:NPOV.LM2000 (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude While it may not be fair, this particular defense has received little coverage in mainstream media. Also, the sources are conflicting on whether or not the judge is a member of the HNBA. Some say that he is a member of the SD La Raza Lawyers' Associated which is "affiliated" with the HNBA. ("Affiliated" means for $250 per year they get one vote and their members can join for $50 per year each.) Adding Trump's response of course would mean we would have to provide opinions on whether or not his claim that HNBA membership inferred bias was valid and whether it was the reason for his comments in the first place. We have Trump's statement that his words have been "misconstrued." That should be enough. TFD (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- There is no conflict about whether Gonzalo P. Curiel is a member of the HNBA. No reliable source questions it, many affirm it, and his BLP says "Curiel also noted that he was a 'life-time member' of the Hispanic National Bar Association, and a member of the National Hispanic Prosecutors Association, as well as the Latino Judges Association." The fact of the boycott is not in many reliable sources, but (1) CNN and the LA Times are huge ones, (2) it's uncontradicted, and (3) the coverage in reliable sources is small but non-zero so our statement about it can be small but non-zero.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include. Trump's statement must have context in order for any of it to make sense to the reader, but this is probably NOT lead material, as is suggested above. BTW, it hardly matters whther the judge is a member of the HNBA, what is relevant is that Trump says he is. Pincrete (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include per SW3 5DL and LM2000. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude the mere membership in a large organization does not imply agreement with all or even most of its positions. The judge is not an officer of the organization and most likely had no influence on the decision to institute a boycott.Gaas99 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude the HNBA membership, which is way, way too much information for this BLP. As TMC points out above, it seems to have been a late and minor addition to the reasons for accusing the judge of bias. But I see another problem. The quotation at the top of this RfC (for clarity, we are talking about the second paragraph in the Trump University section) looks to me to be neutral and balanced and well sourced and about the right length/weight. I endorse it, without the addition of the membership stuff. But that is NOT the paragraph which is in the article right now. Somehow it has been replaced by this:
- Trump repeatedly criticized a judge overseeing two of the Trump University cases and suggested that the judge's ethnicity posed a conflict of interest in light of Trump's proposal to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.[1][2][3][4][5] Many legal experts were critical of Trump's attacks on the judge, often viewing them as racially charged, unfounded, and an affront to the concept of an independent judiciary.[6][7][8][9][10][11]
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
trialdate
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Rappeport, Alan (June 3, 2016). "That Judge Attacked by Donald Trump? He's Faced a Lot Worse". The New York Times. Retrieved June 4, 2016.
- ^ Ford, Matt (June 3, 2016). "Why Is Donald Trump So Angry at Judge Gonzalo Curiel?". The Atlantic. Retrieved June 3, 2016.
- ^ East, Kristen (May 28, 2016). "Trump attacks 'Mexican' judge in Trump U lawsuit". Politico. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
- ^ Finnegan, Michael (May 27, 2016). "Trump trashes judge overseeing Trump University fraud case, says it's fine that he's Mexican". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 29, 2016.
- ^ Kendall, Brent (June 3, 2016). "Trump Says Judge's Mexican Heritage Presents 'Absolute Conflict'". Wall Street Journal.
Donald Trump on Thursday escalated his attacks on the federal judge presiding over civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University, amid criticism from legal observers who say the presumptive GOP presidential nominee's comments are an unusual affront on an independent judiciary
- ^ Ford, Matt (June 3, 2016). "Why Is Donald Trump So Angry at Judge Gonzalo Curiel?". The Atlantic.
A growing chorus of American legal scholars from the left, right, and beyond says [Trump's] remarks threaten the rule of law. The real-estate businessman also has another problem: There's no evidence whatsoever in the public record to support Trump's claims about Curiel
- ^ DelReal, Jose; Zezima, Katie (June 1, 2016). "Trump's personal, racially tinged attacks on federal judge alarm legal experts". Washington Post.
Donald Trump's highly personal, racially tinged attacks on a federal judge overseeing a pair of lawsuits against him have set off a wave of alarm among legal experts, who worry that the Republican presidential candidate's vendetta signals a remarkable disregard for judicial independence
- ^ Walshe, Shushannah; Keneally, Meghan (June 3, 2016). "Legal Experts Worry After Trump Attacks Judge for Alleged Bias, Judge's Brother Calls Trump a 'Blowhard'". ABC News.
- ^ Edwards, Haley (June 3, 2016). "Donald Trump's Attacks On Judge's Ethnicity Brings Back Sordid History". TIME.
- ^ Rappeport, Alan (June 3, 2016). "That Judge Attacked by Donald Trump? He's Faced a Lot Worse". New York Times.
Experts in legal ethics say that seeking to discredit a judge is not a winning strategy and that the suggestion that Judge Curiel could not treat a case fairly because of his ethnicity raises questions about Mr. Trump's ability to appoint judges
I don't know who rewrote this paragraph, but IMO the original paragraph was better. It does a better job of describing what Trump actually said, and it includes the public response to Trump's comments as well as his later explanation that he was talking about the judge's decisions. I think the original wording, as described above, should be restored while we debate whether to add the membership issue (which I oppose). That is the wording being discussed here at this RfC; if it is no longer what the article says, then this discussion is moot. I am going to put the above-quoted wording ("what this BLP says right now") back into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieN, I support your revert. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
POV lead.
The lead does not come close to being a summary of the article and the controversial aspects of this individual. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific? I, for one, think there should be sentence about Trump's 2011 birther campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- As I understand, Trump called for release of the certificate, it was released two days later, and that was that. While left-wing blogs have certainly made a huge thing of it, I'm not convinced that it is lead-worthy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Trump's birther campaign lasted for 6 weeks, it was hugely covered by the mainstream media to the point where it received non-stop attention on cable news networks, and has been regularly cited since then as laying the groundwork for his 2016 campaign. Here's an example. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- And here and here are examples of stories about media attention given to Trump's birther campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe it's had the long-term notability to make it ledeworthy, and it's not a significant part of his career or his campaign.CFredkin (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- The last two links are examples that are both from April 2011. The first link to the NY Times (dated July 3, 2016) may be worth including as a reference in this Wikipedia article, if it's not already there, but it explains that the controversy was tightly confined in time in March and April 2011: "Then, almost as quickly as it began, the controversy subsided. And several weeks later, Mr. Trump decided not to seek the Republican nomination. Though he continued to do well in polls, he seemed to be more focused on his reality television pursuits. Now, Mr. Trump almost assiduously refuses to discuss the topic, which, according to several people close to him, was always more about political performance art than ideology. 'I don’t talk about that anymore,' Mr. Trump told the MSNBC host Chris Matthews after a Republican debate last year." I think this was a pretty discrete episode that has not had much lasting impact. Below, I quote what this BLP currently says about it, and would be interested to know whether that seems okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- As I understand, Trump called for release of the certificate, it was released two days later, and that was that. While left-wing blogs have certainly made a huge thing of it, I'm not convinced that it is lead-worthy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also, if we're looking to trim stuff from the lead, I think the entire 4th paragraph can be cut (about delegates and all that). It's highly procedural and yesterday's news. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I shortened it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think all of Dr. Fleischman recommendations would help make it less POV-pushing, but I don't think it will be NPOV until the racism issue is addressed and some set of reference similar to these are restored[1] Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- I shortened it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ See:
- King, Ledyard (June 21, 2016). "Poll shows 'racist' comments about federal judge hurt Trump in Florida, Ohio". USA Today.
- Steinhauer, Jennifer; Martin, Jonathan; Herszenhorn, David (June 7, 2016). "Paul Ryan Calls Donald Trump's Attack on Judge 'Racist,' but Still Backs Him". The New York Times.
- Waldman, Paul (November 25, 2015). "Donald Trump is running the most explicitly racist campaign since 1968". The Week.
- D'Antonio, Michael (June 7, 2016). "Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows". Fortune.
- Gass, Nick (July 5, 2016). "Ryan to Trump: 'Anti-Semitic images' have no place in campaign". Politico.
- Schleifer, Theodore (June 11, 2016). "Mitt Romney says Donald Trump will change America with 'trickle-down racism'". CNN. Retrieved July 19, 2016.
- Fieldstadt, Elisha; Vitali, Ali (July 4, 2016). "Donald Trump's 'Star of David' Tweet About Hillary Clinton Posted Weeks Earlier on Racist Feed". NBC News.
This is not the first time Trump has been forced to disavow or distance himself from anti-Semitic or white supremacist connections... Leaders of his own party were publicly appalled. Trump eventually tweeted an official disavowal and blamed a faulty earpiece for his initial response. But anti-Semitic and white nationalist rhetoric has continued to dog the candidate. Trump has been accused of knowingly whipping up racist sentiment among his supporters. He denies it but declines to explain how anti-Semitic memes keeping making their way into his own tweets.
User:DrFleischman, as I understand your position about the tag atop the article, you agree that it's overkill. Indeed any use it has had has already been served. I hope that all of us editors don't get into a lengthy dispute about tagging. As to your concerns about the birther stuff, I think the place to start is the body of the BLP; do you feel that the following info from the body of the BLP is a fair description, and if not then how would you modify it?
“ | In April 2011, Trump waded into the controversy about President Barack Obama's proof of eligibility as a natural born citizen: "His grandmother in Kenya said he was born in Kenya and she was there and witnessed the birth, okay?"[265][266][267] Trump's claim was based upon an incomplete transcript filed years earlier in a court case.[266][268][269] Trump also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his Ivy League schools, and called for release of school records,[270] plus release of a long form birth certificate.[271][272] Two days later, the White House sought to put the longstanding matter to rest with release of the long form.[273] Trump said he hoped it "checks out", and expressed pride about his role.[274] When asked years later where Obama was born, Trump said: "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it".[275][276] | ” |
User:Gouncbeatduke says about the article, "I don't think it will be NPOV until the racism issue is addressed and some set of reference similar to these are restored". Well, the lead does not include any references, so the tag should apparently be moved from the top to whatever section Gouncbeatduke thinks those references belong. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the article body, and the lead currently seems to do that. Getting to the list of references that Gouncbeatduke wants inserted, the list is puzzling. Consider the first two:
- King, Ledyard (June 21, 2016). "Poll shows 'racist' comments about federal judge hurt Trump in Florida, Ohio". USA Today.
- Steinhauer, Jennifer; Martin, Jonathan; Herszenhorn, David (June 7, 2016). "Paul Ryan Calls Donald Trump's Attack on Judge 'Racist,' but Still Backs Him". The New York Times.
We already say: "Many legal experts were critical of Trump's attacks on Curiel, often viewing them as racially charged, unfounded, and an affront to the concept of an independent judiciary.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
References
- ^ Kendall, Brent (June 3, 2016). "Trump Says Judge's Mexican Heritage Presents 'Absolute Conflict'". Wall Street Journal.
Donald Trump on Thursday escalated his attacks on the federal judge presiding over civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University, amid criticism from legal observers who say the presumptive GOP presidential nominee's comments are an unusual affront on an independent judiciary
- ^ Ford, Matt (June 3, 2016). "Why Is Donald Trump So Angry at Judge Gonzalo Curiel?". The Atlantic.
A growing chorus of American legal scholars from the left, right, and beyond says [Trump's] remarks threaten the rule of law. The real-estate businessman also has another problem: There's no evidence whatsoever in the public record to support Trump's claims about Curiel
- ^ DelReal, Jose; Zezima, Katie (June 1, 2016). "Trump's personal, racially tinged attacks on federal judge alarm legal experts". Washington Post.
Donald Trump's highly personal, racially tinged attacks on a federal judge overseeing a pair of lawsuits against him have set off a wave of alarm among legal experts, who worry that the Republican presidential candidate's vendetta signals a remarkable disregard for judicial independence
- ^ Walshe, Shushannah; Keneally, Meghan (June 3, 2016). "Legal Experts Worry After Trump Attacks Judge for Alleged Bias, Judge's Brother Calls Trump a 'Blowhard'". ABC News.
- ^ Edwards, Haley (June 3, 2016). "Donald Trump's Attacks On Judge's Ethnicity Brings Back Sordid History". TIME.
- ^ Rappeport, Alan (June 3, 2016). "That Judge Attacked by Donald Trump? He's Faced a Lot Worse". New York Times.
Experts in legal ethics say that seeking to discredit a judge is not a winning strategy and that the suggestion that Judge Curiel could not treat a case fairly because of his ethnicity raises questions about Mr. Trump's ability to appoint judges
I think that's more than adequate, and I don't see why to add the proposed King and Steinhauer references, which would be overkill. Gouncbeatduke's next suggested reference is this:
- Waldman, Paul (November 25, 2015). "Donald Trump is running the most explicitly racist campaign since 1968". The Week.
This is an opinion piece. I strongly feel that a BLP like this needs facts much more than it needs opinions. I'm not trying to cram this BLP full of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity opinions, and that's a good thing, right? Skipping to Gouncbeatduke's suggested references regarding a Star of David:
- Gass, Nick (July 5, 2016). "Ryan to Trump: 'Anti-Semitic images' have no place in campaign". Politico.
- Fieldstadt, Elisha; Vitali, Ali (July 4, 2016). "Donald Trump's 'Star of David' Tweet About Hillary Clinton Posted Weeks Earlier on Racist Feed". NBC News.
I think this would best go (if anywhere) into the Trump campaign article, but not this one. This kerfuffle had no staying power. All the news reports about it were confined to a single week, and we haven't heard any more about it since then. For good reason! According to Politifact, "Based on the evidence available, it seems unlikely that the Trump campaign intended to put out a Star of David image. In fact, the campaign moved to replace the star with a circle when the image gained attention." So, Gouncbeatduke's long list of references really have nothing to do with the lead (because the lead doesn't include any footnotes at all), and even in the body of the BLP these references would be very inappropriate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, it is clear to anyone editing this article that you are pro-Trump (which is fine), but the fact of the matter is that there has not been a presidential candidate (in my adult life) that has stated as many controversial statements as Trump has. This needs to be reflected in the article in accordance with WP:NPOV. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thomas Sowell recently said that the voter has a choice between russian roulette (with Trump) versus suicide (with Clinton). Suffice it to say that I think Sowell is a very wise man. The lead says, "His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots." Obviously that should remain, and I think it addresses your point at least partly. He does say a lot of things like that, but each individual one seems to be forgotten when the next one causes another stir, and in each case a lot of non-neutral media makes each controversial comment more controversial. I think we can discuss this phenomenon and maybe have the article address it more, but I don't think the lead is inaccurately summarizing the body of the article. We're only supposed to cover stuff that has staying power per WP:Recentism, and we do have a whole subsection titled "comments about fringe theories". Anyway, I do not intend to remove the POV tag in the 2016 election section right now, only the one at the top of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, this thread was opened to talk about the lead, so let's keep it to that subject. I'm sympathetic to the idea that the lead is lacking in some departments and I support keeping the {{pov-lead}} tag until this issues are resolved. I'd like to hear from Cwobeel what their specific concerns are. Here are my responses on specific issues. Feel free to interlineate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- birtherism: Trump may have only hyped up Obama's birth certificate for 6 weeks, but the significance of his birtherism goes way beyond those 6 weeks, as demonstrated by the WaPo article (and many others). Trump's birtherism has been cited regularly by the news media ever since 2011. Completely excluding it from the lead section reads as POV in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I count fourteen (14) footnotes in the birther material that's in the article now, none of which is WaPo. I don't see how we can discuss putting birther stuff in the lead until we have some consensus that it's taken care of in the body of the article. This is required by MOS:LEAD. The body of the article does not currently indicate much long-term significance, and the mentions about it in the media since 2011 have almost always been in passing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- racism: There has certainly been much written by Trump's racism but I'm not aware of any consensus among reliable sources that we can cite in any sort of concise way. We already say many of his statements are controversial, and perhaps that's enough? As a practical matter I highly doubt we'll ever gain consensus to put anything about racism in the lead section so honestly I'm inclined not to perpetuate the flamefest. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- lies: I think a sentence may be warranted on Trump's dishonesty, which has received a tremendous amount of media coverage. Thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I guess the most recent episode was "Hillary founded ISIS". He claims it was sarcasm. I think any sane person realizes he wasn't saying that Hillary convened a bunch of terrorists and urged them to start killing people. Again, this has to be fleshed out in the article body before it could possibly go in the lead. This is required by MOS:LEAD. If the lead accurately summarizes what's in the article body right now, then there's no reason to discuss the lead right now. Lies about Trump have also occurred, BTW, but maybe that's too tangential for this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, re: "Hillary founded ISIS", His sarcasm seems to elude many observers including his running mate[1]. He made the statement on Wednesday, defended it as spoken to Hugh Hewitt and didn't walk it back to sarcasm until Friday [2]
- Well, I guess the most recent episode was "Hillary founded ISIS". He claims it was sarcasm. I think any sane person realizes he wasn't saying that Hillary convened a bunch of terrorists and urged them to start killing people. Again, this has to be fleshed out in the article body before it could possibly go in the lead. This is required by MOS:LEAD. If the lead accurately summarizes what's in the article body right now, then there's no reason to discuss the lead right now. Lies about Trump have also occurred, BTW, but maybe that's too tangential for this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- ^ Wallace, Chris. "Gov. Mike Pence talks role in campaign; Sen. Claire McCaskill on new controversy facing Clinton". Fox News Sunday. Fox News. Retrieved 16 August 2016.
- ^ Kopan, Tal. "Donald Trump tries to walk back claim Obama founded ISIS: 'Sarcasm'". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 15 August 2016.
Gaas99 (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gaas, your first link, to politicususa, is very unpersuasive. As far as I can tell, they don't have a Wikipedia article, and even if they did, their own self-description disqualifies them from being a WP:RS for our purposes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, I'm not aware of any requirement that content can't be added to the lead section unless it's also covered in the body. If that were the case we'd be slashing a good deal of the lead section content across the encyclopedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Per MOS:LEAD, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." There's even a special tag to put in the lead when it's not supported by the article body.[22]Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The point of the sentence, "This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article," is to exclude the very type of argument you're making here, which is to keep a subject out of the lead section until it has been covered in the body (or in the case of the birther stuff, to keep it in the lead section until we have consensus that our coverage in the body is deep enough). The lead can improved and then the body can be harmonized with it later. I personally am not particularly interested in the body. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- MOS:LEAD is very clear that the lead is supposed to summarize the body. If you don't care what's in the body and only care about putting stuff in the lead, then that directly contradicts MOS:LEAD, in my opinion. Nothing can be excluded from the lead provided that it summarizes what's in the body of the article. Even putting aside MOS:LEAD, as a matter of common sense, shouldn't we first boil down the reliable sources to something that can fit into the body of the article, before boiling it down further to obtain something for the lead? Instead, I can't even get you to say whether the body of the article adequately covers the issue. You really think we should put statements of fact into the lead, without any footnotes in the lead, and without any discussion of those facts in the body of the article? That strikes me as very bad editing, and I hope you don't support it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Echoing DrFleischman: there is absolutely nothing in MOS:LEAD that justifies removing material solely because it's not contained in the body of the article. Yes, the lead and body should be harmonized, but there is no prescription for which should be edited first. In fact, as DrFleischman points out, the guideline specifically states that information should not be removed from the lead in these situations. It is completely legitimate to first work material into the lead, and then flesh it out in the body of the article, and you are badly misrepresenting the guideline, as well as fellow editors' positions.
Anythingyouwant, you've now made this specious argument repeatedly to justify removing well-sourced, relevant material from the lead. (A more cynical person than I might also note that you tend to employ this misrepresentation only to remove material which reflects less-than-positively on Trump). Since you've repeatedly cited MOS:LEAD, a reasonable person would assume that you've actually read it. We are thus left with the question of why you're not only misrepresenting the guideline, but using it in a way that the guideline itself specifically warns against. That's a concerning behavior, but outside the scope of this talkpage. For now, please stop making this argument. It would be tiresome to have to continually correct your misrepresentation of the guideline, although it is a good reminder that such assertions about policy should always be verified given your track record. MastCell Talk 04:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- No MastCell, I will not stop making the good faith argument that we should not put statements of fact into the lead, without any footnotes in the lead, and without any discussion of those facts in the body of the article, unless and until someone convinces me that I'm mistaken. If you are confident that I am mistaken, then you should have no trouble rallying a consensus in your favor, instead of trying to shut me up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's another deliberate misrepresentation: I don't see anyone advocating the inclusion of unsourced material in the lead. And you've already been shown the portion of the guideline which explicitly OKs adding material to the lead first, and then developing it in the body. This is not good-faith editing on your part. If you persist in this disruptive and dishonest behavior, then I will request that the discretionary sanctions covering this article be invoked, so that the rest of the editors here can get on with their work. MastCell Talk 04:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- You have been an active editor at this article this summer, User:MastCell. Thankfully, this means I can view your comments as those of a fellow editor, and no more. If Dr. Fleischman is not proposing to put facts into the lead without footnotes and without support in the article body, then he can say so and can clarify what he's proposing. He's already said quite clearly that he doesn't care what's in the article body on this subject, and of course this lead excludes all footnotes. I am an honest man, MastCell. For over nine years at multiple articles and other venues, you have made bogus arguments to the contrary. I suggest you stop before you embarrass yourself further.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's another deliberate misrepresentation: I don't see anyone advocating the inclusion of unsourced material in the lead. And you've already been shown the portion of the guideline which explicitly OKs adding material to the lead first, and then developing it in the body. This is not good-faith editing on your part. If you persist in this disruptive and dishonest behavior, then I will request that the discretionary sanctions covering this article be invoked, so that the rest of the editors here can get on with their work. MastCell Talk 04:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- No MastCell, I will not stop making the good faith argument that we should not put statements of fact into the lead, without any footnotes in the lead, and without any discussion of those facts in the body of the article, unless and until someone convinces me that I'm mistaken. If you are confident that I am mistaken, then you should have no trouble rallying a consensus in your favor, instead of trying to shut me up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Echoing DrFleischman: there is absolutely nothing in MOS:LEAD that justifies removing material solely because it's not contained in the body of the article. Yes, the lead and body should be harmonized, but there is no prescription for which should be edited first. In fact, as DrFleischman points out, the guideline specifically states that information should not be removed from the lead in these situations. It is completely legitimate to first work material into the lead, and then flesh it out in the body of the article, and you are badly misrepresenting the guideline, as well as fellow editors' positions.
- MOS:LEAD is very clear that the lead is supposed to summarize the body. If you don't care what's in the body and only care about putting stuff in the lead, then that directly contradicts MOS:LEAD, in my opinion. Nothing can be excluded from the lead provided that it summarizes what's in the body of the article. Even putting aside MOS:LEAD, as a matter of common sense, shouldn't we first boil down the reliable sources to something that can fit into the body of the article, before boiling it down further to obtain something for the lead? Instead, I can't even get you to say whether the body of the article adequately covers the issue. You really think we should put statements of fact into the lead, without any footnotes in the lead, and without any discussion of those facts in the body of the article? That strikes me as very bad editing, and I hope you don't support it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The point of the sentence, "This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article," is to exclude the very type of argument you're making here, which is to keep a subject out of the lead section until it has been covered in the body (or in the case of the birther stuff, to keep it in the lead section until we have consensus that our coverage in the body is deep enough). The lead can improved and then the body can be harmonized with it later. I personally am not particularly interested in the body. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Per MOS:LEAD, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." There's even a special tag to put in the lead when it's not supported by the article body.[22]Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
As explained at user talk of User:NeilN, I am de-watchlisting this article immediately. I have no interest in being railroaded, or in being party to an article that is subject to unlimited POV-pushing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank goodness. This isn't the first time Anythingyouwant has blatantly misinterpreted guidelines and other editors' comments to push their editing agenda. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)- Dr. Fleischman, that comment was inappropriate. I suggest you strike it - or delete it together with my response. Please remember to discuss article content, not personalities, and remember that this page is under Discretionary Sanctions, which includes the requirement to abide by "expected standards of behaviour". --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- MastCell's assertions are not supported by Template:Citation needed lead:
- This template is specifically intended to challenge a fact in the lead section of an already well-sourced article, where that lead is clearly intended to function as a summary of the content, but the fact tagged does not appear in the body.
- BLPs
- Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately.
- Such facts should be removed per BLP. If reinstated, I propose that they could briefly be tagged [not verified in body] to alert other editors and forestall edit-warring. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're making a mess by trying to get around MOS:LEAD. First of all, if template documentation conflicts with an existing guideline, then it should be obvious that the template documentation needs to be updated to match our guidelines. We use guidelines to describe our best practices—not obscure template documentation. Secondly, you're misinterpreting the template documentation. That template can be used to flag unsourced items in the lead, if they're not sourced or covered later in the article body. In this case, the lead material is sourced, so the template is inappropriate. Likewise, your citation of BLP isn't relevant, since the material in question is well-sourced and meets BLP criteria; there is absolutely no justification to remove such material on BLP grounds. Finally, the template does not mandate removal of material from the lead; rather, it is meant to flag the need for a citation for unsourced material in the lead (this should be obvious from the title of the template, which includes the words "citation needed").
I'm not sure why people are working so hard to get around the relatively straightforward guidance in MOS:LEAD. Separately, no interpretation of the template documentation can excuse Anythingyouwant's misrepresentation of MOS:LEAD, but that is a behavioral issue for another venue. MastCell Talk 16:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Are you accusing me of deliberately lying, User:MastCell? This is the fourth time in the last week that you have accused me at this page of "misrepresentation", and that's what the word means.[23] How many more times can I expect this from you at this article talk page? If such serious and insulting attacks are "for another venue" then why do you insist on using this venue again and again and again and again? Editors often interpret policy and guidelines somewhat differently, and I am happy to discuss this particular one, and revise my views about it as I already have. At first, I discussed the policy here from memory at the explicit suggestion of an administrator (User:NeilN), and then I went and checked it to see if I got it wrong, and I then quoted the pertinent part at length so everyone can read it.[24] Editors can edit the lead, but then if it is not supported by the body of the article the two must be harmonized so the lead summarizes the body; but no contentious material can be put into the lead, without support in the article body, if that material is unsourced. This lead does not include footnotes, so any contentious material put into this lead without support in the body fails WP:BLP. If you disagree with my understanding of policy, please feel free to explain why you think I'm mistaken, and please try to do so without saying yet again that I'm a goddamned liar. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're making a mess by trying to get around MOS:LEAD. First of all, if template documentation conflicts with an existing guideline, then it should be obvious that the template documentation needs to be updated to match our guidelines. We use guidelines to describe our best practices—not obscure template documentation. Secondly, you're misinterpreting the template documentation. That template can be used to flag unsourced items in the lead, if they're not sourced or covered later in the article body. In this case, the lead material is sourced, so the template is inappropriate. Likewise, your citation of BLP isn't relevant, since the material in question is well-sourced and meets BLP criteria; there is absolutely no justification to remove such material on BLP grounds. Finally, the template does not mandate removal of material from the lead; rather, it is meant to flag the need for a citation for unsourced material in the lead (this should be obvious from the title of the template, which includes the words "citation needed").
POV lead (redux)
The above thread seems to have petered out without much substantive discussion. Does anyone have any ideas of specific ways the lead section can be improved? I've suggested the addition of a sentence each on birtherism and dishonesty. Any additional thoughts on those? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- First let's put in some more details about Trump Organization's activities. Over the course of Trump's life, most of his time, thoughts, and money have been invested in his company (not in his campaigns). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Taxes - user feels Warren Buffett's challenge to Trump not important - Consensus requested
User CFredkin feels that the insertion of Buffett's challenge to Trump to release his tax returns is not significant because "his (Buffett)'s notability is diminished by the fact that he's campaigning for Hilary". Nonsense. First, Buffett's notability isn't the issue here. He is, of course, a notable figure being the third richest man in the world. The significant facts are that 1) He is under an IRS audit (the excuse Trump uses for not releasing his tax returns) and 2) In spite of this audit he is willing to release his tax returns even though there is no public expectation that he do so since he is not running for office. His challenge without a doubt makes Trump's argument for not releasing tax info significantly weaker. Further, CFredkin's argument that "Buffett is campaigning for Hillary" is doubtful. He has endorsed her but is no more campaigning for her than Paul Ryan is campaigning for Trump. Is CFredkin claiming that Buffett is lying because he has endorsed Clinton? My insertion (which CFredkin deleted) read as follows: " Fellow billionaire Warren Buffett who is also under an IRS audit issued a challenge to Trump to have a joint press conference simultaneously releasing their tax returns and answering any press questions [164]" ref: Reilly, Katie. "Warren Buffett Challenges Donald Trump to Release Tax Returns". time.com. Time Magazine. Retrieved August 10, 2016.Gaas99 (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I do not agree with CFredkin but I still agree with them that this info should be excluded. It's recentism and too detailed for this biography. It should be sufficient to say something like a large number of people have called for Trump to release his tax returns and it has become a significant campaign issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, it should be excluded. WP:Recent as DrFleischman noted as well as WP:Undue. I don't think it would even be relevant in Buffet's bio. For that matter, what's Romney doing there? He didn't release all his tax returns when he was suppose to. Isn't that a pot/kettle thing? But that's a question for another day. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- The challenge itself may be recentism. What is more significant, however, is the fact that Buffett, who is in a very similar position to Trump as far as being audited and being a high net worth individual has no problem in releasing his tax returns. And this is made much more significant because Trump is running for the Presidency while Buffett is not running for anything and has nothing to gain by releasing his returns. If Trump's assertion is valid and significant enough to defeat the fact that a majority of the electorate would like to see his returns why is Buffett willing to release his returns so casually?Gaas99 (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Because he's an avid supporter of Hillary Clinton, perhaps? Or maybe because the IRS audited Buffett for the purpose of creating a situation where Buffett would release his returns whereas Trump would not?
- Conspiracy theory?Gaas99 (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Or maybe because the laws in Nebraska create different risks than the laws in New York? Or because Bufett believes the audit is being conducted fairly by the IRS whereas Trump does not? The possible reasons are endless.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- There is also a finite probability that a Perseid meteor will destroy all of Trump's records. However, the most likely reason is that Trump has something to hide whereas Buffett does not. The question is, what harm is created by including the info. I would think that NPOV requires inclusion of all relevant info and if we are to err it should be on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.Gaas99 (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Because he's an avid supporter of Hillary Clinton, perhaps? Or maybe because the IRS audited Buffett for the purpose of creating a situation where Buffett would release his returns whereas Trump would not?
- The challenge itself may be recentism. What is more significant, however, is the fact that Buffett, who is in a very similar position to Trump as far as being audited and being a high net worth individual has no problem in releasing his tax returns. And this is made much more significant because Trump is running for the Presidency while Buffett is not running for anything and has nothing to gain by releasing his returns. If Trump's assertion is valid and significant enough to defeat the fact that a majority of the electorate would like to see his returns why is Buffett willing to release his returns so casually?Gaas99 (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, it should be excluded. WP:Recent as DrFleischman noted as well as WP:Undue. I don't think it would even be relevant in Buffet's bio. For that matter, what's Romney doing there? He didn't release all his tax returns when he was suppose to. Isn't that a pot/kettle thing? But that's a question for another day. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I see no reason to mention Buffett in this article. Trump still has time to release his returns. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Considering this article is about Trump, not his election campaign, it is too insignificant to include. TFD (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with TFD - this *may* belong in the article on the presidential campaign but not here. However, just wanted to note that the argument that someone's "notability" is "diminished" because they support Clinton is... strange and sort of telling of an editor's POV. Notability is orthogonal to ideology.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion in the article for most of the reasons given above. I would however support inclusion in the Warren Buffett article. Buffett gets far less press than Trump and this challenge is accordingly a far greater proportion of it (and so, far more DUE). --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Excelllent suggestion, Dervorguilla. That also satisfies WP:Preserve.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Except its already in the Buffett bioGaas99 (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Accusations of racism
Hatted until an admin stops by and decides how to better handle this as an apparent BLP vio
|
---|
Seriously, there are an unlimited amount of good, useable sources that Donald Trump is a racist, but still this Wikipedia-articel ignores that. Why? Are so many Wikipedia-editors Trump-fans? --Jensbest (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Racism isn't an opinion, it is a crime.
I'm from Germany. Because of our history I know very well how racism and faschism starts. It doesn't start with somebody who openly admits that he is a racist, but with somebody who makes big promises, gives easy answers, starts scapegoating several ethnic, religious or racial groups and is then elected. The USA is running in a trap. Even your great talkshow comedians are running out of ideas what to say about the very obvious signs given by Trump. But sure, don't be bold and write what many reliable sources already stated -that this Mr. Trump is a racial and faschistic undertones which feeds a more and more immoral crowd. Neutrality doesn't mean that you not allowed to tell when somebody is a racist. In fact by not doing it you are no more neutral. --Jensbest (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Nbauman (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk Page Guidelines |
More discussion of what we can and can't say about Donald Trump on this talk page
|
---|
Leave this hatted. In the future, please consider formally informing new editors to this article/talk page making inflammatory statements of discretionary sanctions - {{subst:alert|ap}} ~~~~ It might get them to be more cautious and it makes it easier for admins to take action. --NeilN talk to me 00:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
|
- So does anybody object to inserting the text, "Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, says of Trump, 'I don’t see what else to call it but racism,'" in the article, in the discussion of the DOJ charges, which Kristof was examining? Do we have consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Anythingyouwant, the Kristof column got massive coverage. You can do a Google search for "trump racist kristof" and pick out the WP:RSs. I couldn't find any WP:RS defending Trump, but it would be a good addition.
- Incidentally, in doing that search, I found this article in the Washington Examiner, which does a lot of our work for us:
- http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/11-new-york-times-that-trump-was-a-racist/article/2596017
- 11 New York Times that Trump was a 'racist'
- By Eddie Scarry
- Washington Examiner
- 7/10/16
- It seems clear that many WP:RSs have called Trump a "racist" specifically. For Wikipedia, we don't look for truth, just reliable sources. It would be nice to have other sources besides the NYT, but this should be enough to justify including it in the article.
- (BTW, you can search individual newspapers with a Google search such as "site:washingtonpost.com trump racist" You can even find defenses of Trump, like "Donald Trump: ‘I am the least racist person’").--Nbauman (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nbauman, I oppose adding the column to the Donald Trump BLP per WP:BALASPS policy as clarified by the WP:10YT essay (column not expected to appear relevant in 2026). I would support adding the column to the Nicholas Kristof BLP but only if you find a high-quality high-circulation mainstream source article that is primarily about the column. If the article isn't primarily about this particular column, you can't cite it to support including this column. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- So does anybody object to inserting the text, "Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, says of Trump, 'I don’t see what else to call it but racism,'" in the article, in the discussion of the DOJ charges, which Kristof was examining? Do we have consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Dervorguilla, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. We don't make controversial, POV proclamations about anybody in BLPs no matter how many alleged reliable sources state those controversial, POV proclamations are true. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I ought to clarify the WP:NPOV policy as I understand it, Winkelvi. The content in an article is supposed to represent fairly and proportionately all significant views published by reliable sources on the subject. Sometimes the reputable sources contradict each other, and if the two opposing points of view have more-or-less equal prominence in the "body of reliable sources on the subject" (WP:BALASPS), we're actually supposed to describe both points of view. (See WP:BALANCE.) In which case,
- 1 "upspin" POV edit + 1 "downspin" POV edit ~ NPOV.
- At least, that's how I've been interpreting the policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I ought to clarify the WP:NPOV policy as I understand it, Winkelvi. The content in an article is supposed to represent fairly and proportionately all significant views published by reliable sources on the subject. Sometimes the reputable sources contradict each other, and if the two opposing points of view have more-or-less equal prominence in the "body of reliable sources on the subject" (WP:BALASPS), we're actually supposed to describe both points of view. (See WP:BALANCE.) In which case,
Jensbest, in your reply to me above, you wrote, "if the enWP really doesn't state that Hitler was a racist then you obviously missed the point what Hitler did and your "Contentious labels"-thing is just far from what's called reality." The problem is that we must follow Wikipedia guidelines in writing articles and if you do not like the guidelines, you should get them changed before posting your edit recommendations here. TFD (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let me put in easy words: If Wikipedia guidelines prohibit that the fact that Adolf Hitler was a rascist is mentioned in the enzyclopedic article than Wikipedia has a big problem with telling the facts about reality. This outraging sticking to questionable "Contentious labels"-rules just proves again the limitation Wikipedia has when it comes to display reality especially when it comes to political articles.
- Same for the ongoing senseless meta-discussion around the clearly in reliable sources documented information about the racist character of Donald Trump. It is proven by several experts (in fields like psychology, political science and sociology) that the behaviour in several occasions and several statements of Donald Trump over the years are clearly of a rascist character. Behaviour and statements - that's how a person expresses himself, defines himself. Racist behaviour, rascist statements = rascist character. Everybody who ignores to acknowledge this, isn't neutral anymore, because then he helps Trump to cover up a clearly proven character element. So, to sum it up: A Wikipedia-article not mentioning the widely analysed and proven by reliable source rascist character of Donald Trump is a non-neutral Pro-Trump article. --Jensbest (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policies are very clear that well-sourced, relevant material—even if negative—is appropriate for inclusion in BLPs (see WP:WELLKNOWN). It's a fact that numerous reliable sources have commented on the apparently racist nature of Trump's rhetoric. There is a brief list of some such sources here, in the Trump campaign article. (There are many other such reliable sources; this list is not exhaustive but does demonstrate that the concern over racism is well-documented in such sources). Whether such concerns belong in this article, or only in the Presidential campaign article, is up to other editors. MastCell Talk 00:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see experienced editors (including at least one admin who's stopped by here more than once) having difficulty regarding BLP policy. But back to what's appropriate and what isn't: putting anything about Trump being racist in the article in Wiki-voice is inappropriate and against BLP policy. Adding something that quotes others saying Trump is racist isn't. See the difference? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think that Dervorguilla and MastCell's views are more in line with what WP:BLP and WP:NPV actually say. Experience shouldn't really matter, but among the three of us we have over 60,000 edits. That said, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and this is one of those exceptional claims; and, are there no reliable sources out there that say that Trump isn't racist? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- For that matter, can we please put together a list of reliable sources that say that Trump is racist, or say that he isn't? I see several mentions of the fact that such sources exist, but I don't think anyone has listed them out. And please only include reliable fact-checked sources, not individuals' personal opinions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea, but an exception to the "reliable sources only" rule should be that we allow at least one comment from Trump himself, or his family of defenders, denying it. The "least racist person in the world" quote would be good for that, but probably not the whole detailed defense describing his black friends and his Jewish daughter and so on. And IMO "reliable sources" could include the widely reported comment from Ryan (but not from Democrats or their supporters, or from anti-Trump Republicans). BTW I haven't contributed to this thread much, but my opinion is that Trump is NOT personally racist, and certainly not anti-Semitic; he just talks that way on the campaign trail. So anything that we say here should be along the lines that reliable sources say he makes racist comments or racist appeals - not that he is a racist. In other words, "what Winkelvi said." --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that if the reliable sources say Trump is racist (or makes racist comments or appeals, or whatever the sources say), then Trump's position on that is fine. I would object to Paul Ryan's comment being included to the exclusion of the multitude of other equally notable people who've weighed in on the subject. But that's a secondary issue to what the reliable sources say. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- We should never say outright, in Wikipedia's voice, that Trump is a racist or that what he says is racist. Using reliable sources, we should say something along the lines of "Some commentators have stated that Trump uses racist appeals" (something similar to that). What some people consider blatant racism, others may see as not racist at all, I have observed, so we should be careful with this topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Rascism isn't an opinion, it is a crime. Therefore not calling a rascist (recognized as one by several experts) "a racist" isn't neutral, but it is supporting the racist by not calling him what he is. If you don't call a rascist a rascist because of politeness or similiar reasons, the rascist will be encourage to go further and further and further. Of course nearly every rascist will deny to be a rascist – until he has the power to translate his rascist remarks into action (e.g. when elected president of the US). --Jensbest (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Racism is NOT a crime. Racism is a thought, a feeling of hating other races - and we do not have thought police in this country. Carrying out criminal actions (ranging from discrimination to murder) motivated by racism IS a crime. If a person hates other races, but does not take any action based on those feelings, they may be despicable but they are not criminals. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV applies here. We are NOT going to call someone a racist (especially someone as controversial as Trump) in Wikipedia's voice. My preceding comment still stands. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously you mixing up being neutral and ignoring reality. Ignoring the proven (by behaviour and statements) and often documented by reliable sources and experts fact that Donald Trump is racist ISN'T neutral, it is pro-Trump. Ignoring what a lot of reasonable observers state again and again, ISN'T neutral, it is ignorant. A murderer is a murderer, find guilty by evidence, no matter how often he negates it. A racist is a racist, convicted by evidence (his language, his political aims, his behaviour towards certain ethnic groups and how he wants deny them basic human rights), no matter how often he negates it. As also mentioned by many experts in the field Donald Trump has many psychological defects. So maybe his racism can be explained by his paranoia, his narcissism and his histrionic personality disorder [25]. But for naming it in the article it doesn't matter if Trumps racism is caused by illness or by free will, because the affect of having him talking to people in that way causes the same damages either way. So it is NOT neutral keeping the mentioning of Trump's racism out of the article, it is ignoring the reality and therefore is clear not NPOV, but just plain Pro-Trump. --Jensbest (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jens, if you truly wish to have material about Trump's racism added to the article then the way to help in that effort is to find some reliable sources and put them in the subsection below. And please keep the aggressive rhetoric to a minimum. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is very easy to find massive material about the racism of Donald Trump (e.g. the list of NYTimes articles you mentioned above). Logical argumentation based on respecting basic human rights is "agressive" in the world of enWP? Interesting. I'm not sure that it is my job to correct this article. If I'm the only one who thinks that massive data in reliable sources (which I read over the last months) should be used to show the clear racism of Donald Trump than maybe the english Wikipedia isn't ready to write this facts about Trump. Why should I risk to be blocked, because a lot of Trümp supporters here trying to argue with me about every detail just to keep the basic information out of the article? --Jensbest (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jens, if you truly wish to have material about Trump's racism added to the article then the way to help in that effort is to find some reliable sources and put them in the subsection below. And please keep the aggressive rhetoric to a minimum. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously you mixing up being neutral and ignoring reality. Ignoring the proven (by behaviour and statements) and often documented by reliable sources and experts fact that Donald Trump is racist ISN'T neutral, it is pro-Trump. Ignoring what a lot of reasonable observers state again and again, ISN'T neutral, it is ignorant. A murderer is a murderer, find guilty by evidence, no matter how often he negates it. A racist is a racist, convicted by evidence (his language, his political aims, his behaviour towards certain ethnic groups and how he wants deny them basic human rights), no matter how often he negates it. As also mentioned by many experts in the field Donald Trump has many psychological defects. So maybe his racism can be explained by his paranoia, his narcissism and his histrionic personality disorder [25]. But for naming it in the article it doesn't matter if Trumps racism is caused by illness or by free will, because the affect of having him talking to people in that way causes the same damages either way. So it is NOT neutral keeping the mentioning of Trump's racism out of the article, it is ignoring the reality and therefore is clear not NPOV, but just plain Pro-Trump. --Jensbest (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jensbest says that racism itself can (in one sense) be "a crime". His interpretation is supported by Black's Law Dictionary.
- "racism. 1. The belief that some races are inherently superior to other races. 2. Unfair treatment of people, often including violence against them, because they belong to a different race from one’s own. — racist, adj. & n."
- As Lunsford points out in "Fallacies of Argument: Equivocation",
- "Many public figures are fond of parsing their words carefully so that no certain meaning emerges... Critics of the Bush administration said its many attempts to deny that ‘torture’ was being used ... amounted to a long series of equivocations."
- So we can't just say that the Trump campaign denied Trump is a racist, or that A, B, C, and D claimed he is.
- But we could say that A and B claimed he's a racist in sense 1; C claimed he's a racist in sense 2; D claimed he, Clinton, and Johnson are all racist in some sense in that they're all part of Euro-American society; and Trump himself denied he's a racist because (1) he questions the scientific validity of "race" as a concept or (2) unlike Clinton and Johnson, he groups people by wealth, not physiognomy.
- See, for example, § Early career: "He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against blacks ... rather than merely screening out people based on low income as the Trumps stated."
- Or see O'Harrow quote: "Civil rights groups ... viewed the Trump company as just one example of a nationwide problem of housing discrimination. But ... 'they were big names.'"
- Rascism isn't an opinion, it is a crime. Therefore not calling a rascist (recognized as one by several experts) "a racist" isn't neutral, but it is supporting the racist by not calling him what he is. If you don't call a rascist a rascist because of politeness or similiar reasons, the rascist will be encourage to go further and further and further. Of course nearly every rascist will deny to be a rascist – until he has the power to translate his rascist remarks into action (e.g. when elected president of the US). --Jensbest (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- We should never say outright, in Wikipedia's voice, that Trump is a racist or that what he says is racist. Using reliable sources, we should say something along the lines of "Some commentators have stated that Trump uses racist appeals" (something similar to that). What some people consider blatant racism, others may see as not racist at all, I have observed, so we should be careful with this topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see experienced editors (including at least one admin who's stopped by here more than once) having difficulty regarding BLP policy. But back to what's appropriate and what isn't: putting anything about Trump being racist in the article in Wiki-voice is inappropriate and against BLP policy. Adding something that quotes others saying Trump is racist isn't. See the difference? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Question: How many sources say that Trump is more racist or less racist than Clinton or Johnson? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
List of reliable sources saying that Trump is or isn't racist
Continued discussion on racism
Proposal for top pic
Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
No. US-flag in the background is not neutral. --Jensbest (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hundreds of top pics at Wikipedia have flag in background. See, for example, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn't change the fact that it is not neutral. Mistakes don't need to be repeated. --Jensbest (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- You forget to mention that the pictured candidate is not neutral either, which suggests we should include no picture at all, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn't change the fact that it is not neutral. Mistakes don't need to be repeated. --Jensbest (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hundreds of top pics at Wikipedia have flag in background. See, for example, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- We usually prefer portraits w/o microphones for the lead image. As for the flag, I don't see it much fitting since unlike the examples given above, Trump does not (and never has) hold any public office.--TMCk (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's already a microphone in the top pic. As for the notion that public servants have any monopoly on the flag, I beg to differ.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
"VOX" is watermarked at the bottom right of the photo. Doesn't look like a possibility, likely copyrighted without the type of permissions we need to add it to the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Winkelvi, do you see any problem with this license?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oops! My apologies. I read it as VOX when it's actually VOA (Voice of America). I have further cropped the photo and lightened it to be brighter. It looks very suitable to be the infobox photo now, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nice crop.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not all VOA content is free of copyright (See terms of use) so it remains unclear. Also this seems to be a very low resolution screenshot anyways (besides the above mentioned concerns.--TMCk (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does Trump's face in the proposed photo seem out of focus? Graham (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's a bit soft (out of focus). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I just sharpened it, so not as softly focused now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Looks better, thanks. Incidentally, the original image is here in case you haven't seen it (sometimes modifying the original is better than modifying a modification of the original).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I just sharpened it, so not as softly focused now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm supporting inclusion. At this point, "Trump accepting the nomination of the Republican National Convention in 2016" seems more appropriate and helpful than "Trump at a town hall meeting in Derry, NH". --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC) 07:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think having the US flag in the background makes sense, since Hillary has one. However, could we find a more "professional" picture, maybe smiling and looking into the camera (like Hillary)? They should receive equal treatment.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- True as a general principle, Zigzig20s. But Trump characteristically doesn't smile at the camera. And Clinton characteristically does (at least as she's represented in most large-circulation mainstream sources, which are all I read, so that anything I write is more likely to reflect those sources than nonmainstream sources -- both consciously and unconsciously). In this sense, at least, the photos may be equally representative. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Relative to the image itself, Trump's face appears slightly smaller than Clinton's (by 11% or so). Can you try cropping the photo a little more? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's reasonable to claim Trump doesn't smile so let's not use a better picture. I also don't see a neutrality issue that there can't be a picture of him with the U.S. flag in the background because he doesn't hold office. He's running for the highest office in America. A flag in the background seems appropriate and not at all a neutrality issue.SW3 5DL (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- No - Not a fan of the image. The contrast between the background and the subject is minimal. The use of a dynamic background (as opposed to solid color background of current infobox pic) makes the image harder to read as well, in this case since his head is surrounded by the field and canton of the flag, as opposed to a consistent pattern of just the stripes around his silhouette. Personally (and I acknowledge it's a personal preference) I don't like the facial expression and prefer non-speaking images so the mouth isn't agape. I don't see anything this image offers that's an improvement upon the current infobox image. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, for the reasons given in the graphic-element analysis by EvergreenFir. (Personally, though, I often prefer a speaking image; some subjects put on a 'poker face' when they're listening.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – Bad contrast with background indeed. Open mouth of subject. No improvement from current picture (which was repeatedly debated at length and endorsed). — JFG talk 16:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – Current photo is clearer; the background on this one makes the whole thing look out of focus. NB--there's nothing wrong per se with a flag in the background, but this background is too busy and blurred; it detracts from the subject's face. YoPienso (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Removing pictures
User:Gaaas99 removed the picture of the teenaged Donald Trump at his military academy, with the edit summary "Reverted picture of Trump at NYMA in keeping with condensing article and because presence of numerous medals gives false impression about his military service". I think it should be restored. As a picture of the young Trump it adds insight to the article, and no one is going to think that a bunch of high school medals imply actual military service. If we feel the need to remove some of the numerous pictures from the article (in order to "condense" it), I suggest eliminating some of the dozen or so shots of his buildings, golf courses, etc.; or some of the "Trump posing with so-and-so" pictures with Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, Dennis Rodman, etc. (maybe per WP:INHERITED?). And we certainly don't need a picture of the church where he claims membership. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- While the medals may not imply actual military service, I feel there is a distinct imbalance in the section when taken as a whole. This imbalance has evolved over the past couple of months. The paragraph regarding Trump's lack of military service has become an afterthought due to the actions of a few editors. The title has now been changed to "childhood..." from early life... The picture of the medals may not imply actual military service but Trump seems to think "NYMA gave him "more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military"" (this statement is adjacent to the picture). Even a statement that he did not volunteer (rather than being drafted) for military service [1] was deleted by an editor. Perhaps a separate section entitled "Military Service" is in order.Gaas99 (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Lee, Kurtis. "How deferments protected Donald Trump from serving in Vietnam". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 17 August 2016.
- I agree. It should be restored.- MrX 15:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- yes restore, it shows Trump existed 40 years back and was NOT dropped here by aliens over the last 2 decades..--Stemoc 16:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'll take that for consensus and restore the image. I'd like to see some opinions here about whether any other pictures should be removed, and if so why? Personally I would like to see the picture of the church removed; it's not really about him, and the church has kind of distanced itself from him, saying he is not an active member. A more general question: Are there too many pictures in the article, and do they contribute to the bloat or oversized nature of the article that some have complained of? --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree the pictures of him posing with people and the photo of the church make no sense. The picture of him at a baseball game doesn’t appear to contribute anything. The picture of the Ocean Club International probably doesn’t fit its description. I can’t find anything that suggests he owns or operates the building. Objective3000 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with removal of the church pic, and reinsertion of the military academy pic, but not with removal of further pics. As you can see, reinsertion of the military academy pic barely changed the byte count. Instead, I think there is a lot of textual fat that can be trimmed. For example, I just removed the list of books to a new article List of books by or about Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'll take that for consensus and restore the image. I'd like to see some opinions here about whether any other pictures should be removed, and if so why? Personally I would like to see the picture of the church removed; it's not really about him, and the church has kind of distanced itself from him, saying he is not an active member. A more general question: Are there too many pictures in the article, and do they contribute to the bloat or oversized nature of the article that some have complained of? --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like we have agreement to delete the church picture, and I will remove it. We need more discussion on the pictures of him posing with people (I and one other want to remove them), the picture of him at a baseball game (I and two others want to remove it), and the pictures listed by Mr. X (I would be OK with dumping any or all of them). I will look into the question about the Ocean Club International. And I agree with Anythingyouwant that the bloat in this article is not from pictures; it is from text. I do feel that spinning the books off to a separate page was an improvement, so thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with you, Melanie; I just removed the church pic. I'm neutral on removing the other ones. Would rearrange photos of his family and swap out a different photo of his plane and of Celebrity Apprentice. Template at top is correct--article needs to be split. YoPienso (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to keep the CPAC pic and the one with Palin. The one with Trump in the stadium can go because it does not show Trump very clearly. Because the others are of buildings and not of Trump, I don't mind removing them. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Removibg pics barely changes article size. I like the one of Trump in the stadium because it's one if the very few pre-2010 pics we have and it illustrates the subject of sports very well. have already split off material once today, by creating a new article. Will do it again. Please note that the Hillary Clinton article is just a little smaller than this one byte-wise, so it's not a huge problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to keep the CPAC pic and the one with Palin. The one with Trump in the stadium can go because it does not show Trump very clearly. Because the others are of buildings and not of Trump, I don't mind removing them. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) Thanks, YoPienso, you beat me to it. @Objective3000: I don't understand what your problem is with the picture of the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower; all the references I consulted say that it was developed or co-developed by the Trump Organization, and Bloomberg says "The Trump Ocean Club is Donald Trump’s first hotel and apartment complex to open outside the U.S."[26] @Anythingyouwant: What would you think about spinning off the filmography into a separate article as well? --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I doubt the filmography will reduce the bytes much, but I could test it out. Also, I think the filmography (like the pics) kind of breaks up the monotony a bit. I plan on shrinking the article tomorrow night, but haven't quite yet decided how. This edit mysteriously removed the longstanding image of the skating rink, and so I plan on putting it back if someone else doesn't put it back first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is anyone actually concerned about the number of bytes in the article? I think that would be rather silly. My issue with some of the images is that they are distracting without adding any useful information. The skating rink is not really biographical.- MrX 22:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's a tag currently atop this article regarding article size. At Wikipedia, article size is typically measured in bytes. So, yes, the number of bytes in the article is currently a matter of concern. The skating rink picture seems very biographical to me, since it illustrates an achievement of the subject that arguably was a public service. The caption is also informative. The image of the church was very tenuously related to Trump, so I support its removal, while keeping the others.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- We're nowhere near the 2,098,175 size limit, so the concerns about bytes is much ado about nothing. On the other hand, readability should be a concern and when articles drift off their main topic, trimming is a good idea. We could stand to trim the Further legal matters section. We could condense the WWE section to a couple of sentences, reduce the Trump Tower section to a paragraph, and reduce or condense and a lot of other trivia like "In February 2009, Trump appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman,...".- MrX 00:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's a tag currently atop this article regarding article size. At Wikipedia, article size is typically measured in bytes. So, yes, the number of bytes in the article is currently a matter of concern. The skating rink picture seems very biographical to me, since it illustrates an achievement of the subject that arguably was a public service. The caption is also informative. The image of the church was very tenuously related to Trump, so I support its removal, while keeping the others.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is anyone actually concerned about the number of bytes in the article? I think that would be rather silly. My issue with some of the images is that they are distracting without adding any useful information. The skating rink is not really biographical.- MrX 22:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I doubt the filmography will reduce the bytes much, but I could test it out. Also, I think the filmography (like the pics) kind of breaks up the monotony a bit. I plan on shrinking the article tomorrow night, but haven't quite yet decided how. This edit mysteriously removed the longstanding image of the skating rink, and so I plan on putting it back if someone else doesn't put it back first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:Preserve, I strongly favor farming out material to existing articles or new articles, instead of simply deleting it. The 2,098,175 limit is not relevant here. Per WP:TOOLONG, here are some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:
Readable prose size | What to do |
> 100 kB | Almost certainly should be divided |
> 60 kB | Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material) |
> 50 kB | May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size) |
< 40 kB | Length alone does not justify division |
< 1 kB | If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded, see Wikipedia:Stub. |
For presidential nominee BLPs, tradition allows greater length, but still it would be good to get this BLP under the length of the Hillary Clinton BLP, at which point I think the tag can be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: My problem with the Ocean Club Hotel is that the caption and section gives it as an example of a property owned and operated by Trump. But, there is no evidence of either. Also, the Wollman Rink project is controversial in NYC, although that is not well knowm. Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Objective3000: I don't know what evidence you feel is lacking. Plenty of sources describe the Trump Organization as the "developer", along with a local partner. The source I cited above, Bloomberg, refers to it as one of Donald Trump's hotels. It's true that he often licenses his name out to properties rather than own them outright, but do you have any evidence that is the case here? All I found was that a company is leasing part of the property to build a casino. In the absence of any evidence that it ISN'T his property, I don't see any basis for removing the image if that's what you were suggesting. But I'd be OK with rewriting the caption, which is rather florid. Currently it says "The Trump Organization owns, operates, develops, and invests in real estate worldwide such as Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower (center) in Panama City, Panama." We could just caption it "The Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower (center) in Panama City, Panama" and leave out any reference to owning, operating, etc. Would that meet your objection? --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- A rewrite of the caption would help. But, I have seen no evidence that he owned or operated the property. Indeed, it appears to be owned, operated, and developed by Newland International Properties. Trump is not an officer of that corp. The connection to Trump seems tenuous. Objective3000 (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'll rewrite the caption. I do find references to Newland as the co-developer (with the Trump Group), and I do find a quote from Trump referring to it as a "Trump branded" property. Whether or not Trump owns it, clearly it is part of the Trump family, and if we remove the reference to ownership I don't see why the picture can't stay. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- A rewrite of the caption would help. But, I have seen no evidence that he owned or operated the property. Indeed, it appears to be owned, operated, and developed by Newland International Properties. Trump is not an officer of that corp. The connection to Trump seems tenuous. Objective3000 (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Objective3000: I don't know what evidence you feel is lacking. Plenty of sources describe the Trump Organization as the "developer", along with a local partner. The source I cited above, Bloomberg, refers to it as one of Donald Trump's hotels. It's true that he often licenses his name out to properties rather than own them outright, but do you have any evidence that is the case here? All I found was that a company is leasing part of the property to build a casino. In the absence of any evidence that it ISN'T his property, I don't see any basis for removing the image if that's what you were suggesting. But I'd be OK with rewriting the caption, which is rather florid. Currently it says "The Trump Organization owns, operates, develops, and invests in real estate worldwide such as Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower (center) in Panama City, Panama." We could just caption it "The Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower (center) in Panama City, Panama" and leave out any reference to owning, operating, etc. Would that meet your objection? --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: My problem with the Ocean Club Hotel is that the caption and section gives it as an example of a property owned and operated by Trump. But, there is no evidence of either. Also, the Wollman Rink project is controversial in NYC, although that is not well knowm. Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant I think you overlooked the part of the guideline immediately following the part you quoted. It says "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)." Donald Trump has a Prose size (text only) of 78 kB (12946 words) (readable prose size).- MrX 00:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was waiting until later to check readable prose size (because I'm sometimes lazy perhaps). You're correct that it's 78 kb for this article. And it's 102 kB for the Hillary Clinton article. The total size of this article (visible from the edit history) is 285,168 kB (down from 298,076 earlier today). So now the page loads better, its readable prose is substantially lower than it was earlier today, and I think the tag can now be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let's keep the Rink image. See Donald Trump Biography ("Trump rebuilt the Wollman Skating Rink (now the Trump Rink) in Central Park... Similarly, he rebuilt Lasker Rink, in Harlem..."). His work on this facility is discussed in several high-quality high-circulation sources. The caption should be trimmed, however. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Trump magazine
In a recent article in Politico, the author provides information about the short-lived Trump magazine. Right now this venture is in the bio article only in the listing of miscellaneous Trump ventures. Unlike others in that list, the reference is unlinked. Should we create a daughter article about the magazine or, if there's not enough information to warrant a separate article, include some basic information in this article? JamesMLane t c 18:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. Actually the mention in the article IS linked (reference 148, Kelly, Keith J. (May 20, 2009). "Trump's Magazine Closed". New York Post. Retrieved February 18, 2015.). The Politico article is an interesting first-person narrative, but IMO not enough to lift the magazine from its current obscurity. Offhand I don't think there is enough coverage for an article, but I'm tempted to look into it. Meanwhile, you could add this link as a second reference to the mention in the article. If the magazine later becomes more of an issue due to increased publicity, we could reconsider expanding the mention. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Interestingly, we do have an article here called Trump (magazine), but it's about a much earlier, 1950s-erra magazine in the style of MAD Magazine. If that short-lived magazine deserves an article, maybe Trump's does too. I will continue to research the idea. --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry I wasn't clear. When I said the magazine wasn't linked, I meant that, unlike so many of Trump's other ventures, it wasn't wikilinked to a dedicated daughter article. I also may return to this subject later. For now, though, the footnote to the Politico article will have to do.JamesMLane t c 04:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Website
VR, your recent edit summary [27] states, "his Muslim ban is still on his website." --- I just checked Trump's website, here, and it doesn't say anything about Muslims. Please self-revert your edits. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- The added source (published yesterday) verifies it:
"Trump's unprecedented call in December 2015 "for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" is still listed on his campaign website, and he has yet to personally denounce the controversial proposal."
So it must be somewhere unless they've just removed it today.--TMCk (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
"rephrasing" removed content
This edit with the misleading edit summary of "same, rephrasing for conciseness" removed "If elected, Trump would become the first U.S. President without prior government or military experience." Please kindly correct what surely was just an honest mistake. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe needs a ping before more gets accidentally removed.--TMCk (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
It was not a mistake. BEFORE: "Trump is the second major-party presidential nominee in American history whose experience comes principally from running a business (Wendell Willkie was the first). If elected, Trump would become the first U.S. President without prior government or military experience." AFTER: "Trump is the second major-party presidential nominee in American history whose experience comes principally from running a business rather than from government or military service (Wendell Willkie was the first)." All the info is still there. This shortening was proposed by another editor above. It's conciser, and avoid the crystal ball language.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect. "...comes principally from running a business..." implies he has some prior government or military experience which he doesn't has and thus he is "the first of", not second. Kindly correct.--TMCk (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- The language "comes principally from running a business" was there both before and after my edit, so I assume you retract your objection to my edit. And I think the BLP as it stands is perfectly clear that he doesn't have government or military experience. Please respect the cited source which says "second" and not "first".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect. "...comes principally from running a business..." implies he has some prior government or military experience which he doesn't has and thus he is "the first of", not second. Kindly correct.--TMCk (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- You removed "If elected, Trump would become the first U.S. President without prior government or military experience." - which is not the same as you claim.--TMCk (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I did remove that, and have never claimed otherwise, and I inserted similar material per the discussion above on this talk page. The language I inserted is accurate, and it was suggested by another editor above. I thought the consensus was to avoid crystal-ball-sounding statements, given that we don't know if he'll be elected (the odds are actually against it).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- You removed "If elected, Trump would become the first U.S. President without prior government or military experience." - which is not the same as you claim.--TMCk (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Kindly point to the discussion you derived a consensus from to remove this sentence of being the first one if elected. BTW, here is what the source used is saying:
"Every one of our 44 presidents has had either government or military experience before being sworn in. Mr. Trump, a real estate mogul and former reality-television star, hasn’t served a day in public office or the armed forces."
--TMCk (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)- The cited source also says: "Only once in American history has a major political party granted its prize to someone whose principal qualification was to have served as a corporate chief executive. That was in 1940, when Wendell Willkie was the Republican candidate against President Franklin Roosevelt, who was seeking a third term." Thus Trump is the second. There was discussion of Willkie above in the section Talk:Donald_Trump#Allegedly_racist_and_fascist, where WP:FUTURE was also cited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Trump is the second NOMINEE of a major party with only corporate experience. He would, if elected, be the first PRESIDENT in that position. (Just in case there is confusion here between "second" and "first".) IMO it isn't WP:CRYSTAL to say that he would be the first such president, any more than saying that Hillary would be the first woman president, or that Trump would be the oldest newly-elected president if he takes office in January.[36] Such "if elected they will be the first" reporting happens all the time. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- The cited source also says: "Only once in American history has a major political party granted its prize to someone whose principal qualification was to have served as a corporate chief executive. That was in 1940, when Wendell Willkie was the Republican candidate against President Franklin Roosevelt, who was seeking a third term." Thus Trump is the second. There was discussion of Willkie above in the section Talk:Donald_Trump#Allegedly_racist_and_fascist, where WP:FUTURE was also cited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Kindly point to the discussion you derived a consensus from to remove this sentence of being the first one if elected. BTW, here is what the source used is saying:
Other "if he is elected" issues
I was editing mainly for conciseness when I edited the sentence about not having government or military experience, as stated in my edit summary. I put in a more concise version that had been supported above at this talk page for other reasons. It's perfectly accurate and understandable the way it is. If people don't realize that Willkie never became president, then they ought to click the wikilink and learn about him. The whole thing about "Trump will be the oldest person who ever becomes president...." is an analogous issue involving the future event of becoming president, and was discussed at length above. Talk:Donald_Trump#Age, so I don't favor re-hashing the whole crystal ball issue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I made a subsection for you since the above has absolutely nothing to do with what you're saying. don't wanna derail existing discussion.--TMCk (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have modified the subheader, and have inserted some underlined elaboration to help you understand. I hope it's enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- OK, let's skip the age thing (I only put it in for comparison anyhow, not as a serious suggestion). I thought "Hillary Clinton will be the first woman president if elected" would be a good comparison, but to my surprise I don't find that in her article - only "She became the first female candidate to be nominated for president by a major U.S. political party". So by that analogy we should also leave out the "if Trump is elected" sentence, and I now concur with its removal. (Although I thought, and still think, it is arrogant and WP:Systemic bias to assume that everybody understands the implications of Willkie being the first such nominee. But maybe people don't need to make that jump to the future in their thinking. Second or first - they'll find out when/if it happens.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have modified the subheader, and have inserted some underlined elaboration to help you understand. I hope it's enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Revision as of 14:04, 16 August 2016
Volunteer Marek, what is your reason for this undoing of the work of multiple other editors? There was no consensus against these edits. Simply saying there was no consensus for these edits isn't enough. The folks who deleted the content gave their reasons for doing so in their edit summaries; please respond. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- In terms of the first one, I see no consensus to add "until a screening process has been perfected." Did I miss it somewhere? The text itself is problematic, especially for the lede, because it omits all the relevant context (that "clarification" was made in response to criticism).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was surprised that you removed that phrase, and I think it should be restored. It is a more accurate description of his current position, which includes the "development of a screening process" as part, or goal, or end point of his proposed ban (or suspension or whatever his current word is). --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the phrase in the article, but I don't think it should be in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. It's clunky for the lead. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not even sure it should be in this article - although in the campaign one, yes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Specifically, here is the relevant text from main body that the lede is suppose to summarize:
- "Trump's immigration policies have been among his most highly-discussed policies during the campaign. Some of his proposals have come under scrutiny by several experts on immigration who question the effectiveness and affordability of his plans.[412][413] Trump vows to build a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border to keep out illegal immigrants, a wall which Trump promises Mexico will pay for.[414][415] Trump would also create a "deportation force" to deport around 11 million people illegally residing in the U.S., stating "Day 1 of my presidency, [illegal immigrants] are getting out and getting out fast."[416] Trump opposes birthright citizenship.[417] One of Trump's most controversial proposals was a "total and complete", but temporary, ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States.[418][419][420] Pollsters have found that support for the proposal depends upon whether the pollsters say that the ban would only last "until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here".[419] Trump later offered an "expansion" to his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism".[421][422] Trump insisted that the new proposal was not a "rollback" of his initial proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants.[423] He said, "In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territory."[423] He has stated that the ban could apply to countries compromised by terrorism, such as France, Germany and Spain"
- There's nothing there about Trump proposing a "screening process", nevermind one that will be "perfected" (whatever that means - we ban all cars from the road until all cars are 100% perfectly safe!). It says that the pollsters have found differences in opinion depending on whether a screening process is mentioned or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the phrase in the article, but I don't think it should be in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Marek, there is no requirement to receive talk page consensus before making an edit. Thank you for sharing your concern about the phrase, "until a screening process has been perfected." How about the rest? Personally I'm concerned about your re-addition of the word "successfully," which I believe isn't supported by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, of course not. But I also didn't think the screening process thing belonged in there. As to the rest - hold up a sec.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the removed language in the lede that some editors think was clunky, here is the relevant statement in the body of the article: "In his RNC acceptance speech, Trump promised to ... tackle Islamic terrorism by defeating ISIS and suspending immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." (emphasis added). I suport having something like this in the lead to indicate the temporary nature of the proposal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Actually that whole paragraph is sketchy as hell (probably why it has that POV tag on it). It uses Wikipedia voice to make assertions. For example, saying "rebuild the military" implies that the military has been torn down or that there is something wrong with it. So it rather looks like we need to reword the text in the main body of the article, rather than introduce the same problems into the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the removed language in the lede that some editors think was clunky, here is the relevant statement in the body of the article: "In his RNC acceptance speech, Trump promised to ... tackle Islamic terrorism by defeating ISIS and suspending immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." (emphasis added). I suport having something like this in the lead to indicate the temporary nature of the proposal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, of course not. But I also didn't think the screening process thing belonged in there. As to the rest - hold up a sec.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was surprised that you removed that phrase, and I think it should be restored. It is a more accurate description of his current position, which includes the "development of a screening process" as part, or goal, or end point of his proposed ban (or suspension or whatever his current word is). --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I like the picture of the skating rink that had been there for many months with an informative caption. He renovated it, so it's not like the removed church pic at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Family tree
Per WP:SCROLL, we're not supposed to include a family tree that toggles between hide and show. We also don't need two separate sections in this BLP titled "Ancestry". I have started a new article Ancestry of Donald Trump that includes the family tree without toggling. The ancestry stuff in this BLP needs to be accordingly shortened to summarize the new article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I took care of this, since it didn't seem to involve any edits of the type that are currently frowned-upon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
CFredkin's recent edits
- In this revert [37] CFredkin removes the sentence "These two properties filed a pre-packaged bankruptcy in March 1992." sourced to the Philadelphia Inquirer with the edit summary "rm redundant with existing bankruptcy content and rm unsourced"
1. How in the world is this "unsourced"? There's a big freakin' inline citation sitting right there. It's sort of hard to miss, especially when one is removing it.
2. Second, it is not true that this sentence is "redundant with existing bankruptcy content". This info is about the 1992 bankruptcy of Trump Plaza. The other information about Trump's bankruptcies are about the 1991 Taj Mahal bankruptcy, and the 1995 bankruptcy of Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts. It's not redundant. It's just that Trump has bankrupted businesses many times.
I'm having a hard time believing that this revert was made in good faith, since the edit summary is so blatantly false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It's also pretty important that we let the reader know that Trump has sold off Trump plaza in 2013. Is this controversial or something? Here's a source [38].Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- This sentence you inserted ("Trump sold the Plaza in 2013 and it closed in 2014") was not accompanied by a footnote, so that's probably what CFredkin meant by unsourced. Moreover, if you look at the Table of Contents of this BLP, there's a whole section titled "Business bankruptcies". And that section says (emphasis added): "According to a report by Forbes in 2011, the four bankruptcies were the result of over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City: Trump Taj Mahal (1991), Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino (1992), Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts (2004), and Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009)." Why do we have to discuss bankrupticies outside of that section too? It seems redundant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- That means there's overlap between the section "Business bankruptcies" and "Trump extends" so they should be combined into one. In fact, "Trump extends" is an incorrect title since that section also is pretty much about his bankruptcies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Would an edit like this resolve your concern about the section heading "Trump expands" and be acceptable to other parties? (I've self-reverted for now, pending discussion.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's already a subsection on bankruptcies titled Business bankruptcies, 1991–2009, so we shouldn't have two subsections with "bankruptcy" in the header. It seems much simpler to just move any bankruptcy material in this BLP to the subsection on bankruptcies (or to the separate article which it summarizes). Having the bankruptcies in a dedicated subsection is convenient for people looking for information about the bankruptcies, and that's how this article has been structured for a long time. I don't support (redundant) discussion of bankruptcies outside of the section on bankruptcies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't realize there was a separate "Bankrupcies" section. If it were up to me I'd try to keep things in chronological order if possible. Not mentioning bankruptcy in the "Trump Expands" section (1986-1990s) doesn't make sense to me, since the next section begins with the sentence, "The late 1990s saw a resurgence in Trump's financial situation." Perhaps the material in the current Bankruptcy section could be merged into the article chronologically? Although it seems that half that section is dedicated to quoting Trump on how "fantastic" his bankruptcies were...not sure where that material would go. </snark> ~Awilley (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've just moved the subsection on "business bankruptcies" so that it immediately follows the subsection titled "trump expands".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) I agree that the bankruptcies are an essential part of the chronology in describing his business activities. IMO they could be mentioned in passing in the chronological sections, while retaining a separate, summary section listing the bankruptcies and including his philosophy about bankruptcy as a business strategy. I think people will look for a section on this subject, since his company's bankruptcies are cited frequently in connection with the campaign. Anything, I think your move accomplishes both of these things and I endorse it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't realize there was a separate "Bankrupcies" section. If it were up to me I'd try to keep things in chronological order if possible. Not mentioning bankruptcy in the "Trump Expands" section (1986-1990s) doesn't make sense to me, since the next section begins with the sentence, "The late 1990s saw a resurgence in Trump's financial situation." Perhaps the material in the current Bankruptcy section could be merged into the article chronologically? Although it seems that half that section is dedicated to quoting Trump on how "fantastic" his bankruptcies were...not sure where that material would go. </snark> ~Awilley (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's already a subsection on bankruptcies titled Business bankruptcies, 1991–2009, so we shouldn't have two subsections with "bankruptcy" in the header. It seems much simpler to just move any bankruptcy material in this BLP to the subsection on bankruptcies (or to the separate article which it summarizes). Having the bankruptcies in a dedicated subsection is convenient for people looking for information about the bankruptcies, and that's how this article has been structured for a long time. I don't support (redundant) discussion of bankruptcies outside of the section on bankruptcies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Would an edit like this resolve your concern about the section heading "Trump expands" and be acceptable to other parties? (I've self-reverted for now, pending discussion.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- That means there's overlap between the section "Business bankruptcies" and "Trump extends" so they should be combined into one. In fact, "Trump extends" is an incorrect title since that section also is pretty much about his bankruptcies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- This sentence you inserted ("Trump sold the Plaza in 2013 and it closed in 2014") was not accompanied by a footnote, so that's probably what CFredkin meant by unsourced. Moreover, if you look at the Table of Contents of this BLP, there's a whole section titled "Business bankruptcies". And that section says (emphasis added): "According to a report by Forbes in 2011, the four bankruptcies were the result of over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City: Trump Taj Mahal (1991), Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino (1992), Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts (2004), and Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009)." Why do we have to discuss bankrupticies outside of that section too? It seems redundant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)