Gouncbeatduke (talk | contribs) |
Gouncbeatduke (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 716: | Line 716: | ||
== Should Judge Curiel’s membership in the Hispanic National Bar Association be in the Donald Trump article? == |
== 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. |
|||
{{rfc|pol}} |
{{rfc|pol}} |
Revision as of 13:26, 11 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)
Trump v Khan feud
This story appears not to be going away and it looks like one of the biggest stories to come out of the DNC. Tons of sources. Working backwards: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] (note the source actually uses the word "feud"), [17], [18], [19]... tons more and that's just from the last few hours while I got some sleep. There's a huge amount of sources on this going back to convention day.
It doesn't appear we have anything on the controversy in the article, and although I generally favor a robust application of WP:NOTNEWS it very much looks like this has become a big enough issue to include in the article (I'd hold off on a separate article but if it keeps going like this...) Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Coverage of the story has become extensive and in-depth, with inputs from across the spectrum (Democratic politicians, Republican politicians, and veterans groups). The exceptions to WP:NOTNEWS seem to apply, and thus this content should be allowed in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree this has become a monster-big deal and needs to be covered. Even my own local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, which leans conservative, gave half of the Monday front page to this story, with a banner headline and several pictures. However, I would prefer to see it in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article, in the section called "people and groups". In a subsection titled "Khizr Khan" or "the Khan family", no "feud." (It takes two to make a feud, but Khan is trying to de-escalate while Trump keeps attacking.[20]) I'll move to that article's talk page and try to come up with a starter draft. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it definitely belongs in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article, but I think it should also - briefly - be mentioned here. In particular the fact that Trump is being criticized by members of his own party is quite significant. It's more or less unprecedented that high ranking members of a political party would harshly criticize their own nominee for president (at least once the primaries are over).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- BTW I see that the soldier son, Humayun Khan (soldier), already has an article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC) And so do the parents: Khizr and Ghazala Khan. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Concur with User:Volunteer Marek. At most, it deserves a single sentence in this article. Similar to Joe the Plumber in John McCain. NickCT (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's a good analogy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Me too! ;-)
- After all, other stuff does exist. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's a good analogy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Concur with User:Volunteer Marek. At most, it deserves a single sentence in this article. Similar to Joe the Plumber in John McCain. NickCT (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- BTW I see that the soldier son, Humayun Khan (soldier), already has an article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC) And so do the parents: Khizr and Ghazala Khan. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it definitely belongs in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article, but I think it should also - briefly - be mentioned here. In particular the fact that Trump is being criticized by members of his own party is quite significant. It's more or less unprecedented that high ranking members of a political party would harshly criticize their own nominee for president (at least once the primaries are over).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree this has become a monster-big deal and needs to be covered. Even my own local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, which leans conservative, gave half of the Monday front page to this story, with a banner headline and several pictures. However, I would prefer to see it in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article, in the section called "people and groups". In a subsection titled "Khizr Khan" or "the Khan family", no "feud." (It takes two to make a feud, but Khan is trying to de-escalate while Trump keeps attacking.[20]) I'll move to that article's talk page and try to come up with a starter draft. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that this is worthy of mention, even if only for a sentence or two. Neutralitytalk 19:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. It belongs on the Donald Trump presidential campaign 2016 article. How can anybody answer that question posed by George Stephanopoulos over the weekend, unless they had a child who died in the military? It's a Clinton talking point and belongs on the presidential campaign page. This is a BLP and the items that belong here are to man, not his presidential campaign. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The man and his campaign overlap, of course. I'm not sure what BLP has to do with anything. Neutralitytalk 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that this is worthy of mention, even if only for a sentence or two. Neutralitytalk 19:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I added a paragraph to the article Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Someone might want to abstract a sentence from it to go in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. There is no consensus for that. This is political theater. It isn't something Trump initiated like the comments about the judge hearing the Trump University case. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Political theater" is what Donald Trump's campaign is all about, as he would be the first to say. And while he may not have initiated it (since he was responding to an interviewer's questions), he certainly has kept it up. More to the point, the national media of all stripes have kept it up. This is still front page news, several days later. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn't make it appropriate here. And if you take his comments, the "firestorm" is simply being whipped up by the media which supports Hillary. It's way out of proportion to what was said and politicians who don't like him to begin with, are jumping on the bandwagon. That's not an excuse for Wikipedia to do the same. Simply stating what was said, without the drama is best, and it is best done on his presidential page. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Political theater" is what Donald Trump's campaign is all about, as he would be the first to say. And while he may not have initiated it (since he was responding to an interviewer's questions), he certainly has kept it up. More to the point, the national media of all stripes have kept it up. This is still front page news, several days later. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans: Which particular "exceptions to WP:NOTNEWS"? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not accustomed to citing rules in my editing so I may get this wrong but as far as I understand it, the exceptions to "WP:NOTNEWS" are "extended and in-depth news coverage", having "demonstrable effect or impact (such as political controversy, troop movements, economic changes, etc.)" and common sense ("Sometimes the exact long-lasting impact of a current event in the news will not be apparent, but common sense dictates that there will be an impact"). The inclusion of this fits those I think. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
MelanieN: You were commenting, "Even my own local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune..." Well, here's what my local newspaper had to say! ;)
- Khizr Khan’s Speech, Ghazala Khan’s Comments and Donald Trump’s Replies - WSJ:
- "Trump was noting that Ghazala Khan stood silent next to her husband for seven minutes Thursday night... Trump was asked about the speech... He said: ‘He was, you know, very emotional... If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.’ ... Her husband said later: ‘... I was strengthened by her presence... So her being there was the strength that I could hold my composure. I am much weaker than she is in such matters.’"
(Most relevant passages from WSJ compilation.) A fair paraphrase: When asked about Khizr Khan's speech, Trump said he appeared very emotional, whereas his wife, who was standing next to him, had nothing to say. He added that "maybe" someone hadn't allowed her to say anything. Khan replied that his wife was better at maintaining her composure than he was and that she was there to give him the strength to make his speech. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I normally don't visit this page, but as with other politicians / candidates, whether this is news of the day or just an event in the back and forth of politics, stuff like this only belongs in the main biographical article of a person if it is a crucial, pivotal, defining, etc., event in their career. WP:NOT#NEWS suggests the reason, in part. There are plenty of sources, but it is far too early to tell. I would keep it out for now, and if he were to lose the election look back later to see if this is attributed by the sources to be one of the relevant or defining issues. Otherwise, there are reasons why we have sub-articles about campaigns, political careers, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
SW3 5DL, sorry, but your analysis above is POV and wrong. That (coverage) doesn't make it appropriate here. Yes it does. The extent of our coverage is determined to a large extent by what Reliable Sources do; we don't decide on our own to puff up a minor story or ignore a major one. And if you take his comments, the "firestorm" is simply being whipped up by the media which supports Hillary. Dead wrong. The firestorm is coming from politicians and public figures of all sides,[21] including many who have endorsed him and have not withdrawn their support.[22] It is being reported by media of all slants, from liberal to conservative. (Are you going to claim that the Wall Street Journal supports Hillary?) "the media which supports Hillary" reflects your own bias; it's not how Wikipedia evaluates sources. It's way out of proportion to what was said and politicians who don't like him to begin with, are jumping on the bandwagon. Again, it's not just "politicians who don't like him"; the condemnation is almost universal and is coming from his supporters too. That's not an excuse for Wikipedia to do the same. Simply stating what was said, without the drama is best. The drama and the reaction is what makes it a story worth including here. and it is best done on his presidential page. Umm, he doesn't have a presidential page; he is not president yet. I assume you meant his campaign page? I agree, and that's where it is (although I see you have completely rewritten it, and I will deal with those changes at that article). --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- It bears noting that a current GOP congressman has now decided to vote for Clinton, citing Trump's behavior towards the Khans specifically as his rationale for doing so. It would be hard to argue that the story doesn't have major political ramifications already. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is just one of many controversial actions by Trump during his campaign. While it may be relevant to his campaign article, it is of little significance overall to the subject of this article. TFD (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- While I do think it deserves a sentence at this article, I don't see any place where it naturally fits. We need to be careful what we add here because there is still a lot of time til the election. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's actually not "just" one of many controversial actions. This one has had a lot of tractions and has been going on for some time now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is just one of many controversial actions by Trump during his campaign. While it may be relevant to his campaign article, it is of little significance overall to the subject of this article. TFD (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
For helpful background material about Attorney Khan, see International Business, KM Khan Law Office (Aug. 1, 2016), http://web.archive.org/web/20160801212033/http://www.kmkhanlaw.com/International_Business.html (“E2 and EB5 Investor Immigration and International Business Transactions”) (site discontinued Aug. 2, 2016). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not particularly relevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think it bears a small reference in the post-nomination section of the campaign article as something that caused his numbers to tank. pbp 19:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- We would need to confirm that with polling though, which can be a bit hard. It's unclear why his poll numbers are slipping at the moment. It could be many of the numerous things he's said over the last few days or even just still be part of Clinton's convention bounce. Nate Silver says that this is a particularly hard time to judge polling, due to two convention bounces. That said, I think it's reasonable to guess that the Khan feud plays some role. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Obama's comments
Somebody added a paragraph to the Presidential Election campaign section, quoting at great length President Obama's recent denunciation of Trump. I have deleted it, subject of course to discussion here. It is already being discussed at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 whether to include anything about these comments. IMO if they are to be reported anywhere, it should be there at the campaign article, not here in Trump's biography. And if something is to be included, IMO it should be brief, not an extended quote. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- The quote was way, way too long. If it is to be included here, it must be in the context of simply saying "Trump's statements regarding the Khan family have received widespread condemnation from McCain, Ryan, [insert other big shots] and President Obama" after we include a sentence or two on Trump's Khan feud (if that is to be included).Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Obama on Trump
I added this to the article (proofreading):
"At a White House news conference on August 2, 2016, Obama delivered an extraudionarly harsh denunciation of Trump, stating that "The Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. He keeps on proving it. The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that made such extraudionarly sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn't appear to have basic knowledge of critical issues in Europe, the Middle East, in Asia, means that he's woefully unprepared to do this job. There has to be a point at which you say, 'Enough.' What does this say about your party that this is your standard-bearer? This isn't a situation where you have an episodic gaffe. This is daily and weekly where they are distancing themselves from statements he's making. There has to be a point at which you say, 'This is not somebody I can support for president of the United States, even if he purports to be a member of my party."[1]
References
Shortly after I made the edit, some content I added in it was removed. I'm bringing the content I added here so the community can establish via consensus whether it is worthy of inclusion on the article. Plankton55 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Statements from members of one party that attack those in another party should generally be included only in the campaign articles - that would be Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. And they need to be extraordinary (as this one is, admittedly) to be worth putting even there, I think.
- This article does have a relatively short synopsis of the campaign article - the section titled "Presidential campaign, 2016". I can see a case for expanding that slightly, by saying something like:
- At a White House news conference on August 2, 2016, President Obama delivered an extraordinarily harsh denunciation of Trump, stating that Trump was unfit to serve as president.
- But that's the maximum that I think would be justifiable in this article. The proper place for any lengthy quotation or discussion is Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with MelanieN. I don't think this belongs on his bio. Obama's comments occurred within the context of Trump's presidential campaign. It is certainly appropriate on the campaign page, but not here. As to the section on this article regarding his presidential campaign, it should not be included there. That section need only be a paragraph mentioning his run for president, platform, etc, which it does now. The Trump presidential article then provides full information. . SW3 5DL (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is extraordinary that a sitting president should comment on anybody in such terms. This goes to character, rather than the regular run of political chat. I support John Broughton's wording above. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I also support the wording recommended by John Broughton and Pete. It is an extraordinary piece of history and should be included here. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is extraordinary that a sitting president should comment on anybody in such terms. This goes to character, rather than the regular run of political chat. I support John Broughton's wording above. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see any reason it belongs here, if anywhere. Objective3000 (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Political positions — Trump vs Clinton
The "Political positions" section si too detailed, and the subject is already covered elsewhere. We should take inspiration from Hillary Clinton#Political positions. What do you think about it? -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's absolutely essential to have a concise collection of his political positions on signature issues and highly salient matters in the main article. If you check other politicians' pages, their political positions will usually be implicitly covered under their tenure as congressmen/governors or their campaigns for office. Trump has never held public office or run any serious campaign before, so there is no opportunity to list his actions while in office. If you were to include all the 'political positions' that are covered on Clinton's and Pence's pages under their tenure in office, their list of political positions is significantly longer than Trump's. If you check Tim Kaine's page, his 'political positions' section is of similar length to Trump (even when you exclude many of Kaine's positions are implicitly covered under his tenure as Mayor, Governor and Senator). I think it would be malpractice of Wikipedia to not have content on the political positions of one of two individuals likely to hold the most important office in the world. Isn't that (i) one of the key reasons people check this article (the 2016 race) + (ii) vastly more salient (or at least equally important to) three months from election day than his entertainment and business career? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Given the total length of this article, that section is fine (and informative). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's way too long. Per WP:Summary style, it needs to be shortened just like for comparable BLPs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I just trimmed 2,500 characters that did not add much from the section. It's as concise as it could be I think. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Prior to that trimming there were about 13,000 characters (11,000 characters excluding spaces). The previous section (about the 2016 campaign) is about 5,000 characters including spaces. I'd like to see the positions section at 5,000 or less (including spaces).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with that. By the way, I'll trim some non-essential bits (which some may want to revert) for the next 15 mins. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I did some more trimming. I think this is as good as it gets with one exception (the minimum wage section doesn't necessarily have to outline each contradictory position he has taken - it's enough to just say he's been inconsistent and contradictory). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good job. I went ahead and removed a paragraph from the Foreign policy section with explanation [23] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that explanation stands up. First, his take on Afghanistan is a current position (leave troops there). Second, Trump cites his wisdom on Iraq and Libya repeatedly on the campaign trail (often incorrectly), as such they are huge parts of the campaign. Third, candidates' positions on Iraq and Libya are hugely important for gauging where candidates actually stand on wars and interventions in practice. It's one thing to speak in hypotheticals and in hindsight and another to actually have to take a decision on the spot. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good job. I went ahead and removed a paragraph from the Foreign policy section with explanation [23] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I did some more trimming. I think this is as good as it gets with one exception (the minimum wage section doesn't necessarily have to outline each contradictory position he has taken - it's enough to just say he's been inconsistent and contradictory). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with that. By the way, I'll trim some non-essential bits (which some may want to revert) for the next 15 mins. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Prior to that trimming there were about 13,000 characters (11,000 characters excluding spaces). The previous section (about the 2016 campaign) is about 5,000 characters including spaces. I'd like to see the positions section at 5,000 or less (including spaces).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I just trimmed 2,500 characters that did not add much from the section. It's as concise as it could be I think. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's way too long. Per WP:Summary style, it needs to be shortened just like for comparable BLPs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
User deletes accurate polling and replaces it with inaccurate polling. I can't revert.
This user deleted a bunch of content for the supposed reason that so-called "instant polls" are more reliable and that normal polls by CNN/ORC and Gallup are not: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732999673&oldid=732996018
Could someone please restore? I probably don't have to say the obvious but "instant polls" are generally considered the worst kind of polls. See:
- NYT calls them "wildly unreliable" in their polling standards: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/pollingstandards.pdf
- This political science blog refers to them as unreliable: http://duckofminerva.com/2008/09/is-mccain-about-to-lose-post-debate.html
- This Independent piece refers to them as unreliable: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/laid-back-bush-keeps-gore-at-arms-length-635398.html
Need I go on?
The editor also replaces accurate descriptions of Trump's and Clinton's convention bounces (which are important in campaigns) with weasel words. Please restore. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- A poll by CNN/ORC (very well-respected) conducted RIGHT AFTER Trump's speech said that 75% had a good reaction to it. Now, after the speech happened, the media went in an all-out attack on his speech, using the infamous word "dark". Just look at this: http://i.imgur.com/NBRt2c8.jpg And there were many many articles on how hard the media attacked Trump:
- http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2016/07/22/networks-trump-dark-speech-vengeful-demagogue
- http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trumps-speech-wasnt-dark-or-angry-the-media-out-touch-17099
- http://www.dailywire.com/news/7734/theres-one-word-entire-media-used-describe-trump-aaron-bandler
- So after this, the Gallup poll (which by the way, if you look into it, are majorty democrat) is way worse than the instant poll, because people have been influenced by the media. I mean, it's not some kind of a secret. And by the way, even CNN tried to hide their instant poll, because it didn't fit their narrative. Many articles on that too:
- http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/22/75-percent-positive-response-to-donald-trump-speech-so-cnn-trashes-its-own-poll/
- http://newsonable.com/cnn-hides-its-own-poll-number-75-react-positively-to-trumps-speech/
- The point is, polls conducted long after the speech are unreliable, as people have been influenced by the media. That's why the CNN/ORC instant poll should be used. This is not rocket science. Also, why is there a need to mention how many particular convention bounce points a candidate received in a MAIN page of the person. We need to trim this article, not expand on such nonsense.
- Also, all these polls have such liberal bias. If we looked at independant polling sites like Longroom (who have correctly predicted the winner since 2004), we see Trump is LEADING, not losing to Clinton: https://www.longroom.com/polls/ ApolloFirenze (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- These are not reliable sources and you're doing original research. Please check the discretionary sanctions notice at the top of the page. You can't reinsert/change this material once it's been challenged.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- No one, except you I guess, considers an instant poll more reliable than normal comprehensive polls. They don't even release methodology and full results for them. They are meant for instant coverage on the TV network that conducts it and not more than that (though it's unsurprising that Breitbart runs with it as the authoritative truth). Which is why this very same organization conducted a comprehensive poll over the next two days. Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Instant polls are not, as the NYT polling standards make clear. The CNN/ORC and Gallup surveys released two days are. As for your last point, Wikipedia does not rely on cooky "unskewered" polls from some random site no one has heard of.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? First of all, how dare you say I'm the only one who thinkgs something. Are you serious? Stop living in a world of your own please. Second of all, you straight up ignored what I said about these polls being majority democrats giving their opinion. How is that fair? Also, polling averages are full of majority democratic voters. The media is liberal, is is that hard to understand for you? ApolloFirenze (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to see we have entered "How dare you" territory, ApolloFirenze. Please take a look at my warning above about how incivility on this page can lead to a topic ban from Donald Trump-related pages. I'm quite serious. Also, if you think people find your claims "hard to understand" (=nobody agrees with them), the thing to do is to give evidence (links to reliable sources) for your statements, not merely rehash them. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC).
- Hm? So he/she can be rude to me, but I have to be respectful to everyone and get walked all over by people? Got it. ApolloFirenze (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: can you take a look at these diffs: Donald Trump here? Thanks SW3 5DL (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: See diff 6 in particular. "(...revert vandalism)". Here the user in question restores some material that's supported in part by an item on the New Yorker's "Daily Intelligencer" subsite. (Headline: "Hillary Clinton Is Running Not Just As the Democrat But As the Candidate of Democracy Itself". Apparently Johnson ahd Stein aren't, though.) An editor had appropriately removed the material per WP:BLPREMOVE.
- Contributions by that same user at Hillary Clinton (per biographies of living persons, removing slander attempts.) and Hillary Clinton talk ("I removed all of your continuing edit-war edits because no consensus exists for you continuing edit-war edits."). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- SW3 5DL, your link doesn't work for me. Are you and Dervorguilla changing the subject to a different user in mid discussion? That's confusing, and in any case it is best to call attention to diffs you think are problematic at the admin's talk page, rather than here on the talk page; here we shouldn't be talking about other users, but rather page content. (If you agree with that approach, User:Bishonen?) --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? First of all, how dare you say I'm the only one who thinkgs something. Are you serious? Stop living in a world of your own please. Second of all, you straight up ignored what I said about these polls being majority democrats giving their opinion. How is that fair? Also, polling averages are full of majority democratic voters. The media is liberal, is is that hard to understand for you? ApolloFirenze (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN:, so sorry I added my comment to a section that I thought would get Bishonen's attention, as I thought perhaps she was keeping an eye on this page for ArbCom purposes. My edit has absolutely nothing to do with the other editor you mentioned. Not related at all. I did leave a note on your talk page, btw. As it turns out, Bishonen and I have sorted that bit. Sorry for the confusion. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the original paragraph about Trump's speech and the reaction to it. ApolloFirenze makes it clear, above, that his version was motivated by partisan considerations, and consensus here has not supported it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Age
Someone inserted at the end of the lead that Trump would be the oldest president. I fixed this to say that he'd be the oldest person to become president, and I added a tag because nowhere in the BLP is there a cite for that. Anyway, I don't think this should be in the lead at all. A similar passage was removed from the Hillary Clinton lead today on the basis that actual history should be favored over potential history. Moreover, we're tailoring potential history in a way that disfavors Trump, because we could instead say that he would be younger than Reagan was when Reagan was inaugurated in 1985.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed on removing it from lede. I'm neutral on whether it belongs in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I must support removing it from the article, per WP:CRYSTAL policy. "An expected future event should be included only if the event is almost certain to take place." At the moment, Trump is not "almost certain" to become president.
- Moreover, if the incumbent President were to be removed from Office before Inauguration, or to die, resign, or become unable to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, Trump would never become the oldest person to become president. Rather, Biden would. See job description, U.S. Const. art. II. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nor does the other passage (in § 'Presidential campaign, 2016') that begins "If elected, Trump would become..." See generally WP:CRYSTAL.
- Wikipedia does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere. An expected future event should be included only if the event is almost certain to take place.
- Trump isn't almost certain to get elected. I'm removing both passages for the duration. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nor does the other passage (in § 'Presidential campaign, 2016') that begins "If elected, Trump would become..." See generally WP:CRYSTAL.
- In rev 733324122, I removed some material from § 'Presidential campaign, 2016', explaining, "rm 'If elected, Trump would... If elected, Trump would...' per WP:FUTURE (include future event only if almost certain to take place); Trump is NOT almost certain to be elected, so no need to mention; see Talk § Age)". In rev 733444723, Gouncbeatduke restored the material, explaining, "Please bring to talk page, this does not appear to be a real WP:FUTURE problem".
- WP:FUTURE policy says, "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified", but "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is almost certain to take place". Someone is indeed certain to get elected November 8, but Trump in particular is not certain or almost certain to get elected then. No source has been found that supports such a claim; several sources have been found that contradict it. So this does actually appear to be a real FUTURE problem. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Colleagues Calton & Wikidea: Can you propose a compromise text per WP:EDITCONSENSUS? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I must say that Dervorguilla makes a persuasive argument that the age material deals with a speculative event, contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. I don't mind it in the body of the article, except that it does seem to run afoul of the rules. Ditto any material about potentially being the first president who is whatever. If someone wants to find out if Trump is the oldest non-incumbent GOP presidential nominee then we could include that, except I doubt any reliable source has addressed that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I too will support the addition of such a fact to the encyclopedia (if it's true, which it likely is, and if we find a source, which we haven't.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- So, Anythingyouwant, are you suggesting that if Donald Trump is elected President, there's a chance he WON'T be the oldest? Because that's the only way your "speculative" term makes sense, and I don't think time is as flexible as that. ---- Calton (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- The binding authority here is paragraph 6 of section 1 of article II, Calton. And the actual point of this discussion is that U.S. has already chosen to elect a candidate (for vice president) who is certain to become the oldest president if any of the events foreseen in paragraph 6 come to pass during this election cycle (as they have during some previous cycles). In which case, Trump would be certain not to become the oldest president. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- So, Anythingyouwant, are you suggesting that if Donald Trump is elected President, there's a chance he WON'T be the oldest? Because that's the only way your "speculative" term makes sense, and I don't think time is as flexible as that. ---- Calton (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I too will support the addition of such a fact to the encyclopedia (if it's true, which it likely is, and if we find a source, which we haven't.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I must say that Dervorguilla makes a persuasive argument that the age material deals with a speculative event, contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. I don't mind it in the body of the article, except that it does seem to run afoul of the rules. Ditto any material about potentially being the first president who is whatever. If someone wants to find out if Trump is the oldest non-incumbent GOP presidential nominee then we could include that, except I doubt any reliable source has addressed that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Calton: Your summary for rev 733482398 explains, "'Certainty' isn't required for 'if' statements, pretty much by definition." In some philosophical sense, perhaps, but not in the sense clearly intended by the authors of the WP:FUTURE policy.
The 'reasonable editor' would understand the question here to be whether the restrictive clause is almost certain — not whether the main clause is almost certain if the restrictive clause is true. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- A "reasonable editor" would note your abuse of the WP:FUTURE guidelines -- which are about presuming predicted events coming true -- with a simple future conditional statement, which bears no relationship -- zip, zero, nada, bupkis, goose egg -- as to its likelihood. "If I were to be hit by a 100-kg meteor, I would be killed instantly" is a true statement that has no dependence -- zip, zero, nada, bupkis, goose egg -- on its likelihood. Your gassing on about restrictive clauses has nothing to do with the probability aspects of WP:FUTURE. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."
- Trump's becoming president would indeed be notable. But it's not almost certain to take place. At this time, it's not even expected to take place.
- Trump's becoming the oldest president would be notable, too. But it isn't expected to take place, either.
- Both events would be notable; at this time, neither one is expected. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
ApolloFirenze reverts challenged content again (twice within 24 hours)
The user removed the text where the Gallup and CNN/ORC polls showed net negative viewer reactions to the speech. I'd like to see it mentioned that the speech received mixed reviews and that the CNN/ORC and Gallup polls showed net negative public reactions. I think it's alright to retain AF's text that summarizes the content of the speech (law and order etc) and that the speech was widely seen as "dark". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Further reading
User:Graham11, I don't think it's necessary to put a huge tag atop this high-traffic BLP, given that you haven't elaborated here at the talk page as to what you think is wrong with the "Further reading" section. Editors often have ideas about how to improve this BLP, but they don't always tag the top of the article. A couple months ago, I expanded the "further reading" section; I simply went to WorldCat and added what I found there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Anythingyouwant,
- Surely the level of traffic shouldn't affect whether an article has a maintenance tag placed on it – it's not a 'tag of shame', after all. But anyway, I placed the template in line with its documentation:
- Add this to the top of the "Further reading" section whenever:
- There are too many publications listed for this article. (Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications, but the best number for a given article depends on the specific circumstances, and may range from zero to more than a dozen.)
- One or more of the publications in the list duplicates a citation in the references or notes sections.
- One or more of the publications present (regardless of number) is inappropriate for any reason.
- Add this to the top of the "Further reading" section whenever:
- Naturally, it was added because of the first criterion, but now that I check, the second applies as well. Regarding the first, the template documentation notes "Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications, but the best number for a given article depends on the specific circumstances, and may range from zero to more than a dozen." The further reading section isn't intended to be a comprehensive bibliography, so the tag was added to suggest that the section be pruned by someone more familiar with these publications than I am. Cheers, Graham (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Why does the tag need to appear at the top of the article instead of at the Further Reading section?CFredkin (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Also, User:Graham11, can you please provide a link to the policies you pasted above?CFredkin (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Here's a link. Notice it says "Add this to the top of the Further reading section whenever...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No, the tag doesn't need to be at the top of the article. I certainly have no objection to it being moved to the further reading section provided that the "section" parameter is used. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, really.
- Regarding the second bullet, MOS:LAYOUT is clear that that further reading sections should not normally duplicate reference sections.
- On the first bullet, the same guideline provides that further reading sections should include "a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" (emphasis added). That makes it clear that these sections are not intended to be comprehensive. Rather, they are curated selections of publications that would be of interest, not a list of everything that can be found on WorldCat. The general consensus as to what that looks like is well-described by the documentation of {{further reading cleanup}}: "Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications, but the best number for a given article depends on the specific circumstances, and may range from zero to more than a dozen." In this case, we have 22, if I recall correctly from when I added the tag. In order for the section to be as useful as possible and comply with MOS:LAYOUT, it would be best to prune through the list to end up with a curated selection of high-quality, relevant material. Graham (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Correction: Not that it matters, but as I tried moving the tag, I discovered that there is no section parameter. I'm pretty sure there used to be – or maybe I'm just going crazy. Graham (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia guidelines and policies probably take precedence over template documentation. Here's the pertinent guideline, and it advises a "reasonable" number of items instead of any particular number. In this case, 22 books strikes me as reasonable. Also, per the guideline, the list of references is too long to serve as a reading list, so some duplication is okay. Another possibility is to simply re-name the section to "Bibliography" instead of "Further reading" since different guidelines then apply (and we would not be over-burdening readers with too much reading).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, per the guideline, the list of references is too long to serve as a reading list, so some duplication is okay.
- I definitely take your point there. We probably oughtn't take duplication into account, in that case.
Another possibility is to simply re-name the section to "Bibliography" instead of "Further reading" since different guidelines then apply (and we would not be over-burdening readers with too much reading).
- Hmm, I've never known Wikipedia to have biographies with a bibliography section (as distinct from a separate bibliography article) that includes works that are neither authored by the article subject nor are being used as references in the article (assuming I'm correct in understanding that that's what you're suggesting). Are there any examples of that that you know of?
Wikipedia guidelines and policies probably take precedence over template documentation. Here's the pertinent guideline, and it advises a "reasonable" number of items instead of any particular number. In this case, 22 books strikes me as reasonable.
- There's no doubt that guidelines take precedence, but it seems that we disagree over our interpretation of the guideline. And while not formally a guideline, I have anyways understood there to be a general consensus in favour of that provision of the documentation. If you believe otherwise, it would probably be best to start a discussion on its talk page to have that corrected.
- Specifically on the issue of reasonableness, I disagree that 22 works is reasonable on a topic as specific as one living individual. (I might contrast that with a much broader topic such as politics of the United States, biochemistry, or Plato.) You noted that "[you] simply went to WorldCat and added what [you] found there." Even if 22 were a reasonable number in this context, given that a further reading section is to be a list of selected works, it is clear that we shouldn't have them in the article simply because we know of their existence through a bibliographic database. Graham (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Graham11, items in the "Further reading" section either support material in the article, or could do so. A bibliography can be defined as "a complete or selective list of works compiled upon some common principle, as authorship, subject, place of publication, or printer." So I think re-naming this section to "Bibliography" would be appropriate. If the list becomes too long, then we can start a separate article, analogous to List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton. Okay?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I still have the same question as before:
Hmm, I've never known Wikipedia to have biographies with a bibliography section (as distinct from a separate bibliography article) that includes works that are neither authored by the article subject nor are being used as references in the article (assuming I'm correct in understanding that that's what you're suggesting). Are there any examples of that that you know of?
- Graham (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I could go look, but I don't think it's really relevant. If a separate article about a facet of someone is acceptable, then invariably such material can go in the main BLP of that person if there's not yet enough material to justify a separate article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Graham11, items in the "Further reading" section either support material in the article, or could do so. A bibliography can be defined as "a complete or selective list of works compiled upon some common principle, as authorship, subject, place of publication, or printer." So I think re-naming this section to "Bibliography" would be appropriate. If the list becomes too long, then we can start a separate article, analogous to List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton. Okay?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Specifically on the issue of reasonableness, I disagree that 22 works is reasonable on a topic as specific as one living individual. (I might contrast that with a much broader topic such as politics of the United States, biochemistry, or Plato.) You noted that "[you] simply went to WorldCat and added what [you] found there." Even if 22 were a reasonable number in this context, given that a further reading section is to be a list of selected works, it is clear that we shouldn't have them in the article simply because we know of their existence through a bibliographic database. Graham (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Trump University and Vietnam
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)
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.
- I would add this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely disagree with that. Inserting edits into sources to draw attention to points you want to make, seems like an end run around the chore of obtaining consensus. And do please remove that edit you made regarding the draft. Firstly, you've not got consensus for such an addition, and secondly, and this is really the point, you've not got a source. This is a BLP. We don't make stuff up about living people and hope we find a source later.SW3 5DL (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)- User:SW3 5DL, I do not understand what you're referring to. I did not introduce any edit into a source, and I didn't make anything up. Feel free to explain further what you mean, either here or at user talk. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- here and here. Are these your edits, or am I mistaken? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- The first diff is by an editor named "Mprudhom" and I don't know anything about it. The second diff is by me. In the second diff, I did not introduce any edit into a source, and I didn't make anything up. Feel free to explain further what you mean, either here or at user talk.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- here and here. Are these your edits, or am I mistaken? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:SW3 5DL, I do not understand what you're referring to. I did not introduce any edit into a source, and I didn't make anything up. Feel free to explain further what you mean, either here or at user talk. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I left a message at the user talk page of SW3 5DL which prompted a discussion there. SW3 would like that conversation to be moved here, and so it is quoted below:
“ | Hi, your indentation at Talk:Donald Trump makes it appear that you're responding to me rather than to Gouncbeatduke. Is that what you intended?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
|
” |
Saying he didn't serve in the Vietnam War after all the bits about his legal and appropriate student deferments, his temporary 1-Y status, which in no way exempted him from the draft lottery, and ultimately getting a number well above any possibility of getting called up, seems like an attempt to point out over and over, that Donald Trump did not serve in Vietnam. He appears to have done all the appropriate behaviours, he's said he was prepared to serve, and was lucky to get a high draft number. These edits seem more like undue emphasis and POV editing and certainly beating a dead horse. In addition, I spent an entire morning trying to sort out your insistence that bits about his draft lottery number and his 1-Y status did or did not matter. I simply could not discern what the nuance was there until I'd sorted the entire sequence of events which the sources conveniently have obscured. I pointed that out on the talk page where this discussion belongs. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Are you aware that this edit is not by me? It is by someone else. Moreover, I support making the following edit, but I cannot do it yet because of 1RR: "Trump
was not drafted duringdid not serve in the military during the Vietnam War,[18]nor did he volunteer for military or alternative public service, nor did he publicly protest against the Vietnam War.[citation needed]". Do you support this edit or oppose it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)- I believe my comments make it plain that, no I do not support such an edit. The stable edit that was there before you and the other editor added these bits, already fully makes clear that he did not serve in Vietnam. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- The previous version said "Trump was not drafted during the Vietnam War.[18]" Why not change it to say he didn't serve in Vietnam? In any event, the sentence is much too long now, and I oppose the other editor's insertion of a statement that Trump did not volunteer. And I totally reject your accusation that "You've not got a source for any such thing." Please retract that accusation in view of the quote I gave above per the NY Times: "'I was never a fan of the Vietnam War,' he said. 'But I was never at the protest level, either, because I had other things to do.'" I only inserted that material temporarily until 1RR allows me to revert, and it is entirely accurate. Also, please retract your accusation that I have made up false information about Trump University. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I believe my comments make it plain that, no I do not support such an edit. The stable edit that was there before you and the other editor added these bits, already fully makes clear that he did not serve in Vietnam. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
"Trump was not drafted." There follows the deferments and his lottery number which fully explain why he wasn't drafted. Saying he did not serve seems to imply something else. Had he been in military service, like George Bush, and did not get assigned to Vietnam, then yes, that would be appropriate. However, he was never in service, therefore he had no opportunity to serve in Vietnam. He was not drafted. Full stop. And you did not have a source which is why you put in 'citation needed.' And I've no idea what you're talking about regarding Trump University. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am not going to go in circles with you anymore about how this particular material should be edited about Vietnam. Vastly more serious is your accusation that, "You've not got a source for any such thing" regarding material I inserted about Vietnam, and your accusation regarding Trump University that "you've not got a source. This is a BLP. We don't make stuff up about living people and hope we find a source later." I have given you verbatim quotes from the New York Times, CNN, and the LA Times to establish that I have sources for everything discussed. You won't discuss it at your user talk page, so I'm asking you to please retract your accusations here. The reason why I inserted a "cn" tag regarding Vietnam is because the sentence required sourcing in view (e.g.) of the other editor's assertion that Trump did not volunteer for "alternative public service". I only inserted the material about protests temporarily because I could not revert yet due to 1RR. In any event, I have got a source for everything I inserted regarding Vietnam, and I did not make stuff up regarding Trump University. Can you please acknowledge those two things or not, because if you cannot then I will have to seek assistance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The question now is do you see the difference as I've outlined above between 'service' and 'not drafted?' The issue is not service in Vietnam, but rather, the fact he wasn't drafted. There follows the reasons why. I will strike the bits you've taken exception to. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for striking those bits. And please feel free to restore yesterday's version of the sentence in this BLP about not being drafted. I cannot do it yet because of 1RR. I would phrase it a bit more generally than you would, to say that he never "served" in Vietnam (which would cover being drafted as well as volunteering), but the way you like is a big improvement over what's in the BLP now. Thanks again, in advance, for striking those bits.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why do we need to say he didn't volunteer? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- We don't need to say it explicitly. But it might be useful to imply it (by using general language about not having served) because that might appease the editor who thought it was important (thereby contributing to stability of this article), and of course many sources confirm that he didn't serve in Vietnam (as either a draftee or a volunteer). But it's no big deal, if you'd prefer to merely say he wasn't drafted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- He simply did not demonstrate any behaviors that would even remotely suggest he would volunteer. Also, 'things he didn't do,' is a silly concept. He didn't protest the war. He didn't burn his draft card. He didn't neglect his studies. He didn't protest in front of the White House screaming Hey! Hey! LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today? Not to mention, there's no expectation for any young man to deliberately volunteer for Vietnam given the nature of the war and the circumstances at the time. The only men who did that were in prison or headed for prison and the judge gave them a choice, thanks to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's clever scheme to send young men desperate to avoid prison for likely ginned up charges who were represented by incompetent public defenders. Almost all were young, poorly educated black men. They got their records wiped for agreeing to this suicide mission. Of course, so many of them were killed, far more than any other demographic of soldiers. I suppose we could add that Trump also was not a young black man headed for prison. But we've not got RS for that. And 'implying' anything in a BLP seems counter to the rules. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, there would be absolutely nothing contrary to the rules in saying "Trump did not serve in Vietnam". Second, I have strongly opposed saying "Trump did not volunteer" for the exact reasons you describe. Third, I have said it's no big deal and you can put into the article that "Trump wasn't drafted".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- He simply did not demonstrate any behaviors that would even remotely suggest he would volunteer. Also, 'things he didn't do,' is a silly concept. He didn't protest the war. He didn't burn his draft card. He didn't neglect his studies. He didn't protest in front of the White House screaming Hey! Hey! LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today? Not to mention, there's no expectation for any young man to deliberately volunteer for Vietnam given the nature of the war and the circumstances at the time. The only men who did that were in prison or headed for prison and the judge gave them a choice, thanks to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's clever scheme to send young men desperate to avoid prison for likely ginned up charges who were represented by incompetent public defenders. Almost all were young, poorly educated black men. They got their records wiped for agreeing to this suicide mission. Of course, so many of them were killed, far more than any other demographic of soldiers. I suppose we could add that Trump also was not a young black man headed for prison. But we've not got RS for that. And 'implying' anything in a BLP seems counter to the rules. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- We don't need to say it explicitly. But it might be useful to imply it (by using general language about not having served) because that might appease the editor who thought it was important (thereby contributing to stability of this article), and of course many sources confirm that he didn't serve in Vietnam (as either a draftee or a volunteer). But it's no big deal, if you'd prefer to merely say he wasn't drafted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why do we need to say he didn't volunteer? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for striking those bits. And please feel free to restore yesterday's version of the sentence in this BLP about not being drafted. I cannot do it yet because of 1RR. I would phrase it a bit more generally than you would, to say that he never "served" in Vietnam (which would cover being drafted as well as volunteering), but the way you like is a big improvement over what's in the BLP now. Thanks again, in advance, for striking those bits.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The question now is do you see the difference as I've outlined above between 'service' and 'not drafted?' The issue is not service in Vietnam, but rather, the fact he wasn't drafted. There follows the reasons why. I will strike the bits you've taken exception to. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Removing "Investments" section?
I'm trying to figure out whether the "Investments" section fails the WP:UNDUE test. For example, reading this:
- "Trump also has US$9 million invested in hedge funds.[146] He earned US$6.7 million from selling shares in Bank of America and an additional US$3.9 million from selling Facebook in 2014"
or this:
- "Trump also has US$9 million invested in hedge funds"
I'm struck by how little money - for a billionaire - appears to be involved. Investments totaling (say) $30 million dollars would be 1% of his net worth if that net worth were $3 billion - and even then, Trump could well have borrowed (on margin, for example) in buying that (hypothetical) $30 million dollars of investments.
More importantly, compare the sources cited in that section, versus (for example) the sources available on the topic of the Trump Shuttle, which gets far less coverage in this article. (It almost certainly involved losses to Trump, personally, in the tens of millions of dollars, but that's not the point - the point is that media coverage was far, far greater for the shuttle than for Trump's investments, while this Wikipedia article has them reversed.)
In short, unless someone can show that there are a lot more reliable sources that have discussed Trump's (meager?) investments than are listed, currently (it's telling that the section starts with citing a press release, which absolutely fails WP:RS), I suggest deleting this entire section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, especially as it doesn't seem supported by reliable sources and this is a BLP. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Stuff like this makes sense in an article on Carl Icahn. Seems trivial here. Objective3000 (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Actually I think it is quite significant because some politicians might speak against private prisons and own shares in CCA for example. But I am not sure if political candidates have to disclose this. It would be useful if an expert here could let us know what the legal requirements are for presidential candidates.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- It also raises the concern that HRC has not disclosed her own investments, as far as I know. But are presidential candidates required by law to disclose which companies they own shares in and how many? (I don't know.) To answer your question about Trump more directly, he owns a lot of buildings and a lot of land. It might make sense to create an article called List of buildings owned by Donald J. Trump, actually. But is the information public?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Or perhaps List of properties owned by Donald J. Trump, to include golf courses etc. --Hordaland (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have found Category:Assets owned by the Trump Organization. This raises the question, is he the sole proprietor (100%) of the Trump Organization? Or do his children (and possibly others) own a share of it? Are all his buildings owned by the Trump Organization, or some by himself separately? What about the buildings developed by his father--does he co-own them with his siblings? Do they still collect rent from those buildings?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- To answer some of your questions, I believe once elected president, a candidate is expected to put their holdings in a trust and not have anything to do with the transactions due to conflict of interest. I assume, as his children are running his business now, they would simply continue to do so but without his input. On his income, I know he collects rents on buildings. He owns 40 Wall Street, for example, where he collects rents and has a 200 year lease on the land under the building from the Hinneberg family of Germany. On who owns his buildings. All property is in pubic records of the city or town where they are located. The ownership would be listed in each. He owns certain properties personally, like his penthouse in Trump Tower. As for ownership of Trump Tower, it's likely the Trump Organization. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- It would be useful if a New York-based Wikipedian could take some pictures of his buildings for us and upload them on Wikimedia Commons. For example Trump Village, developed by his father.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Trump has no interest in Trump Village. Objective3000 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Objective3000: Who owns it? Either way, it would be useful to have pictures of his buildings and his father's buildings on Wikimedia Commons.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- As it's a co-op and co-op's are owned by the share-holder residents, it would be owned by the share-holders, nearly all of whom are residents. I don't see any reason to include images of things his father once partially owned. I live directly across the street from a Manhattan Trump building. I have no idea what part he owns and don't care. Anyhow, most buildings that are named after him are not owned by him. It would require an ongoing effort to determine what complex relationships he has with each building as these relationships change over time. Objective3000 (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Objective3000: Who owns it? Either way, it would be useful to have pictures of his buildings and his father's buildings on Wikimedia Commons.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Trump has no interest in Trump Village. Objective3000 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- It would be useful if a New York-based Wikipedian could take some pictures of his buildings for us and upload them on Wikimedia Commons. For example Trump Village, developed by his father.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- To answer some of your questions, I believe once elected president, a candidate is expected to put their holdings in a trust and not have anything to do with the transactions due to conflict of interest. I assume, as his children are running his business now, they would simply continue to do so but without his input. On his income, I know he collects rents on buildings. He owns 40 Wall Street, for example, where he collects rents and has a 200 year lease on the land under the building from the Hinneberg family of Germany. On who owns his buildings. All property is in pubic records of the city or town where they are located. The ownership would be listed in each. He owns certain properties personally, like his penthouse in Trump Tower. As for ownership of Trump Tower, it's likely the Trump Organization. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have found Category:Assets owned by the Trump Organization. This raises the question, is he the sole proprietor (100%) of the Trump Organization? Or do his children (and possibly others) own a share of it? Are all his buildings owned by the Trump Organization, or some by himself separately? What about the buildings developed by his father--does he co-own them with his siblings? Do they still collect rent from those buildings?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Or perhaps List of properties owned by Donald J. Trump, to include golf courses etc. --Hordaland (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the section - no one has indicated that this isn't a WP:UNDUE problem. The legal questions discussed above are interesting, but (a) the information in the section isn't relevant to those questions, and (b) Wikipedia content isn't supposed to be put into articles in anticipation that it could, at some time in the future, be relevant. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Ancestry sections
Shouldn't the ancestry section and the family tree be under one part? And why isn't the section under "personal life", but rather at the top of the article? Burklemore1 (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Suggested edits
- Quote from article: "In 1981, Trump purchased and renovated a building that would become the Trump Plaza. The Plaza later became the home of Dick Clark and Martina Navratilova.[35]" The claims to fame of those two people should be stated, if they are to be mentioned in the article, and any relationship between them should be clarified. (If the two are/were not sharing a home, it should say "became the homes of..." -- or the sentence could be rewritten) I have wikilinked Navratilova as there is only one of her. Does the Dick Clark in the article have a wikipedia article? If so it should be linked; otherwise his "fame" should be clarified.
- It should probably be sufficient to explain the $2.9 billion just once in the article. It's there twice:
- a.) "Trump has claimed that his net worth is over ten billion dollars, whereas in 2015 Forbes estimated his net worth at 4.5 billion, and Bloomberg estimated it at 2.9 billion, with the discrepancies due in part to the uncertainty of appraised property values.[164] Bloomberg raised its estimate of Trump's net worth to $3.0 billion in 2016, ..."
- b.) "Estimates of Trump's net worth have fluctuated along with real estate valuations: in 2015, Forbes pegged it as $4 billion,[174] while the Bloomberg Billionaires Index (which scrutinized Trump's FEC filings) estimated a net worth of $2.9 billion,[175] raising its estimate to $3.0 billion the following year.[165]"
I'm just making these suggestions here as I assume that involved editors who are keeping the article up-to-date would prefer to make the edits. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I wikilinked Dick Clark. I cannot fix the other problem yet because each editor is only allowed one revert per day, so feel free to fix it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I've tried to address the rest of your suggestions. Please review to see if it looks okay. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nicely done, thank you. It leaves me with just one question.
- The first sentence, "Trump has claimed that his net worth is over ten billion dollars, whereas in 2015 Forbes estimated his net worth at $4.5 billion, and Bloomberg estimated it at $2.9 billion,[163][164] with the discrepancies due in part to the uncertainty of appraised property values.[165]" has 3 refs. The second one (presently #164) reports Forbes' "Real Time Net Worth As of 8/9/16" while we claim to have retrieved it in September 2014. Perhaps just a typo. --Hordaland (talk) 04:40, 9 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)
This article needs additional citations for verification
Are you serious?Ernio48 (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Atiru, this BLP has 589 footnotes. Tagging the top of the article with a big notice declaring insufficiency of footnotes is inappropriate. If you think a particular section lacks footnotes then put the tag there, and come discuss here at the talk page. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 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. [24]. 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 [25]. 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.[26] 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.[27] 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.[28] 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)
Citations in lead
I would contend that this article requires some citations in the lead. The statement, "[...]he also believes that the quick defeat of ISIS is mandatory" is not actually cited in the article. Trump's statements and positions on ISIS are noted with good references. I would also suggest that statements like this do not belong in the lead.
"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.
Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."
Atiru (talk) 19:46, 8 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.[29]. 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.[30]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[31] 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.[29]. 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.[30]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.[32]. 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)
Populism sidebar
Removing Populism sidebar (Portal:Right-wing populism) to undo unexplained revision 733614912 by Gouncbeatduke, per WP:BLPREMOVE; unsourced at portal; potentially defamatory; clear BLP vio; apparent POV (see esp. WP:STRUCTURE) (portal doesn't mention US, Republican Party, or Trump; Right-wing populism does mention Tea Party, but Donald Trump doesn't). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I would just like to see some consistency in how this sidebar is used across Wikipedia. It appears on the George Wallace article. Trump is certainly a more successful populist that Wallace; Wallace never got the nomination of one of the two major parties. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why on earth isn't the fascism side-bar being used, if anything? Wikidea 20:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe because there's no consensus among reliable sources that Trump is fascist? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why on earth isn't the fascism side-bar being used, if anything? Wikidea 20:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Why is this article so bias?
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)
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)
Trump's racism: deal with it
@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 [33] 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)
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)