Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

Editor removes Trump's own clarification of position, editor goes with his own preferred position

I see absolutely no reason why ThiefofBagdad deleted this text: "Trump insisted that the new proposal was not a "rollback" of his initial proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants.[1] He said, "In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territory."[1]"

Given the confusion surrounding Trump's Muslim ban and his failure to put out a specific plan, it's absolutely essential that this context be included. It's absolutely unacceptable for ThiefofBagdad to decide which of the numerous positions Trump has proposed on this issue should be included and which not. I ask for this content to be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b "Trump: I'm Running Against Clinton, Not 'Rest of the World'". Retrieved 2016-07-24.
Thank you, Snooganssnoogan. I was about to write about this myself. User:ThiefOfBagdad has been making a lot of changes based on their own interpretation. For example, they changed "countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States" to "countries that have been compromised by terrorism", saying that was the wording Trump used in his acceptance speech. When I reverted to the previous consensus-approved version, they restored their own version, saying "Trump has changed his views on many things, which is why we've decided to stick with what he said in his RNC acceptance speech. Also, he said it's an "expansion", then continued to contradict himself. We're sticking with what was said at the RNC." Who is "we" and when did "we" decide that? Not on this page, where such decisions need to be made. ThiefOfBagdad did not participate at all in the discussions here. ThiefOfBagdad, I call your attention to the Discretionary Sanctions on this page, and I remind you that you cannot just insist on your own version and ignore consensus. Repeated reverting, or reinsertion of disputed material, can be a blockable offense at an article which is under Discretionary Sanctions. You must reach consensus on the talk page, and not keep reverting in the meantime. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I see that they added an invisible comment saying "DO NOT use "Muslim ban". Trump has adapted his immigration plan. The lead is no place for scrapped or conflicting proposals made by candidates and it's already discussed below in the relevant section.". I deleted it, as being one person's opinion and not consensus-based. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
My names seems to have been revoked here. In accordance with the WP:BOLD policy, I felt completely in my right as a regular editor of Trump's page to undo Snooganssnoogans' edit. Trump, in his RNC acceptance speech (watched by nearly 35 million people), said: "We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place." The "vetting mechanisms" part can be hard to understanding for some readers, so the lead states Trump wants to "suspend immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." I think it's hard for anyone to disagree up to this point.
Now, Trump went on Meet The Press today and was asked if his new statment should be interpreted as a 'rollback' from his Muslim ban. Famously, Trump has trouble admitting to his own faults (he has admitted that himself) and obviously he didn't say it should be interpreted as a 'rollback', so he said 'you could say it's an expansion'. Yes, you could say that, but that's obviously not what it is. Why not? Because seconds later he states: 'I'm talking territory instead of Muslim', 'I live with our Constitution' (which would prohibit a Muslim ban) and 'We're making it territorial'. It's clear the Muslim ban is not happening, and it's been scrapped for a while now. Back in June, Trump gave a speech in which he said: "I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats." Yes, the plan has again changed slightly since then, but the Muslim ban has been scrapped for a while now. Yes, Trump's words can be confusing, and if taken directly without context from a headline, they can be misinterpreted. As of now, even his own campaign has refused to acknowledge any further plans for a "Muslim ban". I hope I've made myself clear and I hope we can finally put aside this "Muslim ban" that was proposed last year and is now rather clearly scrapped. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It’s amazing to read your editing habits. You’re basically re-interpreting Trump’s statements and intentions in a way where you don’t take him at his word. If Trump says something, use his direct quotes, not your strange re-interpretations. If Trump says "until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place”, use that. Don’t use your guess as to what that refers to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Muslim ban proposals, how do you know if it’s an expansion or rollback? It’s Trump’s policy, let the man speak for himself. For all we know, Trump sees this as a more enforceable and legitimate way to exclude Muslims (by prohibiting immigration from certain states, which would be constitutional AFAIK). That’s my interpretation of this. The difference between you and me is that I don’t add my guess as to what he’s truly saying, I add what the man says and let the readers decide for themselves. That’s what editors are supposed to do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Clearly, you don't read Wikipedia's policies. It states editors must avoid using esoteric terms. I have a hard time understand how the average reader would understand what "until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place" even really means. And did you not even read what Trump said or are you refusing to take context into account? He literally says 'I'm talking territory instead of Muslim', 'I live with our Constitution' (which would prohibit a Muslim ban) and 'We're making it territorial'. You ENTIRE argument is based on the fact he said 'you could say something'. That's not an argument. The. Muslim. Ban. Is. Scrapped. And honestly, could you please stop being so rude. I feel very much attacked by the way you're speak to me. Remember to be kind. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing esoteric about the term "vetting mechanisms". If Trump says somewhere that the Muslim ban is scrapped, you can add that if you want. That he considers his new proposal to be an expansion is crucial context. That you happen to disagree with Trump's description of his own plan is immaterial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It's debatable how esoteric "vetting mechanisms" is, alright. But how hypocritical can you be? I MUST refrain from stating it is not a Muslim ban, yet you get the privilege of going around and claiming it still is. Right now, it's unsure, so why even mention it. Just mention what he has said clearly, that he wants to suspend immigration from countries with terrorism links. That's all. The Muslim part is debatable, so why include it for now? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me be clear: (i) I don't want to add a sentence that says "Trump still supports a Muslim ban"; (ii) I am 100% fine with text saying that wants to suspend immigration from countries with terrorism links. All I'm saying is that Trump's own characterization of his proposals should ALSO be included. See the start of this talk page section. Those are the two sentences I want to add. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Somehow that section has gotten totally away from the wording that we hammered out, after much discussion, above on this page. I have restored that consensus-based version and said that any changes to it should be agreed to at this page. This is the version I restored:

Trump opposes "unfair" trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes renegotiation of U.S.–China trade, "real" immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting mechanisms can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.)

Snoongassnogan, what was it you wanted to add? Personally I would like to add something about ISIS, because he made such a point of it in his acceptance speech. He mentioned "a goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism". How about: Trump is a strong proponent of "law and order" and has set a goal of "destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism"? That would lead naturally into the immigration ban in the next sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

That section barely takes into account the things Trump said in his RNC speech, you know, that speeched watched by nearly 35 million people and considered the most important speech a presidential candidate can give besides their presidential victory speech? The amount of "quotation marks" in that lead is disturbing and incredibly misleading. It misleads people into thinking that NAFTA or TPP is "unfair", or that his immigration policies are "real", or that he's in favor of "law and order". It's completely subjective, misleading, and doesn't belong in the page, much less the lead. In his RNC speech, Trump did not even mention renegotiating U.S.–China trade in his speech and it has never been a major part of his plans.Also, it doesn't even say 'his platform includes'. It acts like that's all Trump stands for. And it doesn't even mention ISIS, one of his biggest topics since 2015 behind immigration. Also, how is having a scrapped position of his even allowed in this lead, that's absolutely ridiculous. "Vetting mechanisms" is also way too difficult for the average reader to understand (please pay attention to Wikipedia's policies). This version is, in my opinion, way better than what we currently have:
His platform includes combatting illegal immigration by building a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, reforming healthcare by replacing the Affordable Care Act, rebuilding the U.S. military while improving veterans' care, opposing trade agreements that are unfavorable to American workers, and tackling Islamic terrorism by defeating ISIS and suspending immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists.
Could we please reach consensus on using this, even if it's slightly adjusted. The current lead is an outright disaster. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
What this boils down to is that you're selectively deleting things that Trump has said at various points, imagining what his "true" positions happen to be and unnecessarily re-phrasing quotes. US-China trade has by any account of the campaign been a major feature, as his criticism of NAFTA/TPP. The fact that you call the use of quotation marks disturbing is in itself disturbing. I'm not sure what the lede looked like before, but your certainly the last person I want writing it given your strange editing habits and pro-Trump bias. You don't even seem familiar with his policies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you stop being so rude to me? I have worked on Trump's page for so long now, and huge parts of this page have been updated and improved by me for over a year now. I'm VERY familiar with his policies. And by the way, you call me "pro-Trump", yet I see you're a big fan of Tim Kaine and Hillary Clinton, as I can see in your edits. Perhaps I could call you anti-Trump, then? The lead is unclear. Whom is calling these trade agreements "unfair" readers will ask themselves. People unfamiliar with Trump's policies won't know the answer. And if the US-China trade is such a big deal to Trump's campaign, why didn't he even mention it in his RNC speech? ISIS is a MUCH bigger aspect of his campaign than US/China trade. You need to get out of your head and put your shoes in those of other people. You're incredibly rude to me, yet I have done nothing but try to help. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Trump referred to China three times in his speech. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he referred to the country that exists China, but not to the trade between the U.S. and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThiefOfBagdad (talk • contribs) 22:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
He expressed his opposition to China's entry to the WTO. He said he would stop China's "outrageous theft of intellectual property," "illegal dumping" and "devastating currency manipulation," adding, "They are the greatest that ever came about; they are the greatest currency manipulators ever!". He also said: "Our horrible trade agreements with China, and many others, will be totally renegotiated. " Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Snooganssnoogans. ThiefOfBagdad's version is completely unacceptable and dramatically inferior to the current version. It presumes the truth of several highly contentious assumptions. To take just a few problems:
  • it presumes that the U.S. military is in shambles and needs to be "rebuilt" when in fact the quality of the military has not been degraded (see here, here)
  • it assumes that building a wall would "combat illegal immigration" when virtually all the experts say that such a wall, even if it was practical to build, would be highly ineffective (see here)
  • it strongly implies that the trade agreements that Trump has lambasted have in fact been "unfavorable to American workers" (a statement with which most economists would say is either highly oversimplified or downright wrong).
Neutralitytalk 21:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The current lead implies that NAFTA and TPP are "unfair", which many disagree on, Trump's immigration policies are "real", which as you say is very controversial, and Trump is the "law and order" candidate, when he's been wanting to punch protesters at his rallies. So the current lead is no better. Just because it's the "words" "are" "in" "quotation marks", doesn't mean the ambiguity has disappeared. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The text could absolutely clarify that Trump calls them “unfair”, “real” and so forth. I agree with you there. I think more issues could also be included, though without your particular phrasing that policy X will have impact Y. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The use of quotation marks around "real" and "unfair" and "law and order" is intended to show that those are his actual words, without going into a lot of verbiage "what he considers real", "what he calls unfair". If they strike some people as "scare quotes" we can delete them, although I hesitate to call the trade practices unfair in Wikipedia's voice. I agree about adding something about defeating ISIS; I proposed a wording in my comment above. You seem to think the platform can include only the things he said in his acceptance speech; what about the things he has said, over and over and in writing, in other venues? And the clarifications he has issued after the speech? The current version (the one I just restored) was worked out by multiple editors with diverse views over a period of five or six days. Wikipedia works by consensus. You are free to try to get consensus for parts or all of your version, or to try to work out some kind of merger of the two versions. But calling the product of other people's work an "outright disaster" is not likely to lead you any closer to consensus. And starting a new section below, where you repeat what you said here and insist on your version, is not going to be helpful either. Let's keep the discussion in one place. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, here's a revised version of the consensus passage, removing the quotes, removing China trade, and adding ISIS. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, and has set a goal of "destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting procedures can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.)
Better, but there's still room for improvent. First of all, going from the fact that he's running for President to the fact that he opposes certain trade agreements is arbitrary. That's part of his platform, as he plans on vetoing such trade agreements. A vague proposal Trump made last year being in the lead is honesty unacceptable.The Muslim ban has been largely scrapped (or at the very least for the most part has been replaced) and should not be in the lead. He's moved on from there, and it's not something he's rallying around anymore. Furthermore, it's discussed in the Presidential campaign section of the page. Also, can we please just avoid quotes in the lead, that's very unprofessional overall. Only main issues should be mentioned as well.

I propose this:

Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, with a platform that includes the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border in an endeavor to combat illegal immigration, and tackling Islamic terrorism by defeating ISIS and temporarily suspending immigration to the United States from countries that have been compromised by terrorism. He also strongly opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP, calls for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, and proposes national tax reductions.
That's not bad - actually an improvement in the immigration/wall portion. How about "combatting" instead of "tackling" Islamic terrorism? I see you dropped improving veterans care, but of course both sides claim that so it doesn't add much. I see you are still determined to use the wording "compromised by terrorism," although as far as I know he has only used that phrase once and it isn't even clear what it means - if it means anything. (Are France and the United States compromised by terrorism, having come under attack?) That wording is much more vague that his more usual "areas having a proven history of terrorism against the United States," but it's open to discussion. And whether to include the "Muslim ban" or not was a subject of disagreement above and could certainly be revisited. People? --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts:
1) I liked Thief's rewritten paragraph even better than my own suggested text, it was more professional and more complete. (Like he/she said it's not perfect, but I think it's very good.)
2) "Consensus" wasn't as strong previously as MelanieN has suggested (only ~3 editors, and I was neutral re including "Muslim ban" as previous Trump suggestion, only including it since MelanieN felt strong about it then).
3) It's true that the words put in quotes were done so because they were quoting Trump (for example on his campaign website he explains "real immigration reform"; someone removed the "real" leaving "immigration reform", but EGADS! - that term is meaningless and also touted as goal by Democrats), but I agree with Thief and other editors that scare quotes were/are a bad idea (inherently ambiguous to reader).
4) Re MelanieN's proposal to include text re ISIS, what happened to the sentence in my suggested text: "Trump believes that defeating ISIS "fast" is mandatory."? (Someone removed it from both the article and the discussions here.)
5) Instead of "increasing military spending" and "rebuilding the military", Trump has more to point been saying growing (bigger) and "modernizing" the military.
6) I don't like the milquetoast language "combatting" and "tackling" re illegal immigration and ISIS, when Trump has consistently been more emphatic than that (better are "ending" and "destroying/defeating", respectively).
7) Again, in my suggested text re "platform" I used as guide only what is listed on Trump campaign website under "Positions" (e.g. including U.S.–China trade, which is a prime issue for Trump, featured also in RNC speech and many rallies). Adding from the RNC speech is reasonable, but use of word "platform" I thought implies specific positions on paper, perhaps!? (Word "platform" either shouldn't be used, or it s/ be made clear what is the meaning/source.)
8) There are so many issues Trump is passionate about/obviously feels are very important that he has often articulated in speeches (e.g., getting rid of Common Core/improving education, rebuilding & modernizing infrastructure [roads/bridges/mass transist/airports/hospitals], dealing w/ the national debt [what other candidate has introduced the issue? none], energy [coal], and so on). (So who prioritizes these issues, or picks & chooses, even in lede, and on what basis?)
9) I must have missed hearing Trump talk about "not rolling back" and "expansion" (i.e. "Muslims" to "territories"), but it seems reasonable he didn't mean expansion = Muslims + territories, rather that when territories are the basis, Muslims are then a subset.
Ok, IHTS (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I hope this comment reaches the right person (MelanieN) (this talk section has gotten very big, very cumbersome to read): I would not opt for very general language and ideas, like wanting to "destroy ISIS", be the "law and order" candidate, "stop islamic terrorism" (who doesn't want to do those things, be that candidate). I'd rather it mention the most salient policies proposed to achieve those things: ISIS, Islamic terrorism (maybe sending troops, increase defense spending, muslim/territorial ban) + for law and order you could say that Trump has spoken of crime worsening in the US (note that Trump has offered zero specific policies or plans relating to law and order, except on illegal immigration, so it's difficult to add specifics besides doomsday rhetoric about crime rising). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Snooganssnoogans. I'm going to be gone for a few days so you all are going to have to reach consensus without me. I think it is very important to include the phrase "Islamic terrorism" (or better yet, "radical Islamic terrorism") because that is an absolute buzzword for the Republicans, who have taunted the Democrats for mostly avoiding that phrase. I would be fine with "destroy ISIS" which is exactly the way Trump talks. I would oppose saying anything about "crime worsening in the US" because although Trump does say it, it is mostly false. Besides, dealing with crime is not primarily a federal function, it's done by the states. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what the standard is for citing untruthful statements in ledes on major wiki pages but it seems to fine to say that Trump alleges that crime is worsening (now a major feature of his campaign). Simply saying "destroy ISIS" is a position that every politician says and every reader agrees with. That attitude is not something prominent about Trump, rather it's his methods for solving it (torture, bombing, maybe ground troops, work with Russia) that are prominent. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments User:Snooganssnoogans, User:MelanieN and User:Ihardlythinkso. Also, hope you have a great couple of days off, Melanie! I see suggestions for it to be more specific and less generic. I wouldn't use combating twice though, seems a bit much. "Law and order" candidates have existed since Nixon though, this isn't some kind of generic term, this has been used for specific candidates that want to decrease crime, and Trump has even described himself as such. So I propose this:

Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, with a platform that includes the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border in an endeavor to combat illegal immigration, and efforts to subdue Islamic terrorism by sending military troops to defeat ISIS, increasing U.S. defense spending, and temporarily suspending immigration to the United States from countries that have been compromised by terrorism. He also strongly opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP, calls for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, and proposes national tax reductions. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the reference to sending troops to fight ISIS is current given this.CFredkin (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC) The body of the article also references this source.CFredkin (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin is correct. It would be more accurate to say that Trump would step up military actions (though he has been a bit unspecific about what that entails exactly). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest just removing this phrase: "by sending military troops to defeat ISIS".CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

New image proposal

I think we should use this image is the main in infobox because it's the best we have. I know it is from 2012 but he still looks the same. Clinton's image is from 2009. Your opinions?

Proposed image

Itsyoungrapper (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • He looks like Liberace in that photo. No. IHTS (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There are probably some quality photos of Trump at the 2016 convention, so let's focus on new photos rather than re-hashing the old ones.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Seems ok to me, but I'm sure there are better and more recent photos that are free images. Remember, free images are always preferred over non-free image types. Henry TALK 18:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I've looked on Flickr and tried to find some but there aren't any from his campaign trails. If there were I would certainly propose it. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure: That photo looks a little better, but it doesn't seem to be spontaneous like the one in the article. I don't think it is worth changing. FabulousFerd (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If this photo had been taken more recently I would have supported its use - maybe it should be used somewhere else in the article? As its four years out of date however I don't think it can be the main infobox picture. Ebonelm (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support Shows his true skin color (orange) but is full of noise and if you look in the bottom left corner you can see an ambiguous object. However, still better than the current photo.--Proud User (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No It's not better than current image.CFredkin (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No – Old picture, no better than current one either in subject's portrayal or in image quality. — JFG talk 16:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: Person or politician?

Should the infobox use person-infobox parameters or politician-infobox parameters?

A. Politician

The infobox should use the "officeholder/politician" infobox parameters. Reasoning:

1. The Trump article should be comparable to the Clinton article (rev 73106517), and the Clinton infobox uses officeholder/politician parameters.

2. If Trump has been more responsible for leading the Donald J Trump for President campaign than the Trump Organization business, his primary occupation is that of 'politician'.

B. Person

The infobox should use the "person" infobox parameters. Reasoning:

1. Clinton is a former officeholder; Trump isn't.

2. If Trump has been more responsible for leading the Trump Organization business than the Donald J Trump for President campaign, his primary occupation is that of entrepreneur (or whatever), not politician.

C. Person parameters with some politician parameters

The infobox should use a person template with an embedded officeholder/politician module. Reasoning:

1. From Trump's perspective, he studied business science, not political science; and his "usual or principal work" is in business, not politics.

2. But from the general public's perspectives, Trump has more significance as a political nominee than as a business entrepreneur. So the infobox should include elements of both.

___

Some consequences:

Prop A. Signature size: 128px. Website: Donald J Trump for President, donaldjtrump.com/about

Prop B. Signature size: 150px. Website: Trump Organization, trump.com/biography

Prop C: Signature size: 128px or 150px. Website: Donald J Trump for President, Trump Organization, or both

-- 03:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support B or C. oppose A. The Donald J Trump for President campaign itself gives Trump's title and affiliation as "Chairman and President, The Trump Organization". --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Just B. No change from the current infobox. If he gets elected President, we can switch to a "politician/office holder" infobox, but at this point he is a businessperson and candidate; he has never held office, so what do you need the officeholder parameters for? Clinton, in contrast, has held both elected and appointive public office so the "officeholder" infobox is appropriate for her. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support C Trump has engaged in many careers and his infobox should show that. --Proud User (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Add back IPA?

I want to see if I can get consensus for adding back the english IPA.

It would look like Donald John Trump (/ˈdɒnəld ˈdʒɒn ˈtrəmp/; born June 14, 1946)

instead of Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946)

Henry TALK 02:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This looks to me like unhelpful LEADCLUTTER. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I see your point, maybe shifting it to the infobox would be better. Henry TALK 19:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump doesn't need a IPA. Adding once would be redundant since the subject in question is a person. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Donald and John are common names in English and Trump is a common word. Unless he used a non-standard pronunciation of any of his names, the IPA is unnecessary. TFD (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
We've discussed this before and that pronunciation of "Trump" is seriously questionable.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Request regarding the redirect "The Donald"

The Donald is not just the nick-name given to Donald Trump. It is also the name given to the notable subreddit "/r/The_Donald". The subreddit can be seen in the Donald Trump 2016 Campaign article due Trump's role in giving an AMA in that subreddit during the election. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Change image

Donald Trump
Trump at lectern before backdrop with elements of logo "TRUMP DonaldJTrump.com"
Trump in 2013
Born
Donald John Trump

(1946-06-14) June 14, 1946 (age 77)
Queens, New York City, U.S.


I know, I know, this isn't the first time someone here has complained about the current image (but that already says a lot about how unfit the current picture might be). Trump looks so presidential and professional in this picture, and he hasn't gone through some kind of major change in looks that a picture from 2013 somehow isn't applicable anymore. Here, he looks a lot more natural, and he is looking clearly into one direction and not crossing his eyes somewhere else like in the current one. What do you guys think of using this picture instead of the current one? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I like the current image. YoPienso (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This particular picture was suggested and rejected (along with 20 others) in several discussions during the primaries. WP:DEADHORSE issue. — JFG talk 16:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
And to offer a rationale, this one is unflattering--he looks like he just drank lemon juice. The current one is a very typical look of his and quite neutral, neither flattering nor unflattering, just real. YoPienso (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I created that crop as a try, but like other alternate lead image choices it fails. (Eyes black, and per Yopienso, lips puckered.) IHTS (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This issue has been buzzing round the lily pond for a year. Let's let it drop.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Why are you replying to *me*, I didn't raise this issue. (Do you understand indenting?) IHTS (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

NYT: Is Donald Trump a Racist?

Here's the Nicholas Kristoff story. I'm putting it here for reference. I'll come back to it later.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html
Is Donald Trump a Racist?
Nicholas Kristof
New York Times
JULY 23, 2016

To prove the discrimination, blacks were repeatedly dispatched as testers to Trump apartment buildings to inquire about vacancies, and white testers were sent soon after. Repeatedly, the black person was told that nothing was available, while the white tester was shown apartments for immediate rental.

A former building superintendent working for the Trumps explained that he was told to code any application by a black person with the letter C, for colored, apparently so the office would know to reject it. A Trump rental agent said the Trumps wanted to rent only to “Jews and executives,” and discouraged renting to blacks.

Donald Trump furiously fought the civil rights suit in the courts and the media, but the Trumps eventually settled on terms that were widely regarded as a victory for the government. Three years later, the government sued the Trumps again, for continuing to discriminate. --Nbauman (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I see many issues with this article. First of all, it's clear that there are no actual facts that he did these things. "A former building superintendent" said this, "A Trump rental agent" said that... Where is the proof, where are the documents? Trump even won the case, which would mean that there was a lack of evidence to support the claims. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an op-ed. It shouldn't be included here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If you read the article again, you'll see that he said, "I’ve waded through 1,021 pages of documents from that legal battle." The proof is that these statements are supported by sworn testimony in a court case that is public record. The documents are in the federal courthouse, where anybody can verify them. Trump did not "win" the case, he settled. As Kristoff said, "settled on terms that were widely regarded as a victory for the government."
Kristoff is a WP:RS. Op-Eds can be included here. According to WP:BIASED, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." --Nbauman (talk)
Wrong policy, Nbauman. Snooganssnoogans is paraphrasing WP:NEWSORG (opinion pieces rarely reliable for statements of fact), not WP:BIASED. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's another WP:RS that is also based on a review of about 1,000 pages of court documents, and comes to the same conclusions. This article addresses several points that editors have raised and says: (1) There was enormous press coverage and Donald Trump became a "regular presence" on newspaper front pages. This shows how it had a major significance in New York City. (2) the allegations of racial discrimination were based on the sworn statements of "testers" who tried to rent apartments and were turned away. (3) it again describes the coding of "C". (4) it explains the "welfare cases" issue, which I think is a red herring. (5) everyone except Trump said that it was a victory for the government.

I lived in New York City during that time. It was a major story. Now it's become a major story again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html
Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it
By Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post
January 23, 2016

NEW YORK — When a black woman asked to rent an apartment in a Brooklyn complex managed by Donald Trump’s real estate company, she said she was told that nothing was available. A short time later, a white woman who made the same request was invited to choose between two available apartments.

The two would-be renters on that July 1972 day were actually undercover “testers” for a ­government-sanctioned investigation.... Trump employees had secretly marked the applications of minorities with codes, such as “No. 9” and “C” for “colored,” according to government interview accounts filed in federal court....

The case, one of the biggest federal housing discrimination suits to be brought during that time...

The 20-month legal battle marked the first time Trump became a regular presence on newspaper front pages. It served as an early look at the hardball tactics he has employed in business and, more recently, in politics. And its resolution showed how Trump, even in the heat of battle, is often willing to strike a deal.

This account is based on a review of more than 1,000 pages of court records ....

the racial coding allegations, gained notice in a 1979 Village Voice investigation and more recently in a Daily Beast story....

“The idea of settling drove me crazy,” he wrote in “The Art of the Deal.”

“What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black,” Trump wrote in his 1987 autobiography. “I’d rather fight than fold, because as soon as you fold once, you get the reputation of being a folder.”

The decree makes clear the Trumps did not view the agreement as a surrender, saying the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation.

The Justice Department claimed victory, calling the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.”

Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”

Goldweber, the Justice lawyer who originally argued the case, said it was a clear government victory.

--Nbauman (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"Civil rights groups in the city viewed the Trump company as just one example of a nationwide problem of housing discrimination. But targeting the Trumps provided a chance to have an impact, said Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was then chairwoman of the city’s human rights commission. ‘They were big names.’" -- Kranish.
Norton is clearly saying that Trump was a bigger name than the average N.Y.C. landlord. Not that he was a bigger racist. (And having admitted that size was a determining factor, neither she nor Kranish can ever unring that bell.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Alleged authoritarianism

This edit (with the edit summary "revert vandalism") restored a recent characterization of Trump as "authoritarian". The prior removal of that adjective was certainly not vandalism, and I favor removal for several reasons. Right now, this Wikipedia article says, "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as...authoritarian." Here are the three sources cited:

First of all, various adjectives that have been applied to Trump are already described in sub-articles at Wikipedia, consistent with WP:Summary style, and we don't have room in this main article for all of that. Secondly, the statement by Shadi Hamid is in an opinion piece (not a neutral news piece or scholarly work), and moreover has not evidently been quoted or described by any other neutral reliable sources ---- the same goes for the cited Feldinkirchen and Chait sources, which detracts from their prominence. Thirdly, the view of Trump as authoritarian is not undisputed. See, e.g., Gillespie, Nick. Donald Trump Supporters Are Less Authoritarian Than Ted Cruz Voters, Reason.com (March 14, 2016): "Understanding Trump as a populist rather than an authoritarian helps explain why he can get away with sloppy, inconsistent thinking."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition, none of the sources support the claim that he has been "widely" referred to as "authoritarian" either individually, or collectively.CFredkin (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Nailed it, CFredkin. For the reasons listed above, I too support removal. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Confused by ThiefofBaghdad's lede edits

ThiefofBaghdad re-wrote the lede without consensus (and with several users expressing concerns about his/her wording of the lede). The user then asked other users to edit it as they saw fit, which I did (though I noted in my explanation that we ought to wait for a mandate from the talk page) and which ThiefofBaghdad reacted very strongly to. This is my version:

  • Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, repeatedly asserting that crime is rising and proposing the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border in an endeavor to combat illegal immigration. He favors increasing U.S. defense spending and stepping up military actions against ISIS through the use of ground troops and resumption of waterboarding. He proposes to temporarily suspend immigration to the United States from countries that have been compromised by terrorism (a modification of an earlier proposal to suspend Muslim immigration). He also strongly opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP, and proposes an increase in tariffs on China and Mexico. Trump proposes to renegotiate NATO and the WTO; leaving the organizations unless changes are made. He calls for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, and proposes across-the-board tax reductions.

This is ThiefofBaghdad's:

  • Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, with a platform that includes the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border in an endeavor to combat illegal immigration, and efforts to subdue Islamic terrorism by sending military troops to defeat ISIS, increasing U.S. defense spending, and temporarily suspending immigration to the United States from countries that have been compromised by terrorism. He also strongly opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP, calls for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, and proposes national tax reductions.

I believe my version is superior: more clarity in the proposals Trump's made + mentioning very important issues that get a lot of attention, go against bipartisan consensus and have global implication (renegotiating/leaving NATO, WTO) + mentions the Muslim ban that he sort of came to fame with. I look forward to hearing other editors' thoughts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Feedbacks on your text: "Repeatedly asserting" where? Not in rallies or his website. Only his RNC speech. He favors moderizing U.S. military not just "increading spending". He acknowledged in interview when asked that U.S. ground troups will eventually be necessary to defeat ISIS, your text saying he "favors" is unclear and perhaps misleading. His preference to bring back waterboarding if legal to do so, isn't part of "stepping up military actions against ISIS". He made it clear the temporary immigration ban was specifically not a "proposal" but a suggestion. He proposes renegotiation of China trade agreement, you've reduced that to one possibile/partial step of "increasing tariffs". (And why is Mexico included in that, when Trump usually always mentions Japan and Vietnam and South Korea along with naming Mexico trade imbalance.) Re NATO, "unless changes are made" is unnecessary abstraction, probably caused by combining NATO and WTO, which have different issues, in one sentence. (Re NATO, Trump has consistently stated that member countries must do their part and "pay their fair share".) Trump has said that leaving those organizations must always be on the table, your text could be construed to say he has named his conditions and threatens to leave if not met. Ok, IHTS (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

In response to IHTS, these are all fairly well-known positions of his that have gotten a lot of attention.

Crime is rising:

  • June 2016: www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/05/fact-checking-politifacts-fact-check-of-trumps-crime-is-rising-claim/
  • July 2016: www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752834632907943936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
  • RNC speech

Increase spending on military:

  • Trump stated that he "would increase [spending] on the military” www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/03/09/hannity-on-road-donald-trump/

Send ground troops:

  • I think it’s right to skip this one (it was part of ThiefofBaghdad’s new lede version, so I just rephrased and kept it in), as Trump has distanced himself from this idea now.

Waterboarding:

  • It’s a major part of his campaign. It’s part of his campaign to stop ISIS (put in that context by him).

Muslim/territorial ban:

  • Trump only claimed that it was a suggestion after changing his proposal. He issued a a December press release "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”. That’s not an off-hand remark, that’s a proposal.

China tariffs:

  • In January 2016, Trump proposed a 45 percent tariff on Chinese exports to the United States to give "American workers a level playing field.” www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/donald-trump-says-he-favors-big-tariffs-on-chinese-exports/

Mexico tariffs:

  • Trump has vowed to impose tariffs — in the range of 15 to 35 percent — on companies that move their operations to Mexico. thehill.com/policy/finance/289005-trump-suggests-leaving-wto-over-import-tax-proposal

NATO:

  • Trump was vague prior to July but Factcheck.org interpreted his collection of statements to mean that might be willing to leave NATO unless changes are made to the alliance. www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/
  • When asked in July about a prospective Russia attack on NATO's Baltic members, Trump stated that would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations "have fulfilled their obligations to us.” This means that Trump won’t uphold the security guarantees in NATO unless some unspecified obligations are met (as it stands, NATO is based on automatic security guarantees). www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html
  • My text doesn’t imply that he has made specific demands (because he hasn’t), he has threatened to not uphold the treaty. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


All your listings document some thing, but not what I offered in my feedbacks. You're not reading for meaning, you're pushing your slanted text. You allowed less than 1 hour discussion then posted your rewrite [1]. You've been reverted to earlier version that at least had some consensus per MelanieN. IHTS (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Those are point-by-point responses to some of your assertions. I'm not sure what you're referring to in your second last sentence. Thief edited and encouraged others to "feel free to be bold (Wiki policy) and make changes where needed". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Changes to articles on active sanctions should be done with extra care, Snooganssnoogans. For helpful guidelines, see WP:BOLD. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles.
Do you understand why this may not be one of those situations?
Also, some of your assertions seem divorced from the reality of WP policy as interpreted by most editors. Illustration: "These are all fairly well-known positions of his that have gotten a lot of attention... July 2016: www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752834632907943936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw"
Do you understand why you can't use this particular source to support this particular assertion, even in part? (If not, you may need to reread WP:V.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Plenty of secondary reliable sources covered that tweet (which AFAIK makes it good enough for inclusion). Here is one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/12/no-donald-trump-crime-is-not-out-of-control/. The point was to respond to IHTS's deep misperception of Trump's actual policies and positions, such as the idea that Trump had only asserted at the RNC that crime was rising. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Huh?! (I never posted anything about 'crime', only that Trump is strong about 'law and order'. So how is it I've showed "deep misconception" re something I've never commented on. Time for you to go home.) IHTS (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm responding to your response on this talk page, which was full of deep misconceptions about Trump's policies (and you never even bothered to respond to the point-by-point debunk of your nonsense). This is your response to my suggestion on Trump repeatedly asserting that crime is rising: ""Repeatedly asserting" where? Not in rallies or his website. Only his RNC speech." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
How does asking location of where you are hearing things, equate to being "full of deep misconceptions about policies"?! You're full of it. And you're apparently blind to your own editing slants. And I don't respond to WP:IDHT posts. IHTS (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I provided sources and point-by-point responses to your claims. Your counter was to dismiss the response in its entirety without any substantive input. That the people who dominate Trump's wiki page apparently don't have a clue what his positions are, push pro-Trump edits regardless of the facts, and dismiss those who reliably source his actual positions is disturbing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, no you didn't respond to what I wrote, making impossible to respond or discuss with you. Now you go stereotyping about "the people" based on your irritation with a single editor, throwing insults ("Don't have a clue", "push pro-Trump edits regardless of the facts"). I told you that I see a slanted taint to most all your edits, because I did/do observe that. Get mad all you want. Just makes me question your fitness to edit this BLP. IHTS (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's not make this personal you two. Best to just focus on the content. ~Awilley (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
New 'crime is rising' assertion today: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/759450053379579905 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump's stiffing of contractors and employees

The first paragraph of the "Further legal matters" section cites to a June 2, 2016 USA Today investigation about Trump's 3500 lawsuits, but ignores their June 9 report, "USA TODAY exclusive: Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills." Why? Nowhere that I could find in this BLP is there a report that he doesn't pay people. Where, for a very recent example, is the story about the paint store? It's not at Legal affairs of Donald Trump either.

WP:PUBLICFIGURE: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. YoPienso (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If the paint store is not included at legal affairs of Donald Trump then you can try to insert it there. I'm not aware of any reason why anyone would object to that. If it's included in that article, then perhaps it can be summarized briefly at this article, per WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Multiple RSs:
YoPienso (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm asking about the larger picture of Trump's m.o. of not paying his lawyers, contractors, and employees. The paint store is just the most recent report. YoPienso (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The same answer applies. If you successfully put it into legal affairs of Donald Trump then it can be summarized in this article per WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
OK; thanks. Heading out now but will do later. Or maybe someone else will first. :) YoPienso (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
You should include the information here and not let Anythingyouwant waste your time chasing your tail. Anythingyouwant is an anti-abortion POV-pushing editor who was topic banned by a 12-0 vote on all "abortion-related pages, broadly construed" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Anythingyouwant_topic-banned). He is now POV-pushing Trump to be the next President per his agenda to illegalize abortion. The fact that the WMF allows this kind of continued anti-abortion POV-pushing after a topic ban is very sad. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
What here could have possibly warranted that personal attack? The first mention of abortion in the discussion was by Gouncbeatduke.CFredkin (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Editors have a right to know about Anythingyouwant pattern of misdirection and unethical editing. The vast majority of his edits to this article have been POV-pushing edits clearly designed to get Trump elected and make abortion illegal in the USA. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Going after someone without providing proof (diffs) makes you look silly. Please provide at least one diff (from this article) where he violates NPOV regarding abortion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Trade

From the "Political positions" section, I propose to remove this sentence: "Trump identifies as a "free trader", but says that trade must be "reasonably fair".[325] " The source documents one time (possibly the only time) he called himself a free trader, in passing, and immediately qualified it. In the next sentence we have multiple references documenting that he is often called "protectionist" - the opposite of free trade - and proposes various tariffs. I submit that this poorly-sourced sentence about being a "free trader" should be removed, as it only confuses what his actual positions are. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

He may have called himself a "free trader" only once, but he's said that he supports "free trade" many times, which is the same thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Has he? In a quick search, I couldn't find anyplace where he has said "free trade" without immediately qualifying it. The Washington Post and the National Review say his proposals are the opposite of free trade.The truth may be that Trump himself doesn't understand the difference, or a lot of the details about trade. In this compilation of his comments on trade, he rails against TPP because it was "designed for China to come in" and permits China's currency manipulation, until someone points out that TPP doesn't involve China. With that possibility in mind, I think we should describe what his policies actually are, not what he mistakenly calls them. --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I suppose if someone truly supports pure free trade, then the ideal trade agreement would be just one sentence long: "No government that is party to this agreement shall tax imports or exports, or in any way restrict or regulate imports or exports." But your typical "free trade" agreement is thousands of pages long, so perhaps almost no one is really for free trade. Trump says he supports free trade as long as it is fair, and probably we can't do any better than reporting that position of his, together with any information we can find about what he thinks would make a trade agreement fair.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Legal Affairs of Donald Trump

I don't believe that the specific charge of refusing to rent to black tenants should be moved to the sub-page, "Legal Affairs of Donald Trump". I think it's a WP:POVFORK, that is, an attempt to move unflattering material from the main page to an obscure page.

Look at the Pageviews Analysis for 73/0/2016:

Donald Trump 115,937

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Donald_Trump

Legal Affairs of Donald Trump 825

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

In other words, the main page gets about 116,000 views a day, and the sub-page "Legal Affairs of Donald Trump gets about 825 views a day. If I were a paid or unpaid advocate or supporter of Trump, and I was trying to cover up unfavorable facts about Trump, the first thing I would do would be to set up a subpage with fewer than 1% of the page views of the main article.

In fact, the worse the subpage, the fewer the views, and the more effective it is at censoring the unfavorable facts. --Nbauman (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The matter is being discussed above at Talk:Donald_Trump#BLP_concerns.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not discussing WP:BLP here. I'm discussing the fact that moving text to a subpage is a way of censoring it, because of the discrepancy in page views, and violates WP:POVFORK.--Nbauman (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the charge of refusing to rent to black tenants should be mentioned on this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
If it's well-sourced it should be mentioned on this page (albeit breifly). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I think so too, as long as it says "alleged" or "allegedly". The charge was never proven, and Trump denies it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The matter is being discussed above at Talk:Donald_Trump#BLP concerns. I've made it very clear that I support including the allegation about discriminating against blacks. I oppose doing it in a misleading way, however. We have two competing proposals for how to do it. I support one and oppose one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Are these the two competing versions?

Here is the current 32-word text, as edited by Anythingyouwant:
He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings.
Here is the proposed 47-word revision by CFredkin:
He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed.
So why in your edit on 16:58, 30 July 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732277728&oldid=732276451 did you delete "by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings" and replace it by "in the operation of 39 buildings"?
Would you have any objection if I changed "violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings"
to
"violations of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings"?
Does anybody have an objection? I think there is a consensus for including "by refusing to rent to blacks". Does anybody disagree that there's a consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I object to including content on this issue without taking into consideration the discussion regarding the appropriate language in the section above.CFredkin (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
That's cute! The reality, however, is that it is going to be included. Because Trump is a big ol' "doody-head", and it makes us feel important and truly encyclopedic and important to pile on with every negative garbage little article that comes out. Get with the program! Doc talk 05:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wharton professors

Is anyone able to find references about his professors when he was at Wharton? Some of them must be sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles. This would give us another insight into his intellectual worldview.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Wharton seems to have no problem acknowledging that Trump attended.[2] Doc talk 07:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems he took their classes while at UPenn but was not enrolled at Wharton. See below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Actually, take a look at this. It says:
"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.”"
What this appears to be saying is that although he took classes from the Wharton School but was not enrolled or graduated from the Wharton School. If he graduated with a degree in economics, then that's not Wharton (it's the UPenn School of Arts & Sciences). However, it does seem Wharton is claiming him as one of their "alumni" based on the fact he took their courses.
Unless there's something which contradicts this source, the claim that "he graduated from Wharton" should be removed from the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The link I provided, just above, from Wharton, proudly lists him as a 1968 graduate. It doesn't get any more official than that. Doc talk 07:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
If he graduated with a degree in economics then he could not have graduated from Wharton, because economics is not part of Wharton but part of UPenn's Arts and Sciences division [3].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Strike that, Wharton also gives BS in econ. So he could have.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
However, the matter still remains that "attended" is not the same as "graduated". The link you provided only shows the former, and the link I provided directly contradicts that he "graduated".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Just in case you or anyone else missed it: "THE BEST KNOWN BRAND NAME IN REAL ESTATE DONALD J. TRUMP, W’68". That "W'68" part? On the very official Wharton website? That means he was a Wharton graduate in the year 1968. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 07:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You're right. I'm confusing Wharton's MBA program, which is what usually people think of when they say "Wharton", with the undergrad degree Wharton offers to UPenn students.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hatting squabble. Let's stick to discussing content and not pick fights with other editors.
You don't check your facts. You are openly anti-Trump, which makes NPOV impossible. Why do you even edit this article? Doc talk 07:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about?
And yes, I got it wrong initially but after ... checking the facts, I quickly corrected myself.
And speaking of "checking the facts", it seems you haven't bothered to check that I've actually made no edits regarding this matter to the article. I'd appreciate it if you struck your personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you, or are you not, "openly anti-Trump"? Doc talk 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what that means and you really need to stick to discussing content not editors, else we're taking a trip to WP:AE. Again, please strike your personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
There was no personal attack. You really have no business editing this article. We need a NPOV in encyclopedic articles. Doc talk 07:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't particularly appreciate you telling me what articles I "have business editing" or not. If you feel there's something wrong with my edits or comments on this article, please feel free to file an appropriate complaint either at AN/I or AE. You know how this works. But let me remind you: 1) discuss content not editors. 2) don't make unsupported aspersions. Those rules are there for a host of reasons, one of which is that failing to abide by them can quickly derail productive discussions, as you have done here. But hey, do what you want.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't challenge me to support my "aspersions" that you are quite openly anti-Trump. I won't have to dig very deep at all; and I can dig deep. You have no chance getting me on a "personal attack". I'll say it again: you are openly biased against the subject. I do think that you should not be allowed to influence the content accordingly, and I will call you on it if I choose to. Doc talk 08:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are free to file a report at AN/I or AE if you feel my edits violate any Wikipedia policy. In the meantime, it's not up to you to decide who or who should not be editing this article. Your blanket reverts of my edits - which appear to be made solely because it's myself who made them - are disruptive (never mind bad faithed).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are Trump's political stances in the lead?

This seems quite strange to me. Since when is it appropriate to put political stances of a candidate in the LEAD. Shouldn't the lead be about summarizing their life. Look at the pages of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, any other candidate, they have NO political stances in the lead, because it's quite inappropriate. And with Trump's constantly changing, it's so misleading to put them in the lead. Question: Should we get rid of Trump's political stances in the lead? ApolloFirenze (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The Lead should cover the most important aspects of the topic, as its the first (and often, only) content a visitor reads. Trump is most well-known currently as the Republican candidate, and his political views are central to that feature of him. Also, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton do contain political stances in the lead. It's actually featured quite heavily in the Sander's lead, more so--I think--that in Trump's. It is light in Hillary's, where her political history is featured more heavily. I'd vote to leave it in. --FeldBum (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I support keepingTrump's stances in. Also, Hillary Clinton's lede should have her 2016 signature issues, it's bad that it doesn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The political stances of political figures is important. Usually though politicans are identified with specific sections of a party or ideology, for example progressive Democrat or moderate Republican, so a detailed description of positions is not required. Trump's harder to classify. I would say however that the lead is skewed too much to his political career. TFD (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave in lead: Look, mention Trump's political candidacy and the first thing people think of is "build a giant wall". Trump has more clarity of slogan-based positions than Hillary and probably even than Bernie. It seems reasonable to mention something like "build a giant wall" or Muslim ban because it's what he's been known for for the past year. pbp 16:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_16&oldid=1078396182"