![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
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)
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:
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)
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)
I propose this:
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)
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?
Itsyoungrapper ( talk) 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Donald Trump | |
---|---|
![]() Trump in 2013 | |
Born | Donald John Trump June 14, 1946
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
This is ThiefofBaghdad's:
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)
In response to IHTS, these are all fairly well-known positions of his that have gotten a lot of attention.
Crime is rising:
Increase spending on military:
Send ground troops:
Waterboarding:
Muslim/territorial ban:
China tariffs:
Mexico tariffs:
NATO:
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)
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)
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
Legal Affairs of Donald Trump 825
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. 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?
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)
Hatting squabble. Let's stick to discussing content and not pick fights with other editors.
|
---|
|
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
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)
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:
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)
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)
I propose this:
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)
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?
Itsyoungrapper ( talk) 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Donald Trump | |
---|---|
![]() Trump in 2013 | |
Born | Donald John Trump June 14, 1946
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
This is ThiefofBaghdad's:
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)
In response to IHTS, these are all fairly well-known positions of his that have gotten a lot of attention.
Crime is rising:
Increase spending on military:
Send ground troops:
Waterboarding:
Muslim/territorial ban:
China tariffs:
Mexico tariffs:
NATO:
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)
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)
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
Legal Affairs of Donald Trump 825
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. 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?
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)
Hatting squabble. Let's stick to discussing content and not pick fights with other editors.
|
---|
|
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)