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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I added a bunch of content vital to his political positions (NATO, WTO, Russia) but it was indiscriminately removed for the reason that it was too long. This text was roughly 2,000 characters but 2/3 of it was citations. This content is of greater importance than much of the other content there. Other content can also be trimmed without any substantive harm, such as:
By executing these trims (or just some of them), the other content can be easily included without lengthening the section. Here's the content that was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732278465&oldid=732277728. It's straight from /info/en/?search=Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump. The content that I added can of course also be trimmed (e.g. it's enough to say that Trump wants to renegotiate the WTO or leave). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, I agree with the four changes you propose here. Not because the section is too long - it isn't - but because those particular items can be omitted or summarized without harming the article. As for the things you want to add, let's talk about them; I haven't evaluated them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
In the interest of resolving this, I would be ok with User:Snooganssnoogans edits, with the important exception of the reference to the comment about Russia finding Hillary's emails (which is being debated elsewhere in Talk), if the cuts that Snoogans suggested at the beginning of the section are also made. CFredkin ( talk) 20:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
John Broughton: I think everyone here is in accord with you on that point. User:Snooganssnoogans just needs to be acutely aware that the WP:BB guideline emphasizes, "Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted." Per WP:CON policy, anyone on this page can undo all of those bold edits in a single revert. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Since you asked me--
This is getting complicated. I'm limiting myself to the one issue of the DOJ charges of Trump's refusing to rent to blacks.
In this edit on 16:58, 30 July 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732277728&oldid=732276451 user:Anythingyouwant deleted "by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings" and replaced it by "in the operation of 39 buildings".
This changes the edit that user:Dervorguilla made and justified in Talk on 05:37, 29 July 2016.
Anythingyouwant used the sham argument that it violated WP:BLP. It's a sham because, first, if it violates BLP in the main article, then it also violates BLP in the sub-article. Second, it doesn't violate BLP because it's supported by multiple WP:RSs, including newspapers like the New York Times which are specifically given as examples of reliable sources in WP:RS.
Much of Anythingyouwant's arguments are based on his own interpretations of the words or his own opinion of what they mean or imply. I'm not going to respond to those arguments other than to say that Wikipedia doesn't follow the editors' opinions. It follows WP:RSs, and if WP:RSs use those words, Wikipedia uses those words.
The other sham argument against it was that the section and the article are "too long." He's replaced "by refusing to rent to blacks" with "the operation of", which is only 3 words shorter.
It violates consensus because we discussed the section many times in Talk, gave many versions of proposed wordings, and we none of those wordings eliminated the language about refusing to rent to blacks. So Anythingyouwant changed this wording in violation of consensus.
According to the Warning box above, this Donald Trump page is subject to active arbitration remedies. To repeat from above, the restrictions are:
The deletion of references to blacks has been challenged. So Anythingyouwant violated that restriction.
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Anythingyouwant joined Wikipedia on 24 July 2016, and has made most of his edits to the Donald Trump article, where he is a partisan for Trump. It looks like a WP:Single-purpose account. He has regularly come up with dubious arguments, like the claim that any mention of renting to blacks violates WP:BLP, and he's ignoring consensus.
I would like to restore the reference to blacks in that section. I think we have consensus on inculding it, and if anyone disagrees, let me know here. Otherwise I assume we have consensus to keep it in. -- Nbauman ( talk) 19:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Several users have recently been topic banned from Donald Trump-related pages because of personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and generally lowering the tone on this page. (Please don't name them here if you happen to know who they are; naming and shaming is never what article talk is for.) I see some unnecessarily personalised comments by other people as well. You probably know who you are, but I'll give examples on request. Please remember, everybody, that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions per the warning at the top, and that this is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a venue for quarrels or attacks. Comment on content, not contributors. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC).
This edit to the "childhood and education" section has the following edit summary: "False info. The 'both feet' claim came from an interview, it is not in the biography. Reference to lottery number is WP:UNDUE as student and medical deferments made him ineligible to be drafted."
First let's look at the "both feet" thing. The deleted language is in bold: "Trump has attributed his medical deferment to " heel spurs" in both feet according to a 2015 biography." The cited New York Times article says: "During an interview for the book, Mr. Trump removed a shoe to show the author the cause of his medical deferment. 'Heel spurs,' he said. 'On both feet.'" The NYT article also says this about the book: "Mr. Trump described his education, business life, marriages and childhood in extensive interviews with Michael D’Antonio, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter at Newsday. Mr. D’Antonio’s biography of Mr. Trump, 'Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success,' will be published Sept. 22." The NYT article is dated September 8, 2015. So, I will restore some modified language: "in both feet according to an interview for a 2015 biography".
Now let's look at the lottery issue. Did the student and medical deferments make him ineligible to be drafted throughout the period when he otherwise could have been drafted? According to an ABC News article, Selective Service records do not "categorically suggest it was deferments and not a high draft number that ultimately allowed him to avoid the draft." So I will modify this part of the Wikipedia article accordingly. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Here are two pertinent quotes from news reports. ABC News:
“ | Nor do the documents categorically suggest it was deferments and not a high draft number that ultimately allowed him to avoid the draft. | ” |
New York Times:
“ | Because of his medical exemption, his lottery number would have been irrelevant, said Richard Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, who has worked for the agency for three decades....Still, Mr. Trump, in the interviews, said he believed he could have been subject to another physical exam to check on his bone spurs, had his draft number been called. “I would have had to go eventually because that was a minor medical....' But the publicly available draft records of Mr. Trump include the letters 'DISQ' next to his exam date, with no notation indicating that he would be re-examined. | ” |
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
You're synthesizing here. You don't understand. The military doesn't want anybody with anything wrong wit the feet. They are soldiers. They do a lot of walking, carrying a 40 lb pack, a very heavy weapon, and very heavy ammo. People with ortho problems create problems in the field, like slowing the others down and getting people killed, not to mention they cost the DOD lots of money in hospital bills and long term disability. This edit you want to make: "But the publicly available draft records of Mr. Trump include the letters 'DISQ' next to his exam date, with no notation indicating that he would be re-examined." Is Synthetic. Where is there a RS that says, "If Trump were going to be reevaluated, there would have been a notation for a reevaluation." You don't have that, so adding in that line, is synthetic. SW3 5DL ( talk) 15:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
No. You can't. That's the New York Times synthesizing. In this instance, they are not reliable. They are just making an observation. Where is it written in DOD policy that the records must indicate if there is to be a reevaluation? Is there even a box or column for it to check it off? The NYTimes are not quoting the DOD or Selective Service policy. They are simply making an observation. Find the DOD policy on that and you can add that. I think, knowing what I know of that era, that Trump was right to believe he could be reevaluated. I say that, because to him it was a minor defect, and like most students of the day, he had a lot of misinformation about what could and could not happen next. But I can assure you, the military doesn't want anything to do with people who have any orthopedic problems. Those are major issues for them, although it seemed minor to Mr Trump. SW3 5DL ( talk) 15:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I only object to the NYTimes making an observation and not showing actual DOD policy on that. btw, Trump received 4 student deferments because students had to reapply constantly to prove they were still enrolled full time and carrying a full course load and satisfactory GPA. He got 4 deferments, one for each year of undergrad. If he'd gone to grad school, he could get another deferment. The only exceptions were medical students who could be and were, drafted and trained to be medics. Here's a link to the Selective Service page on the rules for the Vietnam Era. [2]. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't implying you had. It's just that the reader should know that 4 deferments was exactly what he had to do. It wasn't like he was getting some special privilege. On your question about getting reevaluated, bone spurs do not resolve on their own, and surgery at that time, during the 60s and 70s wasn't something that would be common. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we should go with what he believes. Does he believe the high lottery number helped him? SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Aye, sounds good. SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
References
TLDR. I did notice someone saying that something in the New York Times article was "synthesis" and therefore not reliable. Hogwash. When a Times news story states a fact, it's about as reliable as it gets. In any case, I'm reading a lot of hot air here. Any content needs to be supported by reliable sources. The article had a editorial-ish, unverified phrase about how "perhaps" Trump wasn't drafted because of a high lottery number. I changed it to reflect the New York Times story. If there are sources that conflict with the Times then we need to cite them and describe them. The key word being conflict. If they don't conflict then we don't need to cite them or describe them. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
User:DrFleischman, to be clear, I never endorsed the idea that the NYT was synthesizing anything. But I do disagree with your edit that essentially denies that the high lottery number helped to keep Trump out of Vietnam. We don't have reliable sources that support that notion. On the contrary, at the end of the sentence in question we have this footnote:
“ | Goldman, Russell (April 29, 2011). "Donald Trump's Own Secret: Vietnam Draft Records". ABC News. Retrieved August 1, 2016. "Nor do the documents categorically suggest it was deferments and not a high draft number that ultimately allowed him to avoid the draft." | ” |
The recent New York Times article does not deny that the high lottery number helped to keep Trump out of Vietnam, as discussed above in the TLDR material. Think about it: if Trump had a low draft number and had been called up for service, he would have been re-examined because heel spurs can heal or be cured per this New York Times article; the high draft number may have prevented all that from happening. In reality, there were two redundant reasons why he was not drafted after the student deferments ran out: (1) the medical deferment and (2) the high lottery number. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
References
I support whichever editor created the "Trump has said, "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number",[20] but because of his medical exemption, his lottery number was irrelevant." version of this paragraph that existed earlier today because it is very NPOV. The version later today that emphasized the high draft number was very pro-Trump POV-pushing and intellectually dishonest, so I revert to the older version. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 23:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
There was a consensus here among three editors who have carefully discussed this matter. However, a fourth editor seems determined to continue revert-warring.
[3]
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
00:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Somebody added a paragraph to the Presidential Election campaign section, quoting at great length President Obama's recent denunciation of Trump. I have deleted it, subject of course to discussion here. It is already being discussed at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 whether to include anything about these comments. IMO if they are to be reported anywhere, it should be there at the campaign article, not here in Trump's biography. And if something is to be included, IMO it should be brief, not an extended quote. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I added this to the article (proofreading):
"At a White House news conference on August 2, 2016, Obama delivered an extraudionarly harsh denunciation of Trump, stating that "The Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. He keeps on proving it. The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that made such extraudionarly sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn't appear to have basic knowledge of critical issues in Europe, the Middle East, in Asia, means that he's woefully unprepared to do this job. There has to be a point at which you say, 'Enough.' What does this say about your party that this is your standard-bearer? This isn't a situation where you have an episodic gaffe. This is daily and weekly where they are distancing themselves from statements he's making. There has to be a point at which you say, 'This is not somebody I can support for president of the United States, even if he purports to be a member of my party." [1]
References
Shortly after I made the edit, some content I added in it was removed. I'm bringing the content I added here so the community can establish via consensus whether it is worthy of inclusion on the article. Plankton55 ( talk) 15:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The "Political positions" section si too detailed, and the subject is already covered elsewhere. We should take inspiration from Hillary Clinton#Political positions. What do you think about it? -- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
This story appears not to be going away and it looks like one of the biggest stories to come out of the DNC. Tons of sources. Working backwards: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] (note the source actually uses the word "feud"), [11], [12], [13]... tons more and that's just from the last few hours while I got some sleep. There's a huge amount of sources on this going back to convention day.
It doesn't appear we have anything on the controversy in the article, and although I generally favor a robust application of WP:NOTNEWS it very much looks like this has become a big enough issue to include in the article (I'd hold off on a separate article but if it keeps going like this...) Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans: Which particular "exceptions to WP:NOTNEWS"? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 01:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
MelanieN: You were commenting, "Even my own local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune..." Well, here's what my local newspaper had to say! ;)
(Most relevant passages from WSJ compilation.) A fair paraphrase: When asked about Khizr Khan's speech, Trump said he appeared very emotional, whereas his wife, who was standing next to him, had nothing to say. He added that "maybe" someone hadn't allowed her to say anything. Khan replied that his wife was better at maintaining her composure than he was and that she was there to give him the strength to make his speech. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
SW3 5DL, sorry, but your analysis above is POV and wrong. That (coverage) doesn't make it appropriate here. Yes it does. The extent of our coverage is determined to a large extent by what Reliable Sources do; we don't decide on our own to puff up a minor story or ignore a major one. And if you take his comments, the "firestorm" is simply being whipped up by the media which supports Hillary. Dead wrong. The firestorm is coming from politicians and public figures of all sides, [15] including many who have endorsed him and have not withdrawn their support. [16] It is being reported by media of all slants, from liberal to conservative. (Are you going to claim that the Wall Street Journal supports Hillary?) "the media which supports Hillary" reflects your own bias; it's not how Wikipedia evaluates sources. It's way out of proportion to what was said and politicians who don't like him to begin with, are jumping on the bandwagon. Again, it's not just "politicians who don't like him"; the condemnation is almost universal and is coming from his supporters too. That's not an excuse for Wikipedia to do the same. Simply stating what was said, without the drama is best. The drama and the reaction is what makes it a story worth including here. and it is best done on his presidential page. Umm, he doesn't have a presidential page; he is not president yet. I assume you meant his campaign page? I agree, and that's where it is (although I see you have completely rewritten it, and I will deal with those changes at that article). -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
For helpful background material about Attorney Khan, see International Business, KM Khan Law Office (Aug. 1, 2016), http://web.archive.org/web/20160801212033/http://www.kmkhanlaw.com/International_Business.html (“E2 and EB5 Investor Immigration and International Business Transactions”) (site discontinued Aug. 2, 2016). -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The user removed the text where the Gallup and CNN/ORC polls showed net negative viewer reactions to the speech. I'd like to see it mentioned that the speech received mixed reviews and that the CNN/ORC and Gallup polls showed net negative public reactions. I think it's alright to retain AF's text that summarizes the content of the speech (law and order etc) and that the speech was widely seen as "dark". Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This user deleted a bunch of content for the supposed reason that so-called "instant polls" are more reliable and that normal polls by CNN/ORC and Gallup are not: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732999673&oldid=732996018
Could someone please restore? I probably don't have to say the obvious but "instant polls" are generally considered the worst kind of polls. See:
Need I go on?
The editor also replaces accurate descriptions of Trump's and Clinton's convention bounces (which are important in campaigns) with weasel words. Please restore. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@ MelanieN:, so sorry I added my comment to a section that I thought would get Bishonen's attention, as I thought perhaps she was keeping an eye on this page for ArbCom purposes. My edit has absolutely nothing to do with the other editor you mentioned. Not related at all. I did leave a note on your talk page, btw. As it turns out, Bishonen and I have sorted that bit. Sorry for the confusion. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the original paragraph about Trump's speech and the reaction to it. ApolloFirenze makes it clear, above, that his version was motivated by partisan considerations, and consensus here has not supported it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the ancestry section and the family tree be under one part? And why isn't the section under "personal life", but rather at the top of the article? Burklemore1 ( talk) 10:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The following was deleted from the Trump University section with a "doesn't appear to have long-term notability" comment:
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican." [1] Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have alarmed legal experts, who have expressed concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence. [2] [3]
From what I have read, this is pretty historic. We have never had a Presidential nominee of a major party using his public position to trash the judge in one of his civil cases. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 00:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
References
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had 'an absolute conflict' in presiding over the litigation given that he was 'of Mexican heritage' and a member of a Latino lawyers' association.
I left a message at the user talk page of SW3 5DL which prompted a discussion there. SW3 would like that conversation to be moved here, and so it is quoted below:
“ | Hi, your indentation at Talk:Donald Trump makes it appear that you're responding to me rather than to Gouncbeatduke. Is that what you intended?
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
02:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
|
” |
Saying he didn't serve in the Vietnam War after all the bits about his legal and appropriate student deferments, his temporary 1-Y status, which in no way exempted him from the draft lottery, and ultimately getting a number well above any possibility of getting called up, seems like an attempt to point out over and over, that Donald Trump did not serve in Vietnam. He appears to have done all the appropriate behaviours, he's said he was prepared to serve, and was lucky to get a high draft number. These edits seem more like undue emphasis and POV editing and certainly beating a dead horse. In addition, I spent an entire morning trying to sort out your insistence that bits about his draft lottery number and his 1-Y status did or did not matter. I simply could not discern what the nuance was there until I'd sorted the entire sequence of events which the sources conveniently have obscured. I pointed that out on the talk page where this discussion belongs. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
"Trump was not drafted." There follows the deferments and his lottery number which fully explain why he wasn't drafted. Saying he did not serve seems to imply something else. Had he been in military service, like George Bush, and did not get assigned to Vietnam, then yes, that would be appropriate. However, he was never in service, therefore he had no opportunity to serve in Vietnam. He was not drafted. Full stop. And you did not have a source which is why you put in 'citation needed.' And I've no idea what you're talking about regarding Trump University. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I added a bunch of content vital to his political positions (NATO, WTO, Russia) but it was indiscriminately removed for the reason that it was too long. This text was roughly 2,000 characters but 2/3 of it was citations. This content is of greater importance than much of the other content there. Other content can also be trimmed without any substantive harm, such as:
By executing these trims (or just some of them), the other content can be easily included without lengthening the section. Here's the content that was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732278465&oldid=732277728. It's straight from /info/en/?search=Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump. The content that I added can of course also be trimmed (e.g. it's enough to say that Trump wants to renegotiate the WTO or leave). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, I agree with the four changes you propose here. Not because the section is too long - it isn't - but because those particular items can be omitted or summarized without harming the article. As for the things you want to add, let's talk about them; I haven't evaluated them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
In the interest of resolving this, I would be ok with User:Snooganssnoogans edits, with the important exception of the reference to the comment about Russia finding Hillary's emails (which is being debated elsewhere in Talk), if the cuts that Snoogans suggested at the beginning of the section are also made. CFredkin ( talk) 20:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
John Broughton: I think everyone here is in accord with you on that point. User:Snooganssnoogans just needs to be acutely aware that the WP:BB guideline emphasizes, "Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted." Per WP:CON policy, anyone on this page can undo all of those bold edits in a single revert. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Since you asked me--
This is getting complicated. I'm limiting myself to the one issue of the DOJ charges of Trump's refusing to rent to blacks.
In this edit on 16:58, 30 July 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732277728&oldid=732276451 user:Anythingyouwant deleted "by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings" and replaced it by "in the operation of 39 buildings".
This changes the edit that user:Dervorguilla made and justified in Talk on 05:37, 29 July 2016.
Anythingyouwant used the sham argument that it violated WP:BLP. It's a sham because, first, if it violates BLP in the main article, then it also violates BLP in the sub-article. Second, it doesn't violate BLP because it's supported by multiple WP:RSs, including newspapers like the New York Times which are specifically given as examples of reliable sources in WP:RS.
Much of Anythingyouwant's arguments are based on his own interpretations of the words or his own opinion of what they mean or imply. I'm not going to respond to those arguments other than to say that Wikipedia doesn't follow the editors' opinions. It follows WP:RSs, and if WP:RSs use those words, Wikipedia uses those words.
The other sham argument against it was that the section and the article are "too long." He's replaced "by refusing to rent to blacks" with "the operation of", which is only 3 words shorter.
It violates consensus because we discussed the section many times in Talk, gave many versions of proposed wordings, and we none of those wordings eliminated the language about refusing to rent to blacks. So Anythingyouwant changed this wording in violation of consensus.
According to the Warning box above, this Donald Trump page is subject to active arbitration remedies. To repeat from above, the restrictions are:
The deletion of references to blacks has been challenged. So Anythingyouwant violated that restriction.
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Anythingyouwant joined Wikipedia on 24 July 2016, and has made most of his edits to the Donald Trump article, where he is a partisan for Trump. It looks like a WP:Single-purpose account. He has regularly come up with dubious arguments, like the claim that any mention of renting to blacks violates WP:BLP, and he's ignoring consensus.
I would like to restore the reference to blacks in that section. I think we have consensus on inculding it, and if anyone disagrees, let me know here. Otherwise I assume we have consensus to keep it in. -- Nbauman ( talk) 19:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Several users have recently been topic banned from Donald Trump-related pages because of personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and generally lowering the tone on this page. (Please don't name them here if you happen to know who they are; naming and shaming is never what article talk is for.) I see some unnecessarily personalised comments by other people as well. You probably know who you are, but I'll give examples on request. Please remember, everybody, that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions per the warning at the top, and that this is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a venue for quarrels or attacks. Comment on content, not contributors. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC).
This edit to the "childhood and education" section has the following edit summary: "False info. The 'both feet' claim came from an interview, it is not in the biography. Reference to lottery number is WP:UNDUE as student and medical deferments made him ineligible to be drafted."
First let's look at the "both feet" thing. The deleted language is in bold: "Trump has attributed his medical deferment to " heel spurs" in both feet according to a 2015 biography." The cited New York Times article says: "During an interview for the book, Mr. Trump removed a shoe to show the author the cause of his medical deferment. 'Heel spurs,' he said. 'On both feet.'" The NYT article also says this about the book: "Mr. Trump described his education, business life, marriages and childhood in extensive interviews with Michael D’Antonio, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter at Newsday. Mr. D’Antonio’s biography of Mr. Trump, 'Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success,' will be published Sept. 22." The NYT article is dated September 8, 2015. So, I will restore some modified language: "in both feet according to an interview for a 2015 biography".
Now let's look at the lottery issue. Did the student and medical deferments make him ineligible to be drafted throughout the period when he otherwise could have been drafted? According to an ABC News article, Selective Service records do not "categorically suggest it was deferments and not a high draft number that ultimately allowed him to avoid the draft." So I will modify this part of the Wikipedia article accordingly. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Here are two pertinent quotes from news reports. ABC News:
“ | Nor do the documents categorically suggest it was deferments and not a high draft number that ultimately allowed him to avoid the draft. | ” |
New York Times:
“ | Because of his medical exemption, his lottery number would have been irrelevant, said Richard Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, who has worked for the agency for three decades....Still, Mr. Trump, in the interviews, said he believed he could have been subject to another physical exam to check on his bone spurs, had his draft number been called. “I would have had to go eventually because that was a minor medical....' But the publicly available draft records of Mr. Trump include the letters 'DISQ' next to his exam date, with no notation indicating that he would be re-examined. | ” |
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
You're synthesizing here. You don't understand. The military doesn't want anybody with anything wrong wit the feet. They are soldiers. They do a lot of walking, carrying a 40 lb pack, a very heavy weapon, and very heavy ammo. People with ortho problems create problems in the field, like slowing the others down and getting people killed, not to mention they cost the DOD lots of money in hospital bills and long term disability. This edit you want to make: "But the publicly available draft records of Mr. Trump include the letters 'DISQ' next to his exam date, with no notation indicating that he would be re-examined." Is Synthetic. Where is there a RS that says, "If Trump were going to be reevaluated, there would have been a notation for a reevaluation." You don't have that, so adding in that line, is synthetic. SW3 5DL ( talk) 15:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
No. You can't. That's the New York Times synthesizing. In this instance, they are not reliable. They are just making an observation. Where is it written in DOD policy that the records must indicate if there is to be a reevaluation? Is there even a box or column for it to check it off? The NYTimes are not quoting the DOD or Selective Service policy. They are simply making an observation. Find the DOD policy on that and you can add that. I think, knowing what I know of that era, that Trump was right to believe he could be reevaluated. I say that, because to him it was a minor defect, and like most students of the day, he had a lot of misinformation about what could and could not happen next. But I can assure you, the military doesn't want anything to do with people who have any orthopedic problems. Those are major issues for them, although it seemed minor to Mr Trump. SW3 5DL ( talk) 15:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I only object to the NYTimes making an observation and not showing actual DOD policy on that. btw, Trump received 4 student deferments because students had to reapply constantly to prove they were still enrolled full time and carrying a full course load and satisfactory GPA. He got 4 deferments, one for each year of undergrad. If he'd gone to grad school, he could get another deferment. The only exceptions were medical students who could be and were, drafted and trained to be medics. Here's a link to the Selective Service page on the rules for the Vietnam Era. [2]. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't implying you had. It's just that the reader should know that 4 deferments was exactly what he had to do. It wasn't like he was getting some special privilege. On your question about getting reevaluated, bone spurs do not resolve on their own, and surgery at that time, during the 60s and 70s wasn't something that would be common. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we should go with what he believes. Does he believe the high lottery number helped him? SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Aye, sounds good. SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
References
TLDR. I did notice someone saying that something in the New York Times article was "synthesis" and therefore not reliable. Hogwash. When a Times news story states a fact, it's about as reliable as it gets. In any case, I'm reading a lot of hot air here. Any content needs to be supported by reliable sources. The article had a editorial-ish, unverified phrase about how "perhaps" Trump wasn't drafted because of a high lottery number. I changed it to reflect the New York Times story. If there are sources that conflict with the Times then we need to cite them and describe them. The key word being conflict. If they don't conflict then we don't need to cite them or describe them. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
User:DrFleischman, to be clear, I never endorsed the idea that the NYT was synthesizing anything. But I do disagree with your edit that essentially denies that the high lottery number helped to keep Trump out of Vietnam. We don't have reliable sources that support that notion. On the contrary, at the end of the sentence in question we have this footnote:
“ | Goldman, Russell (April 29, 2011). "Donald Trump's Own Secret: Vietnam Draft Records". ABC News. Retrieved August 1, 2016. "Nor do the documents categorically suggest it was deferments and not a high draft number that ultimately allowed him to avoid the draft." | ” |
The recent New York Times article does not deny that the high lottery number helped to keep Trump out of Vietnam, as discussed above in the TLDR material. Think about it: if Trump had a low draft number and had been called up for service, he would have been re-examined because heel spurs can heal or be cured per this New York Times article; the high draft number may have prevented all that from happening. In reality, there were two redundant reasons why he was not drafted after the student deferments ran out: (1) the medical deferment and (2) the high lottery number. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
References
I support whichever editor created the "Trump has said, "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number",[20] but because of his medical exemption, his lottery number was irrelevant." version of this paragraph that existed earlier today because it is very NPOV. The version later today that emphasized the high draft number was very pro-Trump POV-pushing and intellectually dishonest, so I revert to the older version. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 23:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
There was a consensus here among three editors who have carefully discussed this matter. However, a fourth editor seems determined to continue revert-warring.
[3]
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
00:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Somebody added a paragraph to the Presidential Election campaign section, quoting at great length President Obama's recent denunciation of Trump. I have deleted it, subject of course to discussion here. It is already being discussed at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 whether to include anything about these comments. IMO if they are to be reported anywhere, it should be there at the campaign article, not here in Trump's biography. And if something is to be included, IMO it should be brief, not an extended quote. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I added this to the article (proofreading):
"At a White House news conference on August 2, 2016, Obama delivered an extraudionarly harsh denunciation of Trump, stating that "The Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. He keeps on proving it. The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that made such extraudionarly sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn't appear to have basic knowledge of critical issues in Europe, the Middle East, in Asia, means that he's woefully unprepared to do this job. There has to be a point at which you say, 'Enough.' What does this say about your party that this is your standard-bearer? This isn't a situation where you have an episodic gaffe. This is daily and weekly where they are distancing themselves from statements he's making. There has to be a point at which you say, 'This is not somebody I can support for president of the United States, even if he purports to be a member of my party." [1]
References
Shortly after I made the edit, some content I added in it was removed. I'm bringing the content I added here so the community can establish via consensus whether it is worthy of inclusion on the article. Plankton55 ( talk) 15:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The "Political positions" section si too detailed, and the subject is already covered elsewhere. We should take inspiration from Hillary Clinton#Political positions. What do you think about it? -- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
This story appears not to be going away and it looks like one of the biggest stories to come out of the DNC. Tons of sources. Working backwards: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] (note the source actually uses the word "feud"), [11], [12], [13]... tons more and that's just from the last few hours while I got some sleep. There's a huge amount of sources on this going back to convention day.
It doesn't appear we have anything on the controversy in the article, and although I generally favor a robust application of WP:NOTNEWS it very much looks like this has become a big enough issue to include in the article (I'd hold off on a separate article but if it keeps going like this...) Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans: Which particular "exceptions to WP:NOTNEWS"? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 01:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
MelanieN: You were commenting, "Even my own local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune..." Well, here's what my local newspaper had to say! ;)
(Most relevant passages from WSJ compilation.) A fair paraphrase: When asked about Khizr Khan's speech, Trump said he appeared very emotional, whereas his wife, who was standing next to him, had nothing to say. He added that "maybe" someone hadn't allowed her to say anything. Khan replied that his wife was better at maintaining her composure than he was and that she was there to give him the strength to make his speech. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
SW3 5DL, sorry, but your analysis above is POV and wrong. That (coverage) doesn't make it appropriate here. Yes it does. The extent of our coverage is determined to a large extent by what Reliable Sources do; we don't decide on our own to puff up a minor story or ignore a major one. And if you take his comments, the "firestorm" is simply being whipped up by the media which supports Hillary. Dead wrong. The firestorm is coming from politicians and public figures of all sides, [15] including many who have endorsed him and have not withdrawn their support. [16] It is being reported by media of all slants, from liberal to conservative. (Are you going to claim that the Wall Street Journal supports Hillary?) "the media which supports Hillary" reflects your own bias; it's not how Wikipedia evaluates sources. It's way out of proportion to what was said and politicians who don't like him to begin with, are jumping on the bandwagon. Again, it's not just "politicians who don't like him"; the condemnation is almost universal and is coming from his supporters too. That's not an excuse for Wikipedia to do the same. Simply stating what was said, without the drama is best. The drama and the reaction is what makes it a story worth including here. and it is best done on his presidential page. Umm, he doesn't have a presidential page; he is not president yet. I assume you meant his campaign page? I agree, and that's where it is (although I see you have completely rewritten it, and I will deal with those changes at that article). -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
For helpful background material about Attorney Khan, see International Business, KM Khan Law Office (Aug. 1, 2016), http://web.archive.org/web/20160801212033/http://www.kmkhanlaw.com/International_Business.html (“E2 and EB5 Investor Immigration and International Business Transactions”) (site discontinued Aug. 2, 2016). -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The user removed the text where the Gallup and CNN/ORC polls showed net negative viewer reactions to the speech. I'd like to see it mentioned that the speech received mixed reviews and that the CNN/ORC and Gallup polls showed net negative public reactions. I think it's alright to retain AF's text that summarizes the content of the speech (law and order etc) and that the speech was widely seen as "dark". Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This user deleted a bunch of content for the supposed reason that so-called "instant polls" are more reliable and that normal polls by CNN/ORC and Gallup are not: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732999673&oldid=732996018
Could someone please restore? I probably don't have to say the obvious but "instant polls" are generally considered the worst kind of polls. See:
Need I go on?
The editor also replaces accurate descriptions of Trump's and Clinton's convention bounces (which are important in campaigns) with weasel words. Please restore. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@ MelanieN:, so sorry I added my comment to a section that I thought would get Bishonen's attention, as I thought perhaps she was keeping an eye on this page for ArbCom purposes. My edit has absolutely nothing to do with the other editor you mentioned. Not related at all. I did leave a note on your talk page, btw. As it turns out, Bishonen and I have sorted that bit. Sorry for the confusion. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the original paragraph about Trump's speech and the reaction to it. ApolloFirenze makes it clear, above, that his version was motivated by partisan considerations, and consensus here has not supported it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the ancestry section and the family tree be under one part? And why isn't the section under "personal life", but rather at the top of the article? Burklemore1 ( talk) 10:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The following was deleted from the Trump University section with a "doesn't appear to have long-term notability" comment:
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican." [1] Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have alarmed legal experts, who have expressed concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence. [2] [3]
From what I have read, this is pretty historic. We have never had a Presidential nominee of a major party using his public position to trash the judge in one of his civil cases. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 00:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
References
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had 'an absolute conflict' in presiding over the litigation given that he was 'of Mexican heritage' and a member of a Latino lawyers' association.
I left a message at the user talk page of SW3 5DL which prompted a discussion there. SW3 would like that conversation to be moved here, and so it is quoted below:
“ | Hi, your indentation at Talk:Donald Trump makes it appear that you're responding to me rather than to Gouncbeatduke. Is that what you intended?
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
02:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
|
” |
Saying he didn't serve in the Vietnam War after all the bits about his legal and appropriate student deferments, his temporary 1-Y status, which in no way exempted him from the draft lottery, and ultimately getting a number well above any possibility of getting called up, seems like an attempt to point out over and over, that Donald Trump did not serve in Vietnam. He appears to have done all the appropriate behaviours, he's said he was prepared to serve, and was lucky to get a high draft number. These edits seem more like undue emphasis and POV editing and certainly beating a dead horse. In addition, I spent an entire morning trying to sort out your insistence that bits about his draft lottery number and his 1-Y status did or did not matter. I simply could not discern what the nuance was there until I'd sorted the entire sequence of events which the sources conveniently have obscured. I pointed that out on the talk page where this discussion belongs. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
"Trump was not drafted." There follows the deferments and his lottery number which fully explain why he wasn't drafted. Saying he did not serve seems to imply something else. Had he been in military service, like George Bush, and did not get assigned to Vietnam, then yes, that would be appropriate. However, he was never in service, therefore he had no opportunity to serve in Vietnam. He was not drafted. Full stop. And you did not have a source which is why you put in 'citation needed.' And I've no idea what you're talking about regarding Trump University. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)