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.

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:

• The minimum wage section is way too long (you don't need a history of his positions - it's just enough to say that he's been inconsistent, favors letting states set the wages and that he's floated the idea of a $10 national minimum wage).
• The Iraq War section also has redundant info (isn't it enough to say he tentatively endorsed it in 2002, publically opposed it in 2004 and has been a vocal critic in the GOP debates? Is it necessary to count the instances since 2004 that he's opposed the war?).
• I think we can do without his position on Pakistan.
• Drop Trump's reference to global cooling in the 1920s. Is this a rationale that he brings up a lot for his climate change denial? If not, I think we can skip it.

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)

The Political Positions section here is already much, much longer than the corresponding sections of other national politicians (HClinton, Biden, Romney, McCain). I would be in favor of pruning content as suggested above, but not replacing it with other content. CFredkin ( talk) 01:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Tim Kaine has a longer section strictly on political positions (note that I'm not including all the implicit positions that are from his tenure as mayor, governor and senator - if those were included, his political positions section would be vastly longer). The other individuals that you mentioned are all prominent politicians with long governing or legislative records. As a result, their 'political positions' are chiefly covered under campaigns and their tenures as governors/senators, which is not the case with Trump who has no political experience. If the 'positions' that are currently covered under Mike Pence's tenure as governor and congressman were turned into a 'political positions' section, he'd have one longer than Trump. The same with HRC. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:15, 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)

My proposed edits can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732278465&oldid=732277728. This is all unchallenged material taken directly from /info/en/?search=Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump. All highly important issues that have gotten lots of attention and have global ramifications. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. That edit contains additions, removals, moves - I wasn't able to make out what you actually want to add. Can you untangle it here to show just what it is you want to add? -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The first is about his position on the WTO: Trump wants to renegotiate WTO or leave it (this was in response to a question to how he'd get the WTO to get along with his 15-35% tariffs. This goes against bipartisan consensus, and would have global ramifications. The second is about how Trump rejects that the US automatically extends NATO security guarantees, tying them to unspecified 'obligations' that NATO members must do in order to get the US to defend them. He has also suggested that he would leave NATO unless his unspecified changes are made to the alliance. Both of these steps go against post-WWII bipartisan consensus and would have global ramifications. The third is about Trump considering recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and removing sanctions on Russia related to its support for Russian separatists in the Ukraine. The fourth is about Trump's urging Russia to conduct cyberespionage against Hillary Clinton. All these edits have been sourced, have been up on the 'Political Positions of Donald Trump' for some time and without challenge. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The minimum wage section, which I expanded, needs to be longer than normal because of the manner of Trump's inconsistency on a very important topic. Examples are needed to actually demonstrate who inconsistent he has been (or, if you will, to let the reader decide what Trump's position really is). For example, to simply say that "he [now] favors letting states set the wages" isn't true - look at his latest statement, which says (among other things) that there should be a federal minimum wage of $10.

Having said that, I've trimmed the section a bit. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily supporting a trim. I frankly don't think that the section on Trump's political positions should be shortened (nor do I think it's consistent with how other politicians' pages look - see my response to CFredkin). I'm just saying that if length is the only thing keeping out Trump's positions on NATO, WTO and Russia, then other content should be removed to allow that content in. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

User:CFredkin, User:John Broughton, User:MelanieN. Given that the stated reason for deleting the content is inaccurate (section too long compared to other politicians' pages) and that there are no accuracy and reliability problems with the proposed edits, do I have your permission to restore the content? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I still believe the section is already much too long. I also don't agree with the notion that Hillary's career in politics justifies her having 360 words in the corresponding section in her bio compared to 2020 for Trump. Hillary has not held political office for 4 years, and did not address many of the issues of day as Secretary of State prior to that. Also, I don't believe the topics being proposed for addition are as notable as those already included. CFredkin ( talk) 17:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want to add more to HRC's corresponding section, go ahead. Neither I nor probably anyone else would have problems with you adding her signature issues to her corresponding section, making it as long as Trump's. The reason why they're not there is presumably because much of it is already covered under her tenure as first lady (attitude towards healthcare), her voting in the Senate (a bunch of positions), her Senate and Presidential campaigning (lots of positions there) and her record as SoS. By no standard is Trump's section on political positions too long (compare to all the political positions covered under Tim Kaine's, Mike Pence's, Obama's and HRC's pages) and the notion that Trump's position on Pakistan, and the redundant text on the minimum wage and the Iraq War are more notable than Trump's statements on NATO, WTO and Russia is frankly incomprehensible (do you seriously believe that?). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

My main point is that (unlike the articles on Kaine and Pence) full Political Positions articles already exist for both Trump and Clinton. The Political Positions section of Hillary's bio adheres to WP:Summary style, which explains its length. The Political Positions section for Trump's bio is already much longer than WP:Summary style would suggest. Once again, I would be in favor of pruning it, and agree that the reference to Pakistan should go. CFredkin ( talk) 18:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a completely different rationale. It sounds like you need to create a talk for that specifically and obtain consensus rather than hold up content indiscriminately that no one else has expressed disagreement with while you flip through different reasons in inconsistent ways to exclude it. If Trump's 'political positions' section is meant to be a summary of his full Political Positions article, then there is no argument to be had that NATO, WTO and Russia earn mentions. They clearly do, given their salience. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I've stated repeatedly that this section is already too long. I've provided multiple reasons why I'm making that statement, but my core argument has remained the same. CFredkin ( talk) 18:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I'm curious, did you ever state that the section was too long before I added those three bits of content? Adding a ping ( User:CFredkin) in case you missed this. I'm genuinely curious. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging other regular editors to this page: User:Dervorguilla , User:Anythingyouwant, User: Neutrality, User:Nbauman, User:John_Broughton, User:Volunteer_Marek. Is there any way to move forward on this? Isn't the reasonable position here to allow my content in, and have a separate debate over whether to shorten the section? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Having looked through some of Snooganssnoogans' edits and suggestions, I agree with him here. Much of the content that he added should be here, and some of the existing stuff should be shortened or dropped (although it looks like some movement has already been done on this point).

As said above, it also cannot be reasonably disputed that Trump's positions on NATO, WTO and Russia belong here. These are core themes of high importance. Editors can quibble about how exactly this material should be included, but it certainly should be in here. Neutrality ^talk 19:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Ihardlythinkso and User:Doc9871. CFredkin ( talk) 19:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think most readers would be most interested in finding out what his established, time-independent positions are. Some may also be interested in finding out about his reactive, time-varying positions; but I can't help them. Writing up a timely and balanced compilation would be a Sisyphean task. Our consensus text would become outdated within days, not months.

Here are two authoritative compilations of Trump's established positions: Donald J Trump for President, Donald J Trump: Positions; Financial Times, Donald Trump promises security and prosperity as US president.

I believe our first task is to write up an authoritatively balanced summary of his established positions. Only then should we supplement it -- piecemeal, section by section. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 20:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, would you be fine with allowing my edits in until you have reached a consensus to go with your proposal to revamp the section (which seems more relevant for a separate discussion)? Because as it stands, my edits, which are all covered extensively and in-depth by reliable news sources around the world and stirring up reactions from politicians, national security experts and journalists, are being kept out in full from this article for reasons that don't apply to any other content. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:45, 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)

Ok, I made some restore edits. Let me know (or fix in edits) if anything was added in or deleted badly. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• There's nothing "indiscriminate" about the removal of content that had no consensus to be here. It was just simply put in the article. This article is under strict sanctions, and editors are therefore not allowed to dump a bunch of content here with no prior attempt to get consensus for their edits. It's pretty simple, isn't it? One would think... Doc talk 03:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @ Doc9871: I hope that you're not saying that editors should always post first to this talk page, then achieve consensus, and then, lastly, add information to the article. That would be contrary to WP:BB, which is an official Wikipedia guideline, and which does encourage people to "simply put" content into articles. As for the strict sanctions that you mention, I'll quote: " All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." (emphasis added). So yes, edit warring is rather sharply curtailed, but again, I can't see that as applying to the addition of new material that hasn't been controversial. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:48, 2 August 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)

Allegedly refusing to rent to blacks

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:

• Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).

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)

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) 20:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Nbauman:

On 31 July 2016, you wrote-

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.

Anythingyouwant actually joined Wikipedia on 29 April 2004, not "24 July 2016". He's made 65,000 edits; of his last 2,000, fewer than a fifth were made to the Trump article, not "most". He appears to have a broad-focus encyclopedia-building account, not a "single-purpose account".

I've posted a helpful warning about Harassment of other users at your Talk page.

-- Dervorguilla ( talk) 08:06, 3 August 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)

Student deferments applied only so long as the student was enrolled and maintaining a full course load. Medical deferments made them completely ineligible unless the condition was one that was expected to improve. In that case, the person would be called in for another physical to evaluate his status. Unless bone spurs are expected to improve, and there is evidence that Trump was reevaluated and deemed fit to serve, ABC's speculation makes no sense. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think what ABC was saying is that the medical deferment allowed him to avoid the draft, and at the same time the high lottery number allowed him to avoid the draft; they both had the same effect, so saying that one did help him and one didn't is not necessarily correct. Just like if I break a leg and also contract the flu; they both can explain why I took a sick day from work, and saying one explains the sick day while the other does not is incorrect. Anyway, a NY Times article today reports that Trump believed he was subject to medical reexamination because the condition was temporary (the NYT says it's treatable "through stretching, orthotics or sometimes surgery"). [1] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are two pertinent quotes from news reports. ABC News:

New York Times:

Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears from your edit that you reverted, that bone spurs on the feet is not something the Selective Service reevaluated. I know that anything to do with orthopedic problems, especially involving the feet, do outright disqualify people from service, even for volunteers. So Trump's bone spurs appears to have disqualified him. A high lottery number, which millions of people had after the changes, would have exempted him anyway. You have to be careful that this isn't becoming WP:SYNTH. Trump is probably right that if he still had an active number and it had been called, he would still have been required to report. They could have reevaluated him and because he had an orthopedic issue, would probably have disqualified him again. Since there is no longer a draft, it seems moot. Are you trying to say he was a draft dodger? SW3 5DL ( talk) 15:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Is that question for me? Of course I'm not suggesting he was a draft dodger. On the contrary, I'm saying that Trump was not relying solely upon a medical deferment after his student deferments ran out. He was also relying upon a high lottery number in case the medical deferment was overturned (e.g. due to a medical finding that he had healed or never had a serious problem to begin with). I don't think it's correct to say in Wikipedia's voice that the high lottery number was completely unhelpful to Trump. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:34, 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. "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 a direct quote from the New York Times. I want to put that quote into a footnote. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:43, 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)

If the New York Times is "just making an observation" then I fail to understand how they could be guilty of unreliable synthesis. Incidentally, please note that I'm not the one who inserted the NYT article into this BLP. Anyway, before we discuss whether the NYT is being unreliable, how about we consider whether my actual edit to the BLP text is okay or not? The BLP presently says this: "Trump has said, 'I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number', but because of his medical exemption, his lottery number was irrelevant." Here is my proposed edited version: "Trump has said, 'I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number', though the lottery number and the medical exemption were somewhat redundant." Do you object to that BLP edit, or do you merely object to using the New York Times as a reliable source? SW3, you said above "Trump is probably right that if he still had an active number and it had been called, he would still have been required to report. They could have reevaluated him and because he had an orthopedic issue, would probably have disqualified him again." But if they found that the orpthpedic issue had been resolved (or was never really serious), then the high lottery number would have been relevant, right? So maybe we shouldn't say in Wikipedia's voice that it was irrelevant, right? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it was relevant to him and believe him when he says he thought the high number kept him from getting drafted. Back then, it was like having a sword hanging over your head, and was a daily stressor for all military aged males at that time with or without deferments for any reason. People were paranoid about their grades and fought to get pass/fail courses to help relieve the stress of constantly fighting to get good grades. Many people were anxious to get into grad school for the continuing deferments they could get. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then I will go ahead with my BLP edit (described above) removing the word "irrelevant". I'm not sure if you want me to refrain from putting the NYT quote into the NYT footnote. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:32, 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 haven't disagreed with anything you just said about student deferments, and I don't disagree with it now either. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:16, 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)

As I said above, the NYT reports that Trump's condition was treatable "through stretching, orthotics or sometimes surgery". Trump himself agrees that it was not a permanent condition ("I would have had to go eventually because that was a minor medical — it was called 'minor medical'"). Even if you disagree with the NYT and Trump himself that Trump's condition was not permanent, still a reexamination might have revealed that the original diagnosis was not entirely correct, or that the condition was not so severe as to justify a deferment. Anyway, do you think it's proper for this BLP to say in Wikipedia's voice that the high lottery number was "irrelevant"? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:26, 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)

On the bone spurs resolving, I know DOD policy would not have taken him. It involved the feet. Two areas that were automatically disqualifying: feet and eyes. But I don't blame him for thinking he could still be drafted and believing it was the high number that kept him at home. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The DOD has never had any problem taking draftees who once had a foot condition that has since completely resolved, or that has sufficiently resolved, or that has been found to be not as severe as originally believed. As for going with what Trump believes, I'm not sure it would be useful for this BLP to say "Trump believes so-and-so" about this, especially because readers will wonder whether reliable sources agree with him or not. The main problem that I would like to fix is that this BLP should not opine that the high lottery number was irrelevant, given that the reliable sources don't say it was irrelevant (the NYT did quote a former Selective Service official saying it was irrelevant, but the NYT refrained from confirming that in its own voice, and ABC also indicated there is no proof it was irrelevant). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with that, but you have to ask why wouldn't the NYTimes confirm their own quote from the Selective Service guy. You, see that's where they're getting synthetic. Trump believes the high number was relevant and he could be right, because had they wanted to reevaluate his medical deferment, the high number would have kept him out. So it is relevant in that regard and that's probably exactly why he believed the high number benefitted his status. . SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, we don't know what Trump (or anyone else) believes. We only know what he says and what he does. We have no way of really knowing what he thinks. Memories also tend to warp over time, and we're talking about something that happened almost 50 years ago. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps they wouldn't confirm the quote from the Selective Service guy for the same reason they wouldn't confirm the quote from Trump about it: neutrality, uncertainty, et cetera. Or perhaps the NYT knew the Selective Service guy was full of it but wanted to quote someone disagreeing with Trump. Anyway, I'll revert my revert later today. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Aye, sounds good. SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

[Redacted PA] The NYT has confirmed that the draft number had no effect on Donald Trump getting drafted as the Donald's rich daddy had already bought him a 4F classification. See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 20:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

We've been discussing that NYT article at great length in this talk page section. Did you know that? You really should run for a seat on Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, GoUNC. You'd fit well. Cheers! Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact Anythingyouwant is topic banned on all abortion related articles for POV-pushing is not a personal attack, it is just a fact. The fact you are continuing your POV-pushing here for an anti-abortion candidate is also a fact. The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, praised Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees as "exceptionally strong," while the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America called the candidates on the list "a woman's worst nightmare." ^[1] Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 21:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's also a fact that Austin Rivers was a great basketball player for Duke against UNC. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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:

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)

I understand that. So if we want that level of detail, let's say that, instead of the weird "perhaps" language that was there before. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, hopefully this edit will do the job. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump has said, "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number", ^[1] though it is unclear whether the high draft number provided him with any protection that was not already provided by the medical deferment. ^{[2] [3]}

arbitrary page split to navigate section better

@ Anythingyouwant: What exactly is the point you're trying to make with these edits and inserting the additional material into the footnote? The information on his draft status and his student deferments seems straight forward to me. I am particularly concerned about the last sentence in that paragragh. Forgive me, but what importance/significance do you ascribe to the last part of the sentence, " though it is unclear whether the high draft number provided him with any protection that was not already provided by the medical deferment." SW3 5DL ( talk) 06:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make any particular point, just trying to present pertinent information from reliable sources. The statement "though it is unclear whether the high draft number provided him with any protection that was not already provided by the medical deferment" simply reflects that the cited articles from ABC News and the NY Times address the matter without concluding that the high draft number did (or did not) provide him with any protection that was not already provided by the medical deferment. Doesn't that accurately describe these sources? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 12:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes that important? SW3 5DL ( talk) 14:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Two things. First, the NYT devoted substantial space to reporting about it. Second, if we were to just quote Trump saying he got a lucky high number that kept him out of the war, and ended the section that way, we would not be accurately conveying the uncertainty surrounding the matter (as evidenced by the footnoted quote from the Selective Service guy). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with SW3 5DL on this particular issue. I don't see the encyclopedic benefit of either the quote or the sentence about it being unclear. It appears to be undue emphasis and improper synthesis on a point that's already made clearly and concisely earlier in the paragraph. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed the whole sentence. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, @ DrFleischman:. I agree with the policy you've quoted. SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

Actually, I've been looking into this. Trump's lottery number was not irrelevant, though it has been made to seem so in a New York Times article. After Trump graduated from UPenn, he was given a 1-A classification in July, 1968. In October, 1968 Trump was given another military medical exam because they were getting ready to draft him. Trump says he produced a letter from a doctor. During that exam, the military doctor classified him as 1-Y, a deferment for a minor medical aliment, which Trump says was bone spurs. This classification and it's meaning in terms of continuing draft eligibility seems to be misunderstood either deliberately or innocently by reporters. 1-Y still made Trump eligible for the draft but only in a national emergency. Well, turns out anything can qualify as a national emergency. The Selective Service need only declare an emergency in providing troops for combat, for example.

Then in December 1969, the draft lottery was created to address the needs for more troops in Vietnam. Because Trump was only a 1-Y, he was eligible to participate in this draft lottery. However, he received a high number, around 356, which is nearly at the top end of 'never going to get called up.' Had Trump's birthdate been given a lower number, say under 140, he would indeed have been drafted. So the high number was not irrelevant as a New York Times article has a Selective Service guy saying. On the contrary, it was the thing that exempted Trump and no doubt he was well aware of his status and sweated out that drawing like everybody else did.

This is likely why he says the lottery kept him out of the draft. It did. So to keep adding in the bit about the high draft number being irrelevant is not a good idea. I know we don't go by truth, necessarily, we go by reliable sources. But looking at bits from all the other sources puts the picture together. The problem article is the New York Times, and in reading that, it seems more like an opinion piece than an objective news article. On top of that, in December 1971, the Selective Service eliminated all 1-Y classifications and changed them to 4F. They changed Trumps classification in 1972, but by then he had already been eliminated from any future draft by his high lottery number. Once his birthdate had been chosen, it could not be chosen again. So you see, it is the 1-Y deferment that is irrelevant and not the lottery number. SW3 5DL ( talk) 00:28, 4 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)

Olay, well in that case, I'm going to ping @ Bishonen: to look this over. He commented earlier about civility issues. Maybe he can offer advice. SW3 5DL ( talk) 00:51, 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)

The quote was way, way too long. If it is to be included here, it must be in the context of simply saying "Trump's statements regarding the Khan family have received widespread condemnation from McCain, Ryan, [insert other big shots] and President Obama" after we include a sentence or two on Trump's Khan feud (if that is to be included). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Obama on Trump

I added this to the article (proofreading):

"At a White House news conference on August 2, 2016, Obama delivered an extraudionarly harsh denunciation of Trump, stating that "The Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. He keeps on proving it. The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that made such extraudionarly sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn't appear to have basic knowledge of critical issues in Europe, the Middle East, in Asia, means that he's woefully unprepared to do this job. There has to be a point at which you say, 'Enough.' What does this say about your party that this is your standard-bearer? This isn't a situation where you have an episodic gaffe. This is daily and weekly where they are distancing themselves from statements he's making. There has to be a point at which you say, 'This is not somebody I can support for president of the United States, even if he purports to be a member of my party." ^[1]

Shortly after I made the edit, some content I added in it was removed. I'm bringing the content I added here so the community can establish via consensus whether it is worthy of inclusion on the article. Plankton55 ( talk) 15:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Statements from members of one party that attack those in another party should generally be included only in the campaign articles - that would be Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. And they need to be extraordinary (as this one is, admittedly) to be worth putting even there, I think.

This article does have a relatively short synopsis of the campaign article - the section titled "Presidential campaign, 2016". I can see a case for expanding that slightly, by saying something like:

At a White House news conference on August 2, 2016, President Obama delivered an extraordinarily harsh denunciation of Trump, stating that Trump was unfit to serve as president.

But that's the maximum that I think would be justifiable in this article. The proper place for any lengthy quotation or discussion is Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. I don't think this belongs on his bio. Obama's comments occurred within the context of Trump's presidential campaign. It is certainly appropriate on the campaign page, but not here. As to the section on this article regarding his presidential campaign, it should not be included there. That section need only be a paragraph mentioning his run for president, platform, etc, which it does now. The Trump presidential article then provides full information. . SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It is extraordinary that a sitting president should comment on anybody in such terms. This goes to character, rather than the regular run of political chat. I support John Broughton's wording above. -- Pete ( talk) 20:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I also support the wording recommended by John Broughton and Pete. It is an extraordinary piece of history and should be included here. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 22:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

An attack by a political opponent with a huge stake in seeing whoever is running against Hillary lose has absolutely no place in Trump's bio. CFredkin ( talk) 23:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If you check, it's Hillary who is the political opponent with a huge stake. Obama, not so much. A character assessment by the President of the USA is a pretty big deal. -- Pete ( talk) 02:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any reason it belongs here, if anywhere. Objective3000 ( talk) 23:56, 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)

I think it's absolutely essential to have a concise collection of his political positions on signature issues and highly salient matters in the main article. If you check other politicians' pages, their political positions will usually be implicitly covered under their tenure as congressmen/governors or their campaigns for office. Trump has never held public office or run any serious campaign before, so there is no opportunity to list his actions while in office. If you were to include all the 'political positions' that are covered on Clinton's and Pence's pages under their tenure in office, their list of political positions is significantly longer than Trump's. If you check Tim Kaine's page, his 'political positions' section is of similar length to Trump (even when you exclude many of Kaine's positions are implicitly covered under his tenure as Mayor, Governor and Senator). I think it would be malpractice of Wikipedia to not have content on the political positions of one of two individuals likely to hold the most important office in the world. Isn't that (i) one of the key reasons people check this article (the 2016 race) + (ii) vastly more salient (or at least equally important to) three months from election day than his entertainment and business career? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the total length of this article, that section is fine (and informative). -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 12:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's way too long. Per WP:Summary style, it needs to be shortened just like for comparable BLPs. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I just trimmed 2,500 characters that did not add much from the section. It's as concise as it could be I think. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Prior to that trimming there were about 13,000 characters (11,000 characters excluding spaces). The previous section (about the 2016 campaign) is about 5,000 characters including spaces. I'd like to see the positions section at 5,000 or less (including spaces). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with that. By the way, I'll trim some non-essential bits (which some may want to revert) for the next 15 mins. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I did some more trimming. I think this is as good as it gets with one exception (the minimum wage section doesn't necessarily have to outline each contradictory position he has taken - it's enough to just say he's been inconsistent and contradictory). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Good job. I went ahead and removed a paragraph from the Foreign policy section with explanation [4] -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 17:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that explanation stands up. First, his take on Afghanistan is a current position (leave troops there). Second, Trump cites his wisdom on Iraq and Libya repeatedly on the campaign trail (often incorrectly), as such they are huge parts of the campaign. Third, candidates' positions on Iraq and Libya are hugely important for gauging where candidates actually stand on wars and interventions in practice. It's one thing to speak in hypotheticals and in hindsight and another to actually have to take a decision on the spot. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

Coverage of the story has become extensive and in-depth, with inputs from across the spectrum (Democratic politicians, Republican politicians, and veterans groups). The exceptions to WP:NOTNEWS seem to apply, and thus this content should be allowed in. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree this has become a monster-big deal and needs to be covered. Even my own local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, which leans conservative, gave half of the Monday front page to this story, with a banner headline and several pictures. However, I would prefer to see it in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article, in the section called "people and groups". In a subsection titled "Khizr Khan" or "the Khan family", no "feud." (It takes two to make a feud, but Khan is trying to de-escalate while Trump keeps attacking. [14]) I'll move to that article's talk page and try to come up with a starter draft. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely belongs in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article, but I think it should also - briefly - be mentioned here. In particular the fact that Trump is being criticized by members of his own party is quite significant. It's more or less unprecedented that high ranking members of a political party would harshly criticize their own nominee for president (at least once the primaries are over). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW I see that the soldier son, Humayun Khan (soldier), already has an article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC) And so do the parents: Khizr and Ghazala Khan. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur with User:Volunteer Marek. At most, it deserves a single sentence in this article. Similar to Joe the Plumber in John McCain. NickCT ( talk) 19:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good analogy. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Me too! ;-)

After all, other stuff does exist. NickCT ( talk) 19:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is worthy of mention, even if only for a sentence or two. Neutrality ^talk 19:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. It belongs on the Donald Trump presidential campaign 2016 article. How can anybody answer that question posed by George Stephanopoulos over the weekend, unless they had a child who died in the military? It's a Clinton talking point and belongs on the presidential campaign page. This is a BLP and the items that belong here are to man, not his presidential campaign. SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• The man and his campaign overlap, of course. I'm not sure what BLP has to do with anything. Neutrality ^talk 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I added a paragraph to the article Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Someone might want to abstract a sentence from it to go in this article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no consensus for that. This is political theater. It isn't something Trump initiated like the comments about the judge hearing the Trump University case. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Political theater" is what Donald Trump's campaign is all about, as he would be the first to say. And while he may not have initiated it (since he was responding to an interviewer's questions), he certainly has kept it up. More to the point, the national media of all stripes have kept it up. This is still front page news, several days later. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't make it appropriate here. And if you take his comments, the "firestorm" is simply being whipped up by the media which supports Hillary. It's way out of proportion to what was said and politicians who don't like him to begin with, are jumping on the bandwagon. That's not an excuse for Wikipedia to do the same. Simply stating what was said, without the drama is best, and it is best done on his presidential page. SW3 5DL ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: Which particular "exceptions to WP:NOTNEWS"? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 01:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not accustomed to citing rules in my editing so I may get this wrong but as far as I understand it, the exceptions to "WP:NOTNEWS" are "extended and in-depth news coverage", having "demonstrable effect or impact (such as political controversy, troop movements, economic changes, etc.)" and common sense ("Sometimes the exact long-lasting impact of a current event in the news will not be apparent, but common sense dictates that there will be an impact"). The inclusion of this fits those I think. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN: You were commenting, "Even my own local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune..." Well, here's what my local newspaper had to say!  ;)

Khizr Khan’s Speech, Ghazala Khan’s Comments and Donald Trump’s Replies - WSJ:

"Trump was noting that Ghazala Khan stood silent next to her husband for seven minutes Thursday night... Trump was asked about the speech... He said: ‘He was, you know, very emotional... If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.’ ... Her husband said later: ‘... I was strengthened by her presence... So her being there was the strength that I could hold my composure. I am much weaker than she is in such matters.’"

(Most relevant passages from WSJ compilation.) A fair paraphrase: When asked about Khizr Khan's speech, Trump said he appeared very emotional, whereas his wife, who was standing next to him, had nothing to say. He added that "maybe" someone hadn't allowed her to say anything. Khan replied that his wife was better at maintaining her composure than he was and that she was there to give him the strength to make his speech. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Mrs. Khan said she was too emotional and I believe her when she said she was afraid if she spoke she would lose her composure. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I normally don't visit this page, but as with other politicians / candidates, whether this is news of the day or just an event in the back and forth of politics, stuff like this only belongs in the main biographical article of a person if it is a crucial, pivotal, defining, etc., event in their career. WP:NOT#NEWS suggests the reason, in part. There are plenty of sources, but it is far too early to tell. I would keep it out for now, and if he were to lose the election look back later to see if this is attributed by the sources to be one of the relevant or defining issues. Otherwise, there are reasons why we have sub-articles about campaigns, political careers, etc. - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, sorry, but your analysis above is POV and wrong. That (coverage) doesn't make it appropriate here. Yes it does. The extent of our coverage is determined to a large extent by what Reliable Sources do; we don't decide on our own to puff up a minor story or ignore a major one. And if you take his comments, the "firestorm" is simply being whipped up by the media which supports Hillary. Dead wrong. The firestorm is coming from politicians and public figures of all sides, [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)

It bears noting that a current GOP congressman has now decided to vote for Clinton, citing Trump's behavior towards the Khans specifically as his rationale for doing so. It would be hard to argue that the story doesn't have major political ramifications already. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It is just one of many controversial actions by Trump during his campaign. While it may be relevant to his campaign article, it is of little significance overall to the subject of this article. TFD ( talk) 15:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

While I do think it deserves a sentence at this article, I don't see any place where it naturally fits. We need to be careful what we add here because there is still a lot of time til the election. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 18:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's actually not "just" one of many controversial actions. This one has had a lot of tractions and has been going on for some time now. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

For helpful background material about Attorney Khan, see International Business, KM Khan Law Office (Aug. 1, 2016), http://web.archive.org/web/20160801212033/http://www.kmkhanlaw.com/International_Business.html (“E2 and EB5 Investor Immigration and International Business Transactions”) (site discontinued Aug. 2, 2016). -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly relevant. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think it bears a small reference in the post-nomination section of the campaign article as something that caused his numbers to tank. p b p 19:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We would need to confirm that with polling though, which can be a bit hard. It's unclear why his poll numbers are slipping at the moment. It could be many of the numerous things he's said over the last few days or even just still be part of Clinton's convention bounce. Nate Silver says that this is a particularly hard time to judge polling, due to two convention bounces. That said, I think it's reasonable to guess that the Khan feud plays some role. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

I've restored the original version, per above. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:42, 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:

• NYT calls them "wildly unreliable" in their polling standards: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/pollingstandards.pdf
• This political science blog refers to them as unreliable: http://duckofminerva.com/2008/09/is-mccain-about-to-lose-post-debate.html
• This Independent piece refers to them as unreliable: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/laid-back-bush-keeps-gore-at-arms-length-635398.html

Need I go on?

The editor also replaces accurate descriptions of Trump's and Clinton's convention bounces (which are important in campaigns) with weasel words. Please restore. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A poll by CNN/ORC (very well-respected) conducted RIGHT AFTER Trump's speech said that 75% had a good reaction to it. Now, after the speech happened, the media went in an all-out attack on his speech, using the infamous word "dark". Just look at this: http://i.imgur.com/NBRt2c8.jpg And there were many many articles on how hard the media attacked Trump:

• http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2016/07/22/networks-trump-dark-speech-vengeful-demagogue
• http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trumps-speech-wasnt-dark-or-angry-the-media-out-touch-17099
• http://www.dailywire.com/news/7734/theres-one-word-entire-media-used-describe-trump-aaron-bandler

So after this, the Gallup poll (which by the way, if you look into it, are majorty democrat) is way worse than the instant poll, because people have been influenced by the media. I mean, it's not some kind of a secret. And by the way, even CNN tried to hide their instant poll, because it didn't fit their narrative. Many articles on that too:

• http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/22/75-percent-positive-response-to-donald-trump-speech-so-cnn-trashes-its-own-poll/
• http://newsonable.com/cnn-hides-its-own-poll-number-75-react-positively-to-trumps-speech/

The point is, polls conducted long after the speech are unreliable, as people have been influenced by the media. That's why the CNN/ORC instant poll should be used. This is not rocket science. Also, why is there a need to mention how many particular convention bounce points a candidate received in a MAIN page of the person. We need to trim this article, not expand on such nonsense.

Also, all these polls have such liberal bias. If we looked at independant polling sites like Longroom (who have correctly predicted the winner since 2004), we see Trump is LEADING, not losing to Clinton: https://www.longroom.com/polls/ ApolloFirenze ( talk) 18:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources and you're doing original research. Please check the discretionary sanctions notice at the top of the page. You can't reinsert/change this material once it's been challenged. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No one, except you I guess, considers an instant poll more reliable than normal comprehensive polls. They don't even release methodology and full results for them. They are meant for instant coverage on the TV network that conducts it and not more than that (though it's unsurprising that Breitbart runs with it as the authoritative truth). Which is why this very same organization conducted a comprehensive poll over the next two days. Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Instant polls are not, as the NYT polling standards make clear. The CNN/ORC and Gallup surveys released two days are. As for your last point, Wikipedia does not rely on cooky "unskewered" polls from some random site no one has heard of. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Huh? First of all, how dare you say I'm the only one who thinkgs something. Are you serious? Stop living in a world of your own please. Second of all, you straight up ignored what I said about these polls being majority democrats giving their opinion. How is that fair? Also, polling averages are full of majority democratic voters. The media is liberal, is is that hard to understand for you? ApolloFirenze ( talk) 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to see we have entered "How dare you" territory, ApolloFirenze. Please take a look at my warning above about how incivility on this page can lead to a topic ban from Donald Trump-related pages. I'm quite serious. Also, if you think people find your claims "hard to understand" (=nobody agrees with them), the thing to do is to give evidence (links to reliable sources) for your statements, not merely rehash them. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC).

Hm? So he/she can be rude to me, but I have to be respectful to everyone and get walked all over by people? Got it. ApolloFirenze ( talk) 21:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Bishonen: can you take a look at these diffs: Donald Trump here? Thanks SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Bishonen: See diff 6 in particular. "(...revert vandalism)". Here the user in question restores some material that's supported in part by an item on the New Yorker's "Daily Intelligencer" subsite. (Headline: "Hillary Clinton Is Running Not Just As the Democrat But As the Candidate of Democracy Itself". Apparently Johnson ahd Stein aren't, though.) An editor had appropriately removed the material per WP:BLPREMOVE.

Contributions by that same user at Hillary Clinton (per biographies of living persons, removing slander attempts.) and Hillary Clinton talk ("I removed all of your continuing edit-war edits because no consensus exists for you continuing edit-war edits."). -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, your link doesn't work for me. Are you and Dervorguilla changing the subject to a different user in mid discussion? That's confusing, and in any case it is best to call attention to diffs you think are problematic at the admin's talk page, rather than here on the talk page; here we shouldn't be talking about other users, but rather page content. (If you agree with that approach, User:Bishonen?) -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@ 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 do, MelanieN. I've responded on my own page. The link works for me, but it's labs, they're down and up like a jumping frog in my experience. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 5 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)

I would add this. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree with that. Inserting edits into sources to draw attention to points you want to make, seems like an end run around the chore of obtaining consensus. And do please remove that edit you made regarding the draft. Firstly, you've not got consensus for such an addition, and secondly, and this is really the point, you've not got a source. This is a BLP. We don't make stuff up about living people and hope we find a source later. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

User:SW3 5DL, I do not understand what you're referring to. I did not introduce any edit into a source, and I didn't make anything up. Feel free to explain further what you mean, either here or at user talk. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

here and here. Are these your edits, or am I mistaken? SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The first diff is by an editor named "Mprudhom" and I don't know anything about it. The second diff is by me. In the second diff, I did not introduce any edit into a source, and I didn't make anything up. Feel free to explain further what you mean, either here or at user talk. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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:

Saying he didn't serve in the Vietnam War after all the bits about his legal and appropriate student deferments, his temporary 1-Y status, which in no way exempted him from the draft lottery, and ultimately getting a number well above any possibility of getting called up, seems like an attempt to point out over and over, that Donald Trump did not serve in Vietnam. He appears to have done all the appropriate behaviours, he's said he was prepared to serve, and was lucky to get a high draft number. These edits seem more like undue emphasis and POV editing and certainly beating a dead horse. In addition, I spent an entire morning trying to sort out your insistence that bits about his draft lottery number and his 1-Y status did or did not matter. I simply could not discern what the nuance was there until I'd sorted the entire sequence of events which the sources conveniently have obscured. I pointed that out on the talk page where this discussion belongs. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that this edit is not by me? It is by someone else. Moreover, I support making the following edit, but I cannot do it yet because of 1RR: "Trump was not drafted during did not serve in the military during the Vietnam War,[18] nor did he volunteer for military or alternative public service, nor did he publicly protest against the Vietnam War.[citation needed]". Do you support this edit or oppose it? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe my comments make it plain that, no I do not support such an edit. The stable edit that was there before you and the other editor added these bits, already fully makes clear that he did not serve in Vietnam. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The previous version said "Trump was not drafted during the Vietnam War.[18]" Why not change it to say he didn't serve in Vietnam? In any event, the sentence is much too long now, and I oppose the other editor's insertion of a statement that Trump did not volunteer. And I totally reject your accusation that "You've not got a source for any such thing." Please retract that accusation in view of the quote I gave above per the NY Times: "'I was never a fan of the Vietnam War,' he said. 'But I was never at the protest level, either, because I had other things to do.'" I only inserted that material temporarily until 1RR allows me to revert, and it is entirely accurate. Also, please retract your accusation that I have made up false information about Trump University. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Trump was not drafted." There follows the deferments and his lottery number which fully explain why he wasn't drafted. Saying he did not serve seems to imply something else. Had he been in military service, like George Bush, and did not get assigned to Vietnam, then yes, that would be appropriate. However, he was never in service, therefore he had no opportunity to serve in Vietnam. He was not drafted. Full stop. And you did not have a source which is why you put in 'citation needed.' And I've no idea what you're talking about regarding Trump University. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to go in circles with you anymore about how this particular material should be edited about Vietnam. Vastly more serious is your accusation that, "You've not got a source for any such thing" regarding material I inserted about Vietnam, and your accusation regarding Trump University that "you've not got a source. This is a BLP. We don't make stuff up about living people and hope we find a source later." I have given you verbatim quotes from the New York Times, CNN, and the LA Times to establish that I have sources for everything discussed. You won't discuss it at your user talk page, so I'm asking you to please retract your accusations here. The reason why I inserted a "cn" tag regarding Vietnam is because the sentence required sourcing in view (e.g.) of the other editor's assertion that Trump did not volunteer for "alternative public service". I only inserted the material about protests temporarily because I could not revert yet due to 1RR. In any event, I have got a source for everything I inserted regarding Vietnam, and I did not make stuff up regarding Trump University. Can you please acknowledge those two things or not, because if you cannot then I will have to seek assistance. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The question now is do you see the difference as I've outlined above between 'service' and 'not drafted?' The issue is not service in Vietnam, but rather, the fact he wasn't drafted. There follows the reasons why. I will strike the bits you've taken exception to. SW3 5DL ( talk) 04:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for striking those bits. And please feel free to restore yesterday's version of the sentence in this BLP about not being drafted. I cannot do it yet because of 1RR. I would phrase it a bit more generally than you would, to say that he never "served" in Vietnam (which would cover being drafted as well as volunteering), but the way you like is a big improvement over what's in the BLP now. Thanks again, in advance, for striking those bits. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do we need to say he didn't volunteer? SW3 5DL ( talk) 04:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to say it explicitly. But it might be useful to imply it (by using general language about not having served) because that might appease the editor who thought it was important (thereby contributing to stability of this article), and of course many sources confirm that he didn't serve in Vietnam (as either a draftee or a volunteer). But it's no big deal, if you'd prefer to merely say he wasn't drafted. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

He simply did not demonstrate any behaviors that would even remotely suggest he would volunteer. Also, 'things he didn't do,' is a silly concept. He didn't protest the war. He didn't burn his draft card. He didn't neglect his studies. He didn't protest in front of the White House screaming Hey! Hey! LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today? Not to mention, there's no expectation for any young man to deliberately volunteer for Vietnam given the nature of the war and the circumstances at the time. The only men who did that were in prison or headed for prison and the judge gave them a choice, thanks to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's clever scheme to send young men desperate to avoid prison for likely ginned up charges who were represented by incompetent public defenders. Almost all were young, poorly educated black men. They got their records wiped for agreeing to this suicide mission. Of course, so many of them were killed, far more than any other demographic of soldiers. I suppose we could add that Trump also was not a young black man headed for prison. But we've not got RS for that. And 'implying' anything in a BLP seems counter to the rules. SW3 5DL ( talk) 15:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, there would be absolutely nothing contrary to the rules in saying "Trump did not serve in Vietnam". Second, I have strongly opposed saying "Trump did not volunteer" for the exact reasons you describe. Third, I have said it's no big deal and you can put into the article that "Trump wasn't drafted". Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No, no, I was thinking of the other editor who wants the volunteer bit, not you. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)