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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
User:Graham11, I don't think it's necessary to put a huge tag atop this high-traffic BLP, given that you haven't elaborated here at the talk page as to what you think is wrong with the "Further reading" section. Editors often have ideas about how to improve this BLP, but they don't always tag the top of the article. A couple months ago, I expanded the "further reading" section; I simply went to WorldCat and added what I found there. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Why does the tag need to appear at the top of the article instead of at the Further Reading section? CFredkin ( talk) 20:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Also, User:Graham11, can you please provide a link to the policies you pasted above? CFredkin ( talk) 20:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, per the guideline, the list of references is too long to serve as a reading list, so some duplication is okay.
Another possibility is to simply re-name the section to "Bibliography" instead of "Further reading" since different guidelines then apply (and we would not be over-burdening readers with too much reading).
Wikipedia guidelines and policies probably take precedence over template documentation. Here's the pertinent guideline, and it advises a "reasonable" number of items instead of any particular number. In this case, 22 books strikes me as reasonable.
Hmm, I've never known Wikipedia to have biographies with a bibliography section (as distinct from a separate bibliography article) that includes works that are neither authored by the article subject nor are being used as references in the article (assuming I'm correct in understanding that that's what you're suggesting). Are there any examples of that that you know of?
Are you serious? Ernio48 ( talk) 14:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out whether the "Investments" section fails the WP:UNDUE test. For example, reading this:
or this:
I'm struck by how little money - for a billionaire - appears to be involved. Investments totaling (say) $30 million dollars would be 1% of his net worth if that net worth were $3 billion - and even then, Trump could well have borrowed (on margin, for example) in buying that (hypothetical) $30 million dollars of investments.
More importantly, compare the sources cited in that section, versus (for example) the sources available on the topic of the Trump Shuttle, which gets far less coverage in this article. (It almost certainly involved losses to Trump, personally, in the tens of millions of dollars, but that's not the point - the point is that media coverage was far, far greater for the shuttle than for Trump's investments, while this Wikipedia article has them reversed.)
In short, unless someone can show that there are a lot more reliable sources that have discussed Trump's (meager?) investments than are listed, currently (it's telling that the section starts with citing a press release, which absolutely fails WP:RS), I suggest deleting this entire section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the section - no one has indicated that this isn't a WP:UNDUE problem. The legal questions discussed above are interesting, but (a) the information in the section isn't relevant to those questions, and (b) Wikipedia content isn't supposed to be put into articles in anticipation that it could, at some time in the future, be relevant. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I would contend that this article requires some citations in the lead. The statement, "[...]he also believes that the quick defeat of ISIS is mandatory" is not actually cited in the article. Trump's statements and positions on ISIS are noted with good references. I would also suggest that statements like this do not belong in the lead.
"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.
Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."
Atiru ( talk) 19:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone inserted at the end of the lead that Trump would be the oldest president. I fixed this to say that he'd be the oldest person to become president, and I added a tag because nowhere in the BLP is there a cite for that. Anyway, I don't think this should be in the lead at all. A similar passage was removed from the Hillary Clinton lead today on the basis that actual history should be favored over potential history. Moreover, we're tailoring potential history in a way that disfavors Trump, because we could instead say that he would be younger than Reagan was when Reagan was inaugurated in 1985. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Colleagues Calton & Wikidea: Can you propose a compromise text per WP:EDITCONSENSUS? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Calton: Your summary for rev 733482398 explains, "'Certainty' isn't required for 'if' statements, pretty much by definition." In some philosophical sense, perhaps, but not in the sense clearly intended by the authors of the WP:FUTURE policy.
The 'reasonable editor' would understand the question here to be whether the restrictive clause is almost certain — not whether the main clause is almost certain if the restrictive clause is true. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm just making these suggestions here as I assume that involved editors who are keeping the article up-to-date would prefer to make the edits. Thank you, Hordaland ( talk) 13:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Removing Populism sidebar ( Portal:Right-wing populism) to undo unexplained revision 733614912 by Gouncbeatduke, per WP:BLPREMOVE; unsourced at portal; potentially defamatory; clear BLP vio; apparent POV (see esp. WP:STRUCTURE) (portal doesn't mention US, Republican Party, or Trump; Right-wing populism does mention Tea Party, but Donald Trump doesn't). -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Gouncbeatduke has put forward an excellent starting proposal to stop the white wash of Trump's racism: "Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism."
One simple word can be added to this sentence: "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist" and racist.
There's two proposals. Let's do both. By the way, administrators have a special responsibility, and especially need to stop the continuation of the "Fox and Friends" state of this page. Wik idea 18:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
References
This is not the first time Trump has been forced to disavow or distance himself from anti-Semitic or white supremacist connections... Leaders of his own party were publicly appalled. Trump eventually tweeted an official disavowal and blamed a faulty earpiece for his initial response. But anti-Semitic and white nationalist rhetoric has continued to dog the candidate. Trump has been accused of knowingly whipping up racist sentiment among his supporters. He denies it but declines to explain how anti-Semitic memes keeping making their way into his own tweets.
Can someone explain why these obvious characterizations have not already been put into this article? I just added after "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist"... - the obvious additions that he is widely described as - "racist",[295] and "fascist".
I expect some people might object to this, because they think it is an insult. No, it's just actually what people are describing him as, and that should be in an encyclopedic article. If it fails to do so, it is utterly bias. This is also important given that the American Nazi party today sees Donald Trump as presenting a ' real opportunity'.
If you want statistics, just google "Donald Trump" and "racist" or "fascist". "Populism" isn't even half of what people are "widely describing". Wik idea 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please review this edit by Jasonanaggie and make changes as appropriate? Portions need to be reverted, as Trump didn't graduate from Fordham, and his degree was a B.S., not a B.A. I would make these changes but I'm limited by 1RR. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Fixed this, thanks. -- Jasonanaggie ( talk) 17:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Jasonanaggie:, you also need to restore the Wharton School in the lede. SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see | Wharton school on this page. Sources have been provided that show Trump did indeed attend and graduate from The Wharton School. SW3 5DL ( talk) 15:33, 11 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)
More than one reliable source has mentioned Curiel's ties to the Hispanic National Bar Assn., which is boycotting Trump's businesses. It seems incredibly POV to me that we would mention Trump's comments without mentioning his stated rationale for them.
Curiel is a lifetime member of the National Hispanic Bar Association, which last year called for a boycott of all Trump business ventures -- although it is not clear whether Curiel personally agrees with the boycott. (CNN) [4]
Curiel’s membership was disclosed in the questionnaire he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he was nominated for a seat on the federal bench in 2012. He also listed several other organizations, including a life membership in the Hispanic National Bar Assn. That group, which describes itself as a nonpartisan professional organization representing the interests of Latino legal professionals, last year in a news release called for a boycott of “of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels and restaurants.” (LA Times) [5]
CFredkin ( talk) 19:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Disclaimer: this is not perfect, nor does it have sources, but I will of course get them. My point is to get the gist of this while the house is quiet for a few minutes.
Here's what I've found so far, apparently sometime around the start of the year, 2016, Trump's lawyers tried to get one of the cases, I think it was the California case, dismissed, because the class action law suit plaintiff was dismissed from the case on motion from her lawyers because she wasn't going along with their narrative. That's a problem when your plaintiff agrees with the defendant and sinks your legal boat. The judge dismissed the plaintiff. Trump's lawyers filed a motion to for summary judgment/dismiss the case since the plaintiff was no longer involved. However, the judge allowed the case to go forward. Whereupon, Trump apparently said, either at a rally or a Sunday show, very soon thereafter, that the judge should have dismissed the case and was being "very, very, very, unfair" and biased against him because he wanted to build the wall with Mexico and the judge and/or his parents is/areMexican. That was the first questioning of the judge.
The second one appears to have come later in June, 2016 came when somebody wanted the release of sealed information. Trump's lawyers opposed it, and the judge said, Why yes, let's let everybody see it. Apparently, Trump again came out with his comments, except this time the judge took a second look and realized there was a legal reason for not releasing all that sealed stuff and ordered it resealed, but maybe that train had left the station, so. . .oops.Those appear to be the reasons Trump believes the judge is unfair because he's biased against him because Trump wants to build a wall with Mexico. If I have that not exactly right, it is not due to POV. It's parent brain.As to the question of should the section show what prompted Trump. Yes, if we are going to keep this here, then what I've written here, if it meets RS, can just be used with the RS. That's not a lot and I think it would calm down this argument.
SW3 5DL (
talk) 01:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@ CFredkin: But the quote from the L.A. Times, that's not the proposed edit is it? Has anybody written an edit that would work? This going round and round is not productive at all. Somebody needs to write a proposed edit. Then we can decide, include or exclude. And give a WP rationale. SW3 5DL ( talk) 06:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@ SW3 5DL:Here's what I would propose:
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican." [8] Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence. [9] [3] In response to the criticism, Trump and his campaign have pointed out that the judge belongs to the Hispanic National Bar Association which has called for a boycott of all Trump's businesses. [4] [5]
CFredkin ( talk) 16:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@ SW3 5DL: Does this address your point above?:
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican." [10] Trump initially stated that he believed the judge, who was born in Indiana, was biased against him because of his controversial immigration proposals. Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence. [11] [3] In response to the criticism, Trump and his campaign have pointed out that the judge belongs to the Hispanic National Bar Association which has called for a boycott of all Trump's businesses. [4] [5]
References
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.
@ CFredkin: Yes, brilliant. Cover's it all. I think you can post it Thread's gone stale. SW3 5DL ( talk) 00:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
While the RfC on the proposal above is in progress, I think we should address the issues with some of the wording raised by User:The Wordsmith above. I propose the revised version of the second sentence below:
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican."[10] Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence.[11][3]
CFredkin ( talk) 17:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump did graduate from the Wharton School. The University of Pennsylvania is made up of schools. There's the Wharton School of Business, the Towne School of Engineering, the School of Nursing, the School of Allied Sciences, the School of Liberal Arts, and the Annenberg School of Communications. All schools have undergraduate and graduate programs. When you are admitted to the University you then choose the school. Trump did indeed receive his undergraduate degree from the Wharton School. I am going to restore the edit. SW3 5DL ( talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I'm concerned about the sourcing around the claim that Trump transferred to or graduated from Wharton, as opposed to the University of Pennsylvania. This Washington Post source says: He did well there, and then went to Fordham University, a Jesuit school in the Bronx, for two years, before transferring to the University of Pennsylvania and studied economics for two years, graduating in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree. He took undergraduate classes at Penn’s famed Wharton School of Business. Though he was not enrolled in Wharton’s prestigious MBA program, the Spring 2007 Wharton Alumni Magazine featured Trump, with this headline, “The Best Brand Name in Real Estate.” So was Trump actually enrolled at Wharton or did he just take classes there? The sources currently cited in the article don't support enrollment at Wharton, so at a minimum they need to be sharpened up. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll add this source from the Boston Globe. It shows him wearing Wharton's colors. [6]. SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
SW3 5DL, I feel like we're not oommunicating well. I'm trying to understand your perspective here. How do we know that the Boston Globe got it right and the Washington Post got it wrong? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
At least the infobox is straighforward. We can adopt the style used at Barack Obama ("[[Columbia College, Columbia University|Columbia University]]", "[[Harvard Law School|Harvard University]]"), at Hillary Clinton ("[[Yale Law School|Yale University]]"), and by the US Department of Education ("Wharton" = "University of Pennsylvania" or "Wharton County Junior College", not Wharton School). As for the article body, we could conveniently use "the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania", since that's what UPenn calls it. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This issue came up in a campaign for the presidency of the Philippines. Here is a link to an article that has images of the grad and undergrad diplomas. [8] Apparently the undergrad degree is awarded by UPenn and the grad degree by Wharton. This made me check my own undergraduate business degree (not from Wharton btw) and it says it is a awarded by the chancellor of the university on the authority of the business school. So techically it is neither from the university nor from the business school. TFD ( talk) 06:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Not according to UPenn. He is officially listed as graduating from Wharton. It is not an issue of neutrality. Yes, he went to Wharton. Dr. Fleischmann has changed his argument each time it's been found wanting. He simply doesn't like it. And the source you're citing does not apply to Donald Trump, so it's WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources are what we use and that is not a reliable source. Sorry, but that is a ridiculous claim, and the so-called Wharton degree in the photo looks like an obvious fake. Reliable sources say Trump went to Wharton. Wharton says he went to Wharton. Trump says he went to Wharton. Just because Dr. Fleischmann says he didn't doesn't make it so. And btw, Dr. Fleischmann never mentioned this source you've presented. We use reliable sources. We go with what the majority say. They say Trump went to Wharton. SW3 5DL ( talk) 06:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump went to Wharton. SW3 5DL ( talk) 07:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
SW3 5DL you are fighting straw men rather than listening to me. I never suggested that we remove Wharton from the article, and I am no longer questioning whether Trump transferred to or graduated from Wharton. I, and I believe Dervorguilla, are saying that even though the fact that Trump went to Wharton is verifiable, it doesn't belong in the lead section because it takes up a fair amount of real estate and the distinction between Wharton and Penn isn't sufficiently important to merit inclusion in the lead section per the guideline that says the lead should be a concise summary of the article's most important contents. I prefer mentioning Penn vs. Wharton because of the continued widespread misconception that Trump got an MBA from Wharton. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:47, 11 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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
User:Graham11, I don't think it's necessary to put a huge tag atop this high-traffic BLP, given that you haven't elaborated here at the talk page as to what you think is wrong with the "Further reading" section. Editors often have ideas about how to improve this BLP, but they don't always tag the top of the article. A couple months ago, I expanded the "further reading" section; I simply went to WorldCat and added what I found there. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Why does the tag need to appear at the top of the article instead of at the Further Reading section? CFredkin ( talk) 20:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Also, User:Graham11, can you please provide a link to the policies you pasted above? CFredkin ( talk) 20:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, per the guideline, the list of references is too long to serve as a reading list, so some duplication is okay.
Another possibility is to simply re-name the section to "Bibliography" instead of "Further reading" since different guidelines then apply (and we would not be over-burdening readers with too much reading).
Wikipedia guidelines and policies probably take precedence over template documentation. Here's the pertinent guideline, and it advises a "reasonable" number of items instead of any particular number. In this case, 22 books strikes me as reasonable.
Hmm, I've never known Wikipedia to have biographies with a bibliography section (as distinct from a separate bibliography article) that includes works that are neither authored by the article subject nor are being used as references in the article (assuming I'm correct in understanding that that's what you're suggesting). Are there any examples of that that you know of?
Are you serious? Ernio48 ( talk) 14:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out whether the "Investments" section fails the WP:UNDUE test. For example, reading this:
or this:
I'm struck by how little money - for a billionaire - appears to be involved. Investments totaling (say) $30 million dollars would be 1% of his net worth if that net worth were $3 billion - and even then, Trump could well have borrowed (on margin, for example) in buying that (hypothetical) $30 million dollars of investments.
More importantly, compare the sources cited in that section, versus (for example) the sources available on the topic of the Trump Shuttle, which gets far less coverage in this article. (It almost certainly involved losses to Trump, personally, in the tens of millions of dollars, but that's not the point - the point is that media coverage was far, far greater for the shuttle than for Trump's investments, while this Wikipedia article has them reversed.)
In short, unless someone can show that there are a lot more reliable sources that have discussed Trump's (meager?) investments than are listed, currently (it's telling that the section starts with citing a press release, which absolutely fails WP:RS), I suggest deleting this entire section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the section - no one has indicated that this isn't a WP:UNDUE problem. The legal questions discussed above are interesting, but (a) the information in the section isn't relevant to those questions, and (b) Wikipedia content isn't supposed to be put into articles in anticipation that it could, at some time in the future, be relevant. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I would contend that this article requires some citations in the lead. The statement, "[...]he also believes that the quick defeat of ISIS is mandatory" is not actually cited in the article. Trump's statements and positions on ISIS are noted with good references. I would also suggest that statements like this do not belong in the lead.
"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.
Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."
Atiru ( talk) 19:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone inserted at the end of the lead that Trump would be the oldest president. I fixed this to say that he'd be the oldest person to become president, and I added a tag because nowhere in the BLP is there a cite for that. Anyway, I don't think this should be in the lead at all. A similar passage was removed from the Hillary Clinton lead today on the basis that actual history should be favored over potential history. Moreover, we're tailoring potential history in a way that disfavors Trump, because we could instead say that he would be younger than Reagan was when Reagan was inaugurated in 1985. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Colleagues Calton & Wikidea: Can you propose a compromise text per WP:EDITCONSENSUS? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Calton: Your summary for rev 733482398 explains, "'Certainty' isn't required for 'if' statements, pretty much by definition." In some philosophical sense, perhaps, but not in the sense clearly intended by the authors of the WP:FUTURE policy.
The 'reasonable editor' would understand the question here to be whether the restrictive clause is almost certain — not whether the main clause is almost certain if the restrictive clause is true. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm just making these suggestions here as I assume that involved editors who are keeping the article up-to-date would prefer to make the edits. Thank you, Hordaland ( talk) 13:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Removing Populism sidebar ( Portal:Right-wing populism) to undo unexplained revision 733614912 by Gouncbeatduke, per WP:BLPREMOVE; unsourced at portal; potentially defamatory; clear BLP vio; apparent POV (see esp. WP:STRUCTURE) (portal doesn't mention US, Republican Party, or Trump; Right-wing populism does mention Tea Party, but Donald Trump doesn't). -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Gouncbeatduke has put forward an excellent starting proposal to stop the white wash of Trump's racism: "Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism."
One simple word can be added to this sentence: "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist" and racist.
There's two proposals. Let's do both. By the way, administrators have a special responsibility, and especially need to stop the continuation of the "Fox and Friends" state of this page. Wik idea 18:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
References
This is not the first time Trump has been forced to disavow or distance himself from anti-Semitic or white supremacist connections... Leaders of his own party were publicly appalled. Trump eventually tweeted an official disavowal and blamed a faulty earpiece for his initial response. But anti-Semitic and white nationalist rhetoric has continued to dog the candidate. Trump has been accused of knowingly whipping up racist sentiment among his supporters. He denies it but declines to explain how anti-Semitic memes keeping making their way into his own tweets.
Can someone explain why these obvious characterizations have not already been put into this article? I just added after "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist"... - the obvious additions that he is widely described as - "racist",[295] and "fascist".
I expect some people might object to this, because they think it is an insult. No, it's just actually what people are describing him as, and that should be in an encyclopedic article. If it fails to do so, it is utterly bias. This is also important given that the American Nazi party today sees Donald Trump as presenting a ' real opportunity'.
If you want statistics, just google "Donald Trump" and "racist" or "fascist". "Populism" isn't even half of what people are "widely describing". Wik idea 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please review this edit by Jasonanaggie and make changes as appropriate? Portions need to be reverted, as Trump didn't graduate from Fordham, and his degree was a B.S., not a B.A. I would make these changes but I'm limited by 1RR. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Fixed this, thanks. -- Jasonanaggie ( talk) 17:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Jasonanaggie:, you also need to restore the Wharton School in the lede. SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see | Wharton school on this page. Sources have been provided that show Trump did indeed attend and graduate from The Wharton School. SW3 5DL ( talk) 15:33, 11 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)
More than one reliable source has mentioned Curiel's ties to the Hispanic National Bar Assn., which is boycotting Trump's businesses. It seems incredibly POV to me that we would mention Trump's comments without mentioning his stated rationale for them.
Curiel is a lifetime member of the National Hispanic Bar Association, which last year called for a boycott of all Trump business ventures -- although it is not clear whether Curiel personally agrees with the boycott. (CNN) [4]
Curiel’s membership was disclosed in the questionnaire he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he was nominated for a seat on the federal bench in 2012. He also listed several other organizations, including a life membership in the Hispanic National Bar Assn. That group, which describes itself as a nonpartisan professional organization representing the interests of Latino legal professionals, last year in a news release called for a boycott of “of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels and restaurants.” (LA Times) [5]
CFredkin ( talk) 19:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Disclaimer: this is not perfect, nor does it have sources, but I will of course get them. My point is to get the gist of this while the house is quiet for a few minutes.
Here's what I've found so far, apparently sometime around the start of the year, 2016, Trump's lawyers tried to get one of the cases, I think it was the California case, dismissed, because the class action law suit plaintiff was dismissed from the case on motion from her lawyers because she wasn't going along with their narrative. That's a problem when your plaintiff agrees with the defendant and sinks your legal boat. The judge dismissed the plaintiff. Trump's lawyers filed a motion to for summary judgment/dismiss the case since the plaintiff was no longer involved. However, the judge allowed the case to go forward. Whereupon, Trump apparently said, either at a rally or a Sunday show, very soon thereafter, that the judge should have dismissed the case and was being "very, very, very, unfair" and biased against him because he wanted to build the wall with Mexico and the judge and/or his parents is/areMexican. That was the first questioning of the judge.
The second one appears to have come later in June, 2016 came when somebody wanted the release of sealed information. Trump's lawyers opposed it, and the judge said, Why yes, let's let everybody see it. Apparently, Trump again came out with his comments, except this time the judge took a second look and realized there was a legal reason for not releasing all that sealed stuff and ordered it resealed, but maybe that train had left the station, so. . .oops.Those appear to be the reasons Trump believes the judge is unfair because he's biased against him because Trump wants to build a wall with Mexico. If I have that not exactly right, it is not due to POV. It's parent brain.As to the question of should the section show what prompted Trump. Yes, if we are going to keep this here, then what I've written here, if it meets RS, can just be used with the RS. That's not a lot and I think it would calm down this argument.
SW3 5DL (
talk) 01:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@ CFredkin: But the quote from the L.A. Times, that's not the proposed edit is it? Has anybody written an edit that would work? This going round and round is not productive at all. Somebody needs to write a proposed edit. Then we can decide, include or exclude. And give a WP rationale. SW3 5DL ( talk) 06:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@ SW3 5DL:Here's what I would propose:
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican." [8] Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence. [9] [3] In response to the criticism, Trump and his campaign have pointed out that the judge belongs to the Hispanic National Bar Association which has called for a boycott of all Trump's businesses. [4] [5]
CFredkin ( talk) 16:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@ SW3 5DL: Does this address your point above?:
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican." [10] Trump initially stated that he believed the judge, who was born in Indiana, was biased against him because of his controversial immigration proposals. Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence. [11] [3] In response to the criticism, Trump and his campaign have pointed out that the judge belongs to the Hispanic National Bar Association which has called for a boycott of all Trump's businesses. [4] [5]
References
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.
@ CFredkin: Yes, brilliant. Cover's it all. I think you can post it Thread's gone stale. SW3 5DL ( talk) 00:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
While the RfC on the proposal above is in progress, I think we should address the issues with some of the wording raised by User:The Wordsmith above. I propose the revised version of the second sentence below:
During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican."[10] Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence.[11][3]
CFredkin ( talk) 17:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump did graduate from the Wharton School. The University of Pennsylvania is made up of schools. There's the Wharton School of Business, the Towne School of Engineering, the School of Nursing, the School of Allied Sciences, the School of Liberal Arts, and the Annenberg School of Communications. All schools have undergraduate and graduate programs. When you are admitted to the University you then choose the school. Trump did indeed receive his undergraduate degree from the Wharton School. I am going to restore the edit. SW3 5DL ( talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I'm concerned about the sourcing around the claim that Trump transferred to or graduated from Wharton, as opposed to the University of Pennsylvania. This Washington Post source says: He did well there, and then went to Fordham University, a Jesuit school in the Bronx, for two years, before transferring to the University of Pennsylvania and studied economics for two years, graduating in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree. He took undergraduate classes at Penn’s famed Wharton School of Business. Though he was not enrolled in Wharton’s prestigious MBA program, the Spring 2007 Wharton Alumni Magazine featured Trump, with this headline, “The Best Brand Name in Real Estate.” So was Trump actually enrolled at Wharton or did he just take classes there? The sources currently cited in the article don't support enrollment at Wharton, so at a minimum they need to be sharpened up. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll add this source from the Boston Globe. It shows him wearing Wharton's colors. [6]. SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
SW3 5DL, I feel like we're not oommunicating well. I'm trying to understand your perspective here. How do we know that the Boston Globe got it right and the Washington Post got it wrong? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
At least the infobox is straighforward. We can adopt the style used at Barack Obama ("[[Columbia College, Columbia University|Columbia University]]", "[[Harvard Law School|Harvard University]]"), at Hillary Clinton ("[[Yale Law School|Yale University]]"), and by the US Department of Education ("Wharton" = "University of Pennsylvania" or "Wharton County Junior College", not Wharton School). As for the article body, we could conveniently use "the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania", since that's what UPenn calls it. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This issue came up in a campaign for the presidency of the Philippines. Here is a link to an article that has images of the grad and undergrad diplomas. [8] Apparently the undergrad degree is awarded by UPenn and the grad degree by Wharton. This made me check my own undergraduate business degree (not from Wharton btw) and it says it is a awarded by the chancellor of the university on the authority of the business school. So techically it is neither from the university nor from the business school. TFD ( talk) 06:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Not according to UPenn. He is officially listed as graduating from Wharton. It is not an issue of neutrality. Yes, he went to Wharton. Dr. Fleischmann has changed his argument each time it's been found wanting. He simply doesn't like it. And the source you're citing does not apply to Donald Trump, so it's WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources are what we use and that is not a reliable source. Sorry, but that is a ridiculous claim, and the so-called Wharton degree in the photo looks like an obvious fake. Reliable sources say Trump went to Wharton. Wharton says he went to Wharton. Trump says he went to Wharton. Just because Dr. Fleischmann says he didn't doesn't make it so. And btw, Dr. Fleischmann never mentioned this source you've presented. We use reliable sources. We go with what the majority say. They say Trump went to Wharton. SW3 5DL ( talk) 06:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump went to Wharton. SW3 5DL ( talk) 07:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
SW3 5DL you are fighting straw men rather than listening to me. I never suggested that we remove Wharton from the article, and I am no longer questioning whether Trump transferred to or graduated from Wharton. I, and I believe Dervorguilla, are saying that even though the fact that Trump went to Wharton is verifiable, it doesn't belong in the lead section because it takes up a fair amount of real estate and the distinction between Wharton and Penn isn't sufficiently important to merit inclusion in the lead section per the guideline that says the lead should be a concise summary of the article's most important contents. I prefer mentioning Penn vs. Wharton because of the continued widespread misconception that Trump got an MBA from Wharton. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)