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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Wikipedia hasn't reported he's a racist-- we just have a duty to report that everyone along the entire spectrum is calling him a racist. I bet that's uncomfy, but it's a fact. Bill Cosby and Al Sharpton are deeply respected leaders of the politicallly-active African-American community. Bob Scheiffer is a respected veteran journalist making an unprecedented denunciation.
This is notable and verifiable, removing it a million times, but people will keep writing it back in. History is history. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, trying to erase the connection from trump to the correspondent's dinner is just silly. it's international news. It's getting into the article, and warring over it for a few hours won't resurrect trump as a member of civil society. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 11:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to seriously remember that this a major political figure. The article can't be a socialite's article anymore, he's a national politician now. The article has to include ANY major criticisms, once notable enough and documented by reliable sources, because it affects the presidential election. Schieffer's quote is definitely a notable criticism. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 13:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Trump makes utterly false allegations about Obama, so Wikipedia covers it? Respected neutral figure Shieffer makes a prominent analysis of the events, but that's "too inflammatory"? Hypocrisy. Barack & Michelle Obama are living people too, you know. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 02:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to get this article up to GA once more. Please, can a disinterested editor get involved with this? Bearian ( talk) 20:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The quote from Obama is Verifiable, has a Neutral Point of View and has No Original Research. No offense, but who are we to summarize anything? Direct quotes are the most reliable source of information about what someone said.
From WP:Wellknown Public Figures - In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. (emphasis mine)
You will note that we should NOT summarize or edit Obama’s quote or decide who it was directed at. We should merely include it. Richrakh ( talk) 18:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I know the title of the subsection is under discussion in the above section and may undergo future revision, so please recognize these two changes are a separate question which I suspect is boring and noncontroversial. Please don't accidentally revert these two changes unless you actually disagree with them. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 01:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
NYT reports on a class action lawsuit against Trump:
Buying a Trump Property, or So They Thought
The United States is deciding whether or not to ask this man to become it's leader of the free world. Perhaps we should let our readers have access to these facts. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 01:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
OK -- Trump apparently attends a "Dutch Reformed Church" but it is not the Dutch Reformed Church, it is the Reformed Church in America which has many churches once named --- Dutch Reformed Church. ( [5] as one example) The former is a Dutch Church and not an American church, the latter is American and ... Presbyterian. I think this fixes the silliness for that section. Collect ( talk) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Adding: [6] RCA is considered "Presbyterian" by Presbyterians. Also: [7] the RCS is considered "Presbyterian" by the RCA. Should be enough to allow Trump to self-identify as "Presbyterian." Collect ( talk) 15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Trump mentioned Bush to make his points about Obama. This section, by and large, is about his statements regarding President Obama.-- Artoasis ( talk) 17:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I express no opinion on the section header or whether to include the Bush reference. I just note that in removing the first part of the section, Collect removed both the Bush reference and Trump's statement about Obama being the worst president, etc. I'm not restoring that part of the sentence because it would look like I approve of the edit, and I neither approve nor disapprove.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This article, which used to be a GA, has been edited into mush. It is close to beyond repair. All facts and truth have been slowly bled out of the article over the past month by two edit-warring SPAs. This highly visible article is an embarassment to Wikipedia, because of its POV laudatory to the subject of the article. We would be better off without such a badly written and scrubbed article. It is bad publicity for us. I am considering nominating it for deletion. Please talk me out of it. Bearian ( talk) 01:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I can try talk you out of nominating this for deletion. First off, I think Balloonman has some strong feelings and prior knowledge of Mr. Trump. He's been gone for days. I suggest maybe he should recuse himself. Then when that's cleared up, I suggest we send this to the noticeboard. There at least a wider audience will get to see the problem, which I agree is outrageous. Unfortunately KeithBob says the noticeboard can be inconclusive, but it's a better step for right now than deletion. Right? - SusanLesch ( talk) 01:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The "Holdings" section is virtually unsourced. Aside from the subject's name being associated with them, we don't know how much control he has of the properties. It's a distraction from the biography. I suggest spinning it off into a separate article. Thoughts? Will Beback talk 00:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Trump spoke right after Huckabee announced he wouldn't run. Now Hucakbee has informally endorsed Trump in a way. [11] I considered adding it right in, but this article is so 'swisscheesed', with lots of notable reliable sources still deleted from the article, that it seemed like something that needs discussion before just including it. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 11:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
IF you don't keep up with the news, you may have missed these:
If you suspect any of these lies are true, consult Pulitzer Prize winner Politifact, they'll set you straight. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 03:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
What does this have to do with improving the article, which is the purpose of this talk page?-- Rollins83 ( talk) 19:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
On Apr 27, Donald Trump held a press conference discussing Obama's birth certificate. These statements have been widely interpreted as being race-related-- variously described as race-baiting, racially insensitive, or just racist. This interpretation has been reported on by numerous reliable sources-- CBS News, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and now, I see even Al Jazeera has covered this interpretation. Trump himself appeared on Fox News and responded to the interpretation, saying 'I am the least racist person there is'.
I agree that we need to be very cautious and careful about how we cover this-- we can't report any interpretation as fact. We must give Trump ample fair room to deny this interpretation and explain why it's invalid. But this interpretation continues to become more and more widely reported on, in ever-increasingly reliable sources. We need to address it in the article, but the text should be crafted by editors with more 'nonpartisan' eyes than mine. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 16:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
In a paragraph about Trump in Entertainment, we discuss Trump's cameo in a film, and then talk about the Comedy Central Roast:
I added the following sentence:
I don't mean for it to be anti-trump. It's just logical that being part of a 'roast' by a sitting president is definitely a notable achievement-- certainly way more of an achievement, and far far more notable than getting 'roast'ed by the ' The Situation'. They're both notable events in Trump's life, so I didn't expect to be seen as pro- or anti- trump for mentioning it.
Since, someone else has altered the section by adding an image of Seth Myers and more material to the section. I prefer no portrait and my wording, but I'm not sure where the vandalism begins and where good faith ends, so I'll just leave the whole thing in place for now till there's clarity. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 07:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Is Trump still attending the forum? We'd been discussing it as a potential sign he's running; now that he's not running, is he still attending the forum? -- Tangledorange ( talk) 14:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Best I can do, and I hope fair to everyone. It seems to minimize criticism of Trump, by the way.
Bob Schieffer of CBS News said a strain of racism was "running through this whole thing." [1] Trump clearly rejected that suggestion to Don Lemon of CNN. [2] - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Excerpt from the BLP warning from administrator Balloonman above: . . .The burden for including potentially BLP incendiary information falls upon those parties who wish to add it and the bar for such accusations HAS to be set high. . . .
A want to insert incendiary or potentially slanderous content, in reference to the Shieffer editorial, in this BLP is unwarranted and unreasonable. Giving undue weight to incindiary and potentially slanderous editorials would disrupt a Neutral Point of View. It would be inappropriate and disruptive to insert unilateral political attacks like the Shieffer editorial making potentially slanderous accusations against Trump. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - there are volumes of news stories. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for "scandal mongering." Wikipedia is not supposed to be written like a "tabloid." The potentially slanderous media editorials attacking Mr. Trump approaches or is WP:Fringe, and Trump has stated they do not represent his views. Further, Obama has not responded regarding his college grades and that has severely diminished the potential for notability, significance of the issue. Obama is not shy, let him respond (Obama responded to the birth certificate issue). Commentators are not candidates. This should not be a forum for unilateral political attacks. Other commentators have dismissed these incendiary editorials attacking Trump and candidates have disregarded it. There is no warrant for inclusion. Other candidates such as George W. Bush and John Kerry have had their college grades brought into question. [13] without such potentially slanderous editorials. A cohort of several editors has already contributed to writing this highly visible article and have done a fine job. Its unwarranted in BLP to insist on inserting incindiary or potentially slanderous content. Inserting adhominens against Trump would be inappropriate or attempting to passively insert adhominens through WP:Weasel Words found in incendiary media editorials. We should have a high standard for inclusion in a BLP. Obama hasn't responded which severely dimishes potential for notability and we should not be a forum for unilateral political attacks, media baiting, incindiary or potentially slanderous content. If candidates respond to each other we can take a look. Its very early for campaign related issues, let's be patient. Thanks. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Time to remove NPOV tag. Those seeking to insert the insendiary or potentially slanderous editorial accusation, like the Shieffer editorial, attacking Trump have asked for mediation and have not met the high bar for burden of proof as specified in the BLP warning from above. Some have resorted to placing an NPOV tag when what is being sought to insert would be dispruptive to a neutral point of view. Candidates have disregarded it and commentators have dismissed it, it is or approaches WP:Fringe and should be avoided. Trump has stated it doesn't represent his views. Some are claiming they would seek to delete the article, a work of a cohort of several editors, yet the claimants have not met the high bar to insert insendiary or potentially slanderous content for a BLP. Amazing. Its time to remove the NPOV tag which has been misapplied in this case. Let's wait for the campaign to include campaign related content to develop and have a high standard for inclusion. Thanks Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
To touch on a point Bearian raised before, I think Wikipedia would be better off without an article than with one that is as 'whitewashed' as this. The article lavishes space on the details 0his wealth and glaringly omits the fact that everyone in the nation accuses the man of racism against our president? No mention of his many lies, no mention of his drop in the PPP poll or his plummeted ratings?
I think it's time to delete it. If, as others suggest, a neutral article is something we'll have to wait for, then perhaps we should accept this fact and delete the article until it has time and consensus to be rewritten by non-SPA. Bearian, Susan, et al-- thoughts? Perhaps the deletion process would itself bring the needed eyes. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 02:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to this page, having been notified here. I'm not sure whether a notice like this or any influx of fresh eyes is going to help... but anyway, from an outsider perspective I'm wondering where the problem lies. Of course there are going to be editing disputes and troubles on any hot button major figure that's a matter of current news. Obviously there's some question about how to treat Trump's recent birther comments about Obama. Trump's inflammatory comments aligned him with the Tea Party and initially raised his stature among some conservatives, though that seems to have worn off as a plurality of analysts, commentators, journalists and the public decided variously that they were wrong, misguided, disingenuous, and/or racist. It's always a BLP and POV concern to note that someone has been called racist or any other invective, and there is a question about how noteworthy it is because in politics people are always getting called things. To be clean about it, we would have to go beyond directly sourcing the name-calling, and get to an article that analyzes the phenomenon of Trump being called names. Anyway, a few sentences about his foray into the conspiracy theories seems enough. It might or might not deserve a subheading. This is a brand new issue. If nothing else happens and he doesn't run for office it might not even be worth that much coverage at the end of the day. If he presses on and it remains an issue for months to come, it may deserve expansion. Wikipedia has no deadline, as they say - we can afford to wait. As far as quality, I don't know how good the article was before but it seems okay now, more of a B class article than GA. It's rather comprehensive and a very useful summary for anyone who wants to know about Trump, particularly his history in real estate and business. But the tone is off in two ways IMO. First, it describes Trump's business achievements in the active voice as if Trump did them personally by himself. Trump built this, Trump accomplished that. Obviously he wasn't holding the shovel. He's leading a company that pays money and finds partners to get something done. Phrasing the achievements of an organization as those of its leader sounds a bit like promotional business-speak, not a factual account. Second, some of Trump's many missteps and misfortunes seem to be explained in a self-consciously apologetic way - trump was forced to, or the recession caused a downturn, and so on. I wouldn't call it a whitewash (and that kind of term is not helpful for working with other editors), but these kinds of unsourced or semi-sourced editorial asides about the cause and level of blame or credit aren't quite right for an article. That doesn't hurt the information content, it just reads a little funny. Anyway, I hope people can keep things calm and productive here. It's best to move towards collaboration rather than getting confrontational. It's not going to be deleted, that would be a WP:SNOW issue. The article isn't so bad, and even if it were the remedy for articles with problems is to improve them. - Wikidemon ( talk) 04:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikidemon, I see on your profile pg you got barnstars for successfully "protecting the Obama page from attacks". I never read the Obama Talk page but want to/will now; in meantime are there pointers how your experience there could perhaps translate here? Thx. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 11:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The addition of Seth Meyers's jokes, and photo, was a point attempting to be made. (Any mention of Meyers in the Trump BLP article has no place and is totally, and completely non-notable.)
Meyers's purpose at the Dinner was to draw laughs from the crowd, nothing more, regardless who wrote his script. Half his jokes were about Trump's hairstyle (gosh! how clever). How can anyone w/ a straight face call those jokes "remarks", as though the fact of them carries some kind of weight for inclusion in the Trump BLP article.
Tangledorange has reverted and re-reverted removals of references to Seth Meyers, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. (Will someone with some authority please remove? And please put a stop to Tangledorange? I don't care to interface w/ Tangled any longer ... too tacky. And to assume "good faith" for anything but a continued campaign of Trump-bashing from him ... I think one has to be smoking something.) Thx. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The inclusion of photo of Seth Meyers ("The Joker") was by me, and admittedly as a joke. (Seth Meyers was a hired comedian for the Dinner, he is not a political commentator, and anything he says or even thinks of saying, can have no value elevating to the point of entering the Trump BLP article. That is prima facie obvious. Because Seth Meyers decides to pull laughs any way possible from the crowd about Donald Trump, this merits entry into the Trump BLP article? Yeah right. Seth Meyers is completely non-notable, and even the *fact* he was hired as comedian for the Correspondents Dinner, isn't significant or meaningful in any way to merit finding its way into the Trump BLP article. So then, what significance remains re Seth Meyers and Donald Trump's life? Nothing. If someone wants to argue what Seth Meyers is motivated say or even *think* of saying, has bearing whatsoever on Trump and Trump's biography which should find its way into the Trump BLP article ... I gotta hear that argument. But please give me a kerchief first, to cover my mouth from either laughing or vomiting. Thank you.) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 08:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
A lot of "gossip" (news) pieces over the years have commented on Trump's germaphobia and the like. (Other sufferers include of course Seinfeld and Howie Mandell). IAC now a picture has shown up of Trump eating pizza with a fork. http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/31/6757989-palins-pizza-party- -- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 16:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
One of the questions here would eventually turn not so much on whether Stewart's low brow (pretended?) rant of "Prove you were born in New York City!" (mirroring " the Donald's" " birther," er, presumably serious questions) is sufficiently intellectual but rather on whether Mr. Stewart's antics have become sufficiently notable--and, for what it's worth, the Time magazine mention of this same is but one of scores of such instances within fairly prestigious of sources. Trump lately (unlike formerly, vis-a-vis Ms. O'Donnell) is rolling with the punches and taking them as easily as he throws them. Come to think of it, Mr. Trump's studied, fairly dead pan expression--befitting any straight man in a professional comedy duo (the part Mr. Trump quite masterfully performs, day by day)--during Mr. Obama's funny man turn at the annual Beltway Correspondent's Dinner had me in absolute stitches.
(Is this ramble sufficient to satisfy your, I'm sure, sincere request, Mr. user:Ihardlythinkso? Please advise. Thank you. <winks>)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 17:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
He said June 2 he is still considering running as an independent in 2012 if he does not like the economy or the republican candidate. He is unwilling to turn down the NBC money he makes in order to concentrate on a nearly 2 year campaign. He wants his cake and eat it too.
Has anyone else noticed that one of his favorite words is fabulous?
Please considering adding these to the Trump wiki page I am sure they will checkout fabulously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.176.48 ( talk) 13:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't sure blather was a word but I googled it and it checked out beautifully but I hardly think I blather. You're fired. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.88.176.48 (
talk) 13:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso and I disagree about the caption for one of the photos in the article. A chronology of events:
As the article currently stands, the caption is 1) meaningless in regards to the reason the photo is in that location, and 2) misleading in that it implies that the photo came from Vanity Fair when the opposite is the case. I will thus revert the revert. Ylee ( talk) 21:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll go to Conan O'Brien's blp and see how the similar issue of O's trademark cowlick might be handled. Be right back.-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
HItler, comma, moustache . . . .
The style was introduced in Germany in the late 19th century by visiting Americans. Prior to the toothbrush the most popular style was called the Kaiser moustache, perfumed and turned up at the ends.... By 1907 enough Germans were wearing the new trimmed down and simple toothbrush moustache to elicit notice by the New York Times under the headline "TOOTHBRUSH" MUSTACHE; German Women Resent Its Usurpation of the "Kaiserbart". The toothbrush was taken up by German folk hero Hans Koeppen in the famous 1908 New York to Paris Race, cementing its popularity among young gentry. By the end of WWI even some of the German royals were sporting the toothbrush, William Hohenzollern (son of the Kaiser) can be seen with a toothbrush moustache in an 1918 photograph that shows him about to be sent into exile.
Hitler originally wore the Kaiser moustache, as evidenced by photographs of him as a soldier during World War I. There is no agreement what year Hitler first adopted the toothbrush. Some believe it was after WWI, Ron Rosenbaum, a cultural historian, said "Hitler didn't adopt his until late 1919". Ron Rosenbaum. The secret parts of fortune: three decades of intense investigations and edgy enthusiasms. Others say it was during WWI, Alexander Moritz Frey, who served with Hitler during WWI, said Hitler wore the toothbrush in the trenches after he was ordered to trim his moustache to facilitate the wearing of a gas mask.
—" TOOTHBRUSH MOUSTACHE," WIKIPEDIA: THE FREE ENCYLOPEDIA
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 12:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
You have probably seen pictures of the man from India known as "Gandhi:" a skinny, bald-headed man with wire-rimmed glasses, a white cloth wrapped around him. ... Mohandas Gandhi was not always that man dressed simply in white cloth. As a law student in London and as a lawyer with a successful practice in South Africa, he dressed up in European clothes because he thought it would improve his status, and the status of all Indians. He encouraged Indians to fight for Britain in World War I for the same reason. ... So, who was the true Gandhi? The man in the suit and tie, who promoted military service or the avatar of nonviolence who wore hand-woven cloth and sandals—even when meeting with high officials in foreign lands?
—" GANDHI'S TRUTH," GRETA ANDERSON
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 13:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Donald trump attended Fordham University. Even though he did not graduate, according to the definition of "alma mater" in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary [14]...
Fordham would still be counted as an alma mater of Trump's on the basis of his attendance. Trump did attend both colleges/universities, according to Gale Encyclopedia of Biography:
Please do not change the alma mater designations within the Infobox. Claiming both is correct and verifiable through reliable sources. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 20:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
None of the following articles have Nationality in their infoboxes – why should Trump's be any different?: Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama.
(Plus, it seems unnecessary in light of Birthplace and Residence in the infobox.) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 12:29, 29 July 2011 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Wikipedia hasn't reported he's a racist-- we just have a duty to report that everyone along the entire spectrum is calling him a racist. I bet that's uncomfy, but it's a fact. Bill Cosby and Al Sharpton are deeply respected leaders of the politicallly-active African-American community. Bob Scheiffer is a respected veteran journalist making an unprecedented denunciation.
This is notable and verifiable, removing it a million times, but people will keep writing it back in. History is history. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, trying to erase the connection from trump to the correspondent's dinner is just silly. it's international news. It's getting into the article, and warring over it for a few hours won't resurrect trump as a member of civil society. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 11:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to seriously remember that this a major political figure. The article can't be a socialite's article anymore, he's a national politician now. The article has to include ANY major criticisms, once notable enough and documented by reliable sources, because it affects the presidential election. Schieffer's quote is definitely a notable criticism. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 13:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Trump makes utterly false allegations about Obama, so Wikipedia covers it? Respected neutral figure Shieffer makes a prominent analysis of the events, but that's "too inflammatory"? Hypocrisy. Barack & Michelle Obama are living people too, you know. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 02:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to get this article up to GA once more. Please, can a disinterested editor get involved with this? Bearian ( talk) 20:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The quote from Obama is Verifiable, has a Neutral Point of View and has No Original Research. No offense, but who are we to summarize anything? Direct quotes are the most reliable source of information about what someone said.
From WP:Wellknown Public Figures - In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. (emphasis mine)
You will note that we should NOT summarize or edit Obama’s quote or decide who it was directed at. We should merely include it. Richrakh ( talk) 18:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I know the title of the subsection is under discussion in the above section and may undergo future revision, so please recognize these two changes are a separate question which I suspect is boring and noncontroversial. Please don't accidentally revert these two changes unless you actually disagree with them. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 01:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
NYT reports on a class action lawsuit against Trump:
Buying a Trump Property, or So They Thought
The United States is deciding whether or not to ask this man to become it's leader of the free world. Perhaps we should let our readers have access to these facts. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 01:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
OK -- Trump apparently attends a "Dutch Reformed Church" but it is not the Dutch Reformed Church, it is the Reformed Church in America which has many churches once named --- Dutch Reformed Church. ( [5] as one example) The former is a Dutch Church and not an American church, the latter is American and ... Presbyterian. I think this fixes the silliness for that section. Collect ( talk) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Adding: [6] RCA is considered "Presbyterian" by Presbyterians. Also: [7] the RCS is considered "Presbyterian" by the RCA. Should be enough to allow Trump to self-identify as "Presbyterian." Collect ( talk) 15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Trump mentioned Bush to make his points about Obama. This section, by and large, is about his statements regarding President Obama.-- Artoasis ( talk) 17:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I express no opinion on the section header or whether to include the Bush reference. I just note that in removing the first part of the section, Collect removed both the Bush reference and Trump's statement about Obama being the worst president, etc. I'm not restoring that part of the sentence because it would look like I approve of the edit, and I neither approve nor disapprove.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This article, which used to be a GA, has been edited into mush. It is close to beyond repair. All facts and truth have been slowly bled out of the article over the past month by two edit-warring SPAs. This highly visible article is an embarassment to Wikipedia, because of its POV laudatory to the subject of the article. We would be better off without such a badly written and scrubbed article. It is bad publicity for us. I am considering nominating it for deletion. Please talk me out of it. Bearian ( talk) 01:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I can try talk you out of nominating this for deletion. First off, I think Balloonman has some strong feelings and prior knowledge of Mr. Trump. He's been gone for days. I suggest maybe he should recuse himself. Then when that's cleared up, I suggest we send this to the noticeboard. There at least a wider audience will get to see the problem, which I agree is outrageous. Unfortunately KeithBob says the noticeboard can be inconclusive, but it's a better step for right now than deletion. Right? - SusanLesch ( talk) 01:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The "Holdings" section is virtually unsourced. Aside from the subject's name being associated with them, we don't know how much control he has of the properties. It's a distraction from the biography. I suggest spinning it off into a separate article. Thoughts? Will Beback talk 00:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Trump spoke right after Huckabee announced he wouldn't run. Now Hucakbee has informally endorsed Trump in a way. [11] I considered adding it right in, but this article is so 'swisscheesed', with lots of notable reliable sources still deleted from the article, that it seemed like something that needs discussion before just including it. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 11:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
IF you don't keep up with the news, you may have missed these:
If you suspect any of these lies are true, consult Pulitzer Prize winner Politifact, they'll set you straight. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 03:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
What does this have to do with improving the article, which is the purpose of this talk page?-- Rollins83 ( talk) 19:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
On Apr 27, Donald Trump held a press conference discussing Obama's birth certificate. These statements have been widely interpreted as being race-related-- variously described as race-baiting, racially insensitive, or just racist. This interpretation has been reported on by numerous reliable sources-- CBS News, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and now, I see even Al Jazeera has covered this interpretation. Trump himself appeared on Fox News and responded to the interpretation, saying 'I am the least racist person there is'.
I agree that we need to be very cautious and careful about how we cover this-- we can't report any interpretation as fact. We must give Trump ample fair room to deny this interpretation and explain why it's invalid. But this interpretation continues to become more and more widely reported on, in ever-increasingly reliable sources. We need to address it in the article, but the text should be crafted by editors with more 'nonpartisan' eyes than mine. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 16:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
In a paragraph about Trump in Entertainment, we discuss Trump's cameo in a film, and then talk about the Comedy Central Roast:
I added the following sentence:
I don't mean for it to be anti-trump. It's just logical that being part of a 'roast' by a sitting president is definitely a notable achievement-- certainly way more of an achievement, and far far more notable than getting 'roast'ed by the ' The Situation'. They're both notable events in Trump's life, so I didn't expect to be seen as pro- or anti- trump for mentioning it.
Since, someone else has altered the section by adding an image of Seth Myers and more material to the section. I prefer no portrait and my wording, but I'm not sure where the vandalism begins and where good faith ends, so I'll just leave the whole thing in place for now till there's clarity. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 07:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Is Trump still attending the forum? We'd been discussing it as a potential sign he's running; now that he's not running, is he still attending the forum? -- Tangledorange ( talk) 14:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Best I can do, and I hope fair to everyone. It seems to minimize criticism of Trump, by the way.
Bob Schieffer of CBS News said a strain of racism was "running through this whole thing." [1] Trump clearly rejected that suggestion to Don Lemon of CNN. [2] - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Excerpt from the BLP warning from administrator Balloonman above: . . .The burden for including potentially BLP incendiary information falls upon those parties who wish to add it and the bar for such accusations HAS to be set high. . . .
A want to insert incendiary or potentially slanderous content, in reference to the Shieffer editorial, in this BLP is unwarranted and unreasonable. Giving undue weight to incindiary and potentially slanderous editorials would disrupt a Neutral Point of View. It would be inappropriate and disruptive to insert unilateral political attacks like the Shieffer editorial making potentially slanderous accusations against Trump. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - there are volumes of news stories. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for "scandal mongering." Wikipedia is not supposed to be written like a "tabloid." The potentially slanderous media editorials attacking Mr. Trump approaches or is WP:Fringe, and Trump has stated they do not represent his views. Further, Obama has not responded regarding his college grades and that has severely diminished the potential for notability, significance of the issue. Obama is not shy, let him respond (Obama responded to the birth certificate issue). Commentators are not candidates. This should not be a forum for unilateral political attacks. Other commentators have dismissed these incendiary editorials attacking Trump and candidates have disregarded it. There is no warrant for inclusion. Other candidates such as George W. Bush and John Kerry have had their college grades brought into question. [13] without such potentially slanderous editorials. A cohort of several editors has already contributed to writing this highly visible article and have done a fine job. Its unwarranted in BLP to insist on inserting incindiary or potentially slanderous content. Inserting adhominens against Trump would be inappropriate or attempting to passively insert adhominens through WP:Weasel Words found in incendiary media editorials. We should have a high standard for inclusion in a BLP. Obama hasn't responded which severely dimishes potential for notability and we should not be a forum for unilateral political attacks, media baiting, incindiary or potentially slanderous content. If candidates respond to each other we can take a look. Its very early for campaign related issues, let's be patient. Thanks. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Time to remove NPOV tag. Those seeking to insert the insendiary or potentially slanderous editorial accusation, like the Shieffer editorial, attacking Trump have asked for mediation and have not met the high bar for burden of proof as specified in the BLP warning from above. Some have resorted to placing an NPOV tag when what is being sought to insert would be dispruptive to a neutral point of view. Candidates have disregarded it and commentators have dismissed it, it is or approaches WP:Fringe and should be avoided. Trump has stated it doesn't represent his views. Some are claiming they would seek to delete the article, a work of a cohort of several editors, yet the claimants have not met the high bar to insert insendiary or potentially slanderous content for a BLP. Amazing. Its time to remove the NPOV tag which has been misapplied in this case. Let's wait for the campaign to include campaign related content to develop and have a high standard for inclusion. Thanks Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
To touch on a point Bearian raised before, I think Wikipedia would be better off without an article than with one that is as 'whitewashed' as this. The article lavishes space on the details 0his wealth and glaringly omits the fact that everyone in the nation accuses the man of racism against our president? No mention of his many lies, no mention of his drop in the PPP poll or his plummeted ratings?
I think it's time to delete it. If, as others suggest, a neutral article is something we'll have to wait for, then perhaps we should accept this fact and delete the article until it has time and consensus to be rewritten by non-SPA. Bearian, Susan, et al-- thoughts? Perhaps the deletion process would itself bring the needed eyes. -- Tangledorange ( talk) 02:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to this page, having been notified here. I'm not sure whether a notice like this or any influx of fresh eyes is going to help... but anyway, from an outsider perspective I'm wondering where the problem lies. Of course there are going to be editing disputes and troubles on any hot button major figure that's a matter of current news. Obviously there's some question about how to treat Trump's recent birther comments about Obama. Trump's inflammatory comments aligned him with the Tea Party and initially raised his stature among some conservatives, though that seems to have worn off as a plurality of analysts, commentators, journalists and the public decided variously that they were wrong, misguided, disingenuous, and/or racist. It's always a BLP and POV concern to note that someone has been called racist or any other invective, and there is a question about how noteworthy it is because in politics people are always getting called things. To be clean about it, we would have to go beyond directly sourcing the name-calling, and get to an article that analyzes the phenomenon of Trump being called names. Anyway, a few sentences about his foray into the conspiracy theories seems enough. It might or might not deserve a subheading. This is a brand new issue. If nothing else happens and he doesn't run for office it might not even be worth that much coverage at the end of the day. If he presses on and it remains an issue for months to come, it may deserve expansion. Wikipedia has no deadline, as they say - we can afford to wait. As far as quality, I don't know how good the article was before but it seems okay now, more of a B class article than GA. It's rather comprehensive and a very useful summary for anyone who wants to know about Trump, particularly his history in real estate and business. But the tone is off in two ways IMO. First, it describes Trump's business achievements in the active voice as if Trump did them personally by himself. Trump built this, Trump accomplished that. Obviously he wasn't holding the shovel. He's leading a company that pays money and finds partners to get something done. Phrasing the achievements of an organization as those of its leader sounds a bit like promotional business-speak, not a factual account. Second, some of Trump's many missteps and misfortunes seem to be explained in a self-consciously apologetic way - trump was forced to, or the recession caused a downturn, and so on. I wouldn't call it a whitewash (and that kind of term is not helpful for working with other editors), but these kinds of unsourced or semi-sourced editorial asides about the cause and level of blame or credit aren't quite right for an article. That doesn't hurt the information content, it just reads a little funny. Anyway, I hope people can keep things calm and productive here. It's best to move towards collaboration rather than getting confrontational. It's not going to be deleted, that would be a WP:SNOW issue. The article isn't so bad, and even if it were the remedy for articles with problems is to improve them. - Wikidemon ( talk) 04:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikidemon, I see on your profile pg you got barnstars for successfully "protecting the Obama page from attacks". I never read the Obama Talk page but want to/will now; in meantime are there pointers how your experience there could perhaps translate here? Thx. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 11:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The addition of Seth Meyers's jokes, and photo, was a point attempting to be made. (Any mention of Meyers in the Trump BLP article has no place and is totally, and completely non-notable.)
Meyers's purpose at the Dinner was to draw laughs from the crowd, nothing more, regardless who wrote his script. Half his jokes were about Trump's hairstyle (gosh! how clever). How can anyone w/ a straight face call those jokes "remarks", as though the fact of them carries some kind of weight for inclusion in the Trump BLP article.
Tangledorange has reverted and re-reverted removals of references to Seth Meyers, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. (Will someone with some authority please remove? And please put a stop to Tangledorange? I don't care to interface w/ Tangled any longer ... too tacky. And to assume "good faith" for anything but a continued campaign of Trump-bashing from him ... I think one has to be smoking something.) Thx. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The inclusion of photo of Seth Meyers ("The Joker") was by me, and admittedly as a joke. (Seth Meyers was a hired comedian for the Dinner, he is not a political commentator, and anything he says or even thinks of saying, can have no value elevating to the point of entering the Trump BLP article. That is prima facie obvious. Because Seth Meyers decides to pull laughs any way possible from the crowd about Donald Trump, this merits entry into the Trump BLP article? Yeah right. Seth Meyers is completely non-notable, and even the *fact* he was hired as comedian for the Correspondents Dinner, isn't significant or meaningful in any way to merit finding its way into the Trump BLP article. So then, what significance remains re Seth Meyers and Donald Trump's life? Nothing. If someone wants to argue what Seth Meyers is motivated say or even *think* of saying, has bearing whatsoever on Trump and Trump's biography which should find its way into the Trump BLP article ... I gotta hear that argument. But please give me a kerchief first, to cover my mouth from either laughing or vomiting. Thank you.) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 08:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
A lot of "gossip" (news) pieces over the years have commented on Trump's germaphobia and the like. (Other sufferers include of course Seinfeld and Howie Mandell). IAC now a picture has shown up of Trump eating pizza with a fork. http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/31/6757989-palins-pizza-party- -- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 16:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
One of the questions here would eventually turn not so much on whether Stewart's low brow (pretended?) rant of "Prove you were born in New York City!" (mirroring " the Donald's" " birther," er, presumably serious questions) is sufficiently intellectual but rather on whether Mr. Stewart's antics have become sufficiently notable--and, for what it's worth, the Time magazine mention of this same is but one of scores of such instances within fairly prestigious of sources. Trump lately (unlike formerly, vis-a-vis Ms. O'Donnell) is rolling with the punches and taking them as easily as he throws them. Come to think of it, Mr. Trump's studied, fairly dead pan expression--befitting any straight man in a professional comedy duo (the part Mr. Trump quite masterfully performs, day by day)--during Mr. Obama's funny man turn at the annual Beltway Correspondent's Dinner had me in absolute stitches.
(Is this ramble sufficient to satisfy your, I'm sure, sincere request, Mr. user:Ihardlythinkso? Please advise. Thank you. <winks>)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 17:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
He said June 2 he is still considering running as an independent in 2012 if he does not like the economy or the republican candidate. He is unwilling to turn down the NBC money he makes in order to concentrate on a nearly 2 year campaign. He wants his cake and eat it too.
Has anyone else noticed that one of his favorite words is fabulous?
Please considering adding these to the Trump wiki page I am sure they will checkout fabulously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.176.48 ( talk) 13:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't sure blather was a word but I googled it and it checked out beautifully but I hardly think I blather. You're fired. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.88.176.48 (
talk) 13:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso and I disagree about the caption for one of the photos in the article. A chronology of events:
As the article currently stands, the caption is 1) meaningless in regards to the reason the photo is in that location, and 2) misleading in that it implies that the photo came from Vanity Fair when the opposite is the case. I will thus revert the revert. Ylee ( talk) 21:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll go to Conan O'Brien's blp and see how the similar issue of O's trademark cowlick might be handled. Be right back.-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
HItler, comma, moustache . . . .
The style was introduced in Germany in the late 19th century by visiting Americans. Prior to the toothbrush the most popular style was called the Kaiser moustache, perfumed and turned up at the ends.... By 1907 enough Germans were wearing the new trimmed down and simple toothbrush moustache to elicit notice by the New York Times under the headline "TOOTHBRUSH" MUSTACHE; German Women Resent Its Usurpation of the "Kaiserbart". The toothbrush was taken up by German folk hero Hans Koeppen in the famous 1908 New York to Paris Race, cementing its popularity among young gentry. By the end of WWI even some of the German royals were sporting the toothbrush, William Hohenzollern (son of the Kaiser) can be seen with a toothbrush moustache in an 1918 photograph that shows him about to be sent into exile.
Hitler originally wore the Kaiser moustache, as evidenced by photographs of him as a soldier during World War I. There is no agreement what year Hitler first adopted the toothbrush. Some believe it was after WWI, Ron Rosenbaum, a cultural historian, said "Hitler didn't adopt his until late 1919". Ron Rosenbaum. The secret parts of fortune: three decades of intense investigations and edgy enthusiasms. Others say it was during WWI, Alexander Moritz Frey, who served with Hitler during WWI, said Hitler wore the toothbrush in the trenches after he was ordered to trim his moustache to facilitate the wearing of a gas mask.
—" TOOTHBRUSH MOUSTACHE," WIKIPEDIA: THE FREE ENCYLOPEDIA
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 12:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
You have probably seen pictures of the man from India known as "Gandhi:" a skinny, bald-headed man with wire-rimmed glasses, a white cloth wrapped around him. ... Mohandas Gandhi was not always that man dressed simply in white cloth. As a law student in London and as a lawyer with a successful practice in South Africa, he dressed up in European clothes because he thought it would improve his status, and the status of all Indians. He encouraged Indians to fight for Britain in World War I for the same reason. ... So, who was the true Gandhi? The man in the suit and tie, who promoted military service or the avatar of nonviolence who wore hand-woven cloth and sandals—even when meeting with high officials in foreign lands?
—" GANDHI'S TRUTH," GRETA ANDERSON
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 13:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Donald trump attended Fordham University. Even though he did not graduate, according to the definition of "alma mater" in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary [14]...
Fordham would still be counted as an alma mater of Trump's on the basis of his attendance. Trump did attend both colleges/universities, according to Gale Encyclopedia of Biography:
Please do not change the alma mater designations within the Infobox. Claiming both is correct and verifiable through reliable sources. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 20:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
None of the following articles have Nationality in their infoboxes – why should Trump's be any different?: Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama.
(Plus, it seems unnecessary in light of Birthplace and Residence in the infobox.) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 12:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)