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 6 | → | Archive 10 |
In the introduction to this page it says "Trump is also the founder of Trump Entertainment Resorts, which operates numerous casinos and hotels worldwide", while on the trump entertainment resorts page it says that they only operate 2 hotels in america. Could someone with the right knowledge and editing abilities please correct which ever page is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.99.17 ( talk) 11:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I have made a bunch of copy edits to the lead to improve encyclopedic tone and to remove excess details etc per WP:LEAD which specifies that the lead should be a summary of the article. For example, we don't need to know that he was the fourth of five children. That info can come later in the body of the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This part is not accurate: and in 1968 officially joined the company.[7] He was given control of the company in 1971 and renamed it The Trump Organization.[8][9]"
According to the New York Department of State, The Trump Organization, Inc. was created by Donald J Trump on APRIL 23, 1981, (many years after Fred Trump founded his company) if you check its name history, the name Elizabeth Trump & Son is not on the list; that company was founded and owned by Fred Trump, which makes both companies different entities. So Trump didn't join the family business (something he said even on the Art of the Deal and he said it in his book 'How To Get Rich' (978-1400063277)), he broke away from the family business and tried his luck in Manhattan alone.
Isn't the level of detail on this dispute a bit mighty for a BLP? It's four detailed paragraphs of argumentative blow-by-blow. Is this appropriate for a BLP? At what point s/ this be spun off so the BLP can contain a mere summary? Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 09:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, if I may voice an opinion. Mr T has been closely involved in the project and it appears to be linked in his mind with his Scots-born mother. He has had discussions with Alex Salmond and has appeared at PR events relating to the project. It seems arbitrary, to say the least, to maintain that this particular matter is a 'business issue', hence not properly part of his biography. It's hugely controversial in the UK - where he isn't known for much else. If this subject is ignored in the article dedicated to him, as it now is, one might ask whether it is because events outside the USA are considered relatively unimportant by Wikipedia editors, or because of the controversy. Other business issues are mentioned here. Costesseyboy ( talk) 16:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
There's no need for sarcasm. Trump himself has explicitly linked the project to his Scots-born mother on several occasions, so no "second guessing T's inner psychology" is required; and he has been closely involved in the project on a personal level, with several personal appearances and personal statements, as well as other interventions, in what is, actually, an "extended controversy"; so yes, I would say that it belongs in his biog. And that as it stands the article lacks objectivity, being strongly biased in favour of someone who is a highly controversial figure. Costesseyboy ( talk) 19:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not "trying to imply" anything there: it is you who have read things unwritten. I simply mentioned her to show how personally T is involved in this project, mothers usually being dear to their offspring's hearts. The fact remains that given the scale of the controversy in the UK and now worldwide thanks to 'You've Been Trumped' and (as I maintain) the depth of T's personal involvement, it's extremely strange that it's not mentioned at all in the Wikipedia article about him. Odd too that an original suggestion to reduce the length of the relevant section resulted so quickly in its complete removal. Costesseyboy ( talk) 14:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OK I have. Down to one para now so hopefully no one will find it too detailed. Ihardlythinkso, would you mind not using words like 'whining' to characterise what I've said? Thanks. Costesseyboy ( talk) 23:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
'Consensus' for cutting/removing it before was you and one other. Another person has suggested mentioning the movie. I've given reasons why this is important and why it has a place here: it's a personal project for DT. Perhaps you're not much aware of the controversy where you are but it is big here. It's down to one para from 4. Can't we compromise on that, please? Costesseyboy ( talk) 18:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you please explain without rudeness how the para violates BLP? Costesseyboy ( talk) 22:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC) I've revised & shortened the para. Costesseyboy ( talk) 00:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
When was the portion discussing how Trump Management Corp. was sued in 1973, while Trump was the president, for not renting to African Americans? Not only that but other allegations of racism that once appeared here have also been removed, references for all of which can be found in various newspapers. Why are his political and media-related controversies detailed but not his other public controversies? Honestly, it looks as though this article was simply washed to remove any sources that discussed negative aspects of Trump's life. Derekc06 ( talk) 15:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There has been a noteworthy documentary prepared about Donald Trump regarding his Scottish golf course. It's been reported here in the UK Guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/sep/13/youve-been-trumped-scotland-golf-course).
Haven't got time to add it myself, thought I'd leave the reference here in case anyone has time Saganaki- ( talk) 23:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Saganaki, unfortunately there's nowhere obvious to put the reference at the moment because some people feel the issue the film deals with is not properly part of this article, and all mention of it has been removed. When you have a minute perhaps you'd like to contribute to the relevant discussion above. Costesseyboy ( talk) 19:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
See here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284917/trump-questions-obamas-birth-certificate-katrina-trinko
Trump has NOT abandoned his cause. Trump claims that the long-form certificate is faked or otherwise suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.3 ( talk) 21:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The books Trump "wrote" should go in order by date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.197.24 ( talk) 00:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
CNN just announced that Donald Trump is no longer affiliated with the Republican Party. He is now an Independent. I would change the Donald Trump page but it's locked. Someone needs to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.130.241 ( talk) 21:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section :
Family
Please change :
On April 26, 2004, he proposed to Melania Knauss (Melanija Knavs), a native of Slovenia. Trump and Knauss (who is 24 years Trump's junior) married on January 22, 2005...
to : On April 26, 2004, he proposed to Melania Knauss (Melanija Knavs), a native of Slovenia. Trump and Knauss married on January 22, 2005...
The parenthetical "who is 24 years Trump's junior" does not add value to the article and should be removed. I asked for opinions on this edit in March of 2011 with no responses.
Thanks for your time and consideration. Xburrows ( talk) 19:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The article says his mother was born on the "Island of Lewis". This should read "Isle of Lewis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.27.253 ( talk) 06:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is a citation link for "Trump also has a business simulation game called Donald Trump's Real Estate Tycoon": http://uk.gamespot.com/donald-trumps-real-estate-tycoon/ BarkingNigel ( talk) 10:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Why only one line on the USFL? I think his influence in it's rise/demise and the impact of the league make this at least a paragraph? Anyone else? -- Monstermike99 ( talk) 18:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
That section starts off with one sentence about Deutsche Bank but doesn't tell the reader what on earth the project in question is. The sentence should include that it is about the the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago.
21:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Mac291 ( talk) 21:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/business/05norris.html?_r=1
Drives me crazy when people don't know how to write. It's like running together two sentence fragments or lack of punctuation. You see it all the time nowadays.
Thank you.
The article claims he's a billionaire, but the reference (#3) cites his earnings (only 53 million at the moment), not his net worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.108.33 ( talk) 15:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Bfergel ( talk) 00:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)"I just know it's very hard for them [Ivana and Marla] to compete because I do love what I do." Nightline ABC, February, 2008 Bfergel ( talk) 00:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of one incident classified by the media as a "controversy" - the building of a golf course in Aberdeenshire. Are there others? Worth a section? Syneil ( talk) 08:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the 'announcement' he is claiming on President Obama, when this is added to wiki, it needs to be clear that Trump is not an unbiased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.177.221 ( talk) 14:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hambudge ( talk) 16:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC) "Michael Forbes, whose tussles with Donald Trump were captured on film in an award-winning documentary, has been named the “Top Scot” of the year, ahead of other contenders like Billy Connolly, Andy Murray and Sir Chris Hoy." http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/farmer-who-took-on-trump-triumphs-in-spirit-awards-1-2668649#.ULjRliCXbfM.twitter
why is trump listed as this in categories at the bottom of the article when he clearly is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.152.163 ( talk) 11:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Parts of the Real estate developments section need re-org for chronological consistency. I moved one paragraph, but the rest looks to be a bit messier. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion as a journalist:
This Wikipedia article about Donald Trump erronoeously asserts -- as a claim of fact -- that the "birther" issue (i.e., the questions re Obama's birth certificate and origin) has been "debunked".
The claim is incorrect.
The "birther" issue has been CLAIMED to be "debunked, but the "birther" issue, and the possible validity of the "birther's" claims, is very much alive.
The article's effort to substantiate its claim, by (a) turning, via Footnote #171, to a factually inaccurate, CBS News article -- which itself unacceptably states certain things as being “fact” even though those alleged “facts” are yet in dispute –- and then (b) citing, and presenting as “FACT”, the CBS News item’s ASSERTIONS of "fact", rather than stating that the CBS News item WAS ITSELF declaring ITS OPINION to be "fact" -- that the “birther” issue had been “debunked”, is an egregious –- and highly misleading and unacceptable –- failing of this Wikipedia article.
Whether the Wikipedia article’s writer, of that section, believed, or disbelieved, that the “birther” issue had or had not been “debunked”, is not the point. The point is that the article should be ACCURATE, and VERIFIABLY SO, in whatever it states.
That the Wikipedia article’s footnoted source, and the Wikpedia article itself, simply STATE that something is a fact does not MAKE that something a fact.
And for the Wikipedia article to turn to a source that equally errs as to the facts, and then to present that source’s erroneous information as being a fact in and of itself – and to do so WITHOUT STATING that the information is that source’s CLAIM – is beyond the standards of honest logic – or of proper journalism.
At least if the Wikipedia article had perhaps stated that various sources (such as that footnoted CBS News item) have CLAIMED that the “birther” issue had been “debunked”, then the Wikipedia article would have been on more solid ground as to clarity and accuracy.
In addition, as the “birther” controversy is, properly, relevant to this Wikipedia bio of Donald Trump, there are additional problems with the article’s facile assertion that the “birther” claims have been “debunked”:
For example, the article (a) inaccurately presents the “birther” controversy – and the “birther” arguments – as a dead issue (even though the issue is very much alive), (b) presents – and also misrepresents – source material that is itself biased and that only look at one side of the issue, and (c) excludes any reference to, or findings of, the various forensics experts, the various news organs and investigative journalists, even the investigative team lead by Arizona Sheriff Arpaio (whose efforts and findings re these issues, and even his ability to remain in office, are reportedly now being squelched), whose – findings which, these persons say, provide powerful evidence bearing on the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President.
Thus, while this Wikipedia article about Trump gives some useful information on various other points, it is notably unbalanced, misleading, improperly grounded, and inaccurate, as to the above points regarding the “birther” issue.
In my opinion.
(NOTE: SOME SOURCES):
[http://www.wnd.com/?s=birther WORLDNETDAILY -- Many WND articles analyzing these issues]
[http://www.wnd.com/?s=obama+eligibility%20 WORLDNETDAILY -- Additional WND analyeis of the birther/eligibility issues]
Note Dame Law School Professor Emeritus Charles Rice, on Obama's Eligibility
Orly Taitz, Esq. -- "World's Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site"
Warning: This website orlytaitzesq is frequently infected with malware. (Warning inserted by me into Protonius2's comment. JamesMLane t c 01:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC))
Canada Free Press article - Investigative Report re the Obama Eligibility Controversy" Washington Times - Arizona Sheriff Arpaio Claims Obama's B.C. is Forged
Devvy Kidd -- Many of Devvy's Commentaries, including re Obama's Eligibility
[ http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.se "Obama Release Your Records" (blogspot
-- Protonius2 ( talk) 19:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)PROTONIUS2 (09 February 2013). @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
As I'm sure you know, there has been recent controversy regarding Mr. Trump's birth name. According to some sources, Donald Trump was actually born Fuckface Von Clownstick, a name originating from the now defunct Nation of Leibowitzia. Purportedly, he later changed the name to make business situations less awkward. While such allegations may seem ridiculous, I am personally trying to disambiguate the issue, and, if you'll excuse the expression, clear his name. Does anyone have any information regarding the validity of these claims?
Judging from the article, the Forbes-reported net worth of $3.2 billion has been disputed by credible sources:
Considering that, should WP really accept the Forbes figure at face value for the info box? -- Baumi ( talk) 12:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with all the comments above. There is not enough RSs and consensus among them to warrant Trump's net worth being defined in the info box in WP's voice. It should go in the appropriate section of the article and be appropriately attributed and summarized.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The links provided for the You're Fired! trademark are not valid.
The following link shows the trademark that was awarded to JMBP in 2008 for the purposes of Entertainment services in the nature of a reality television series.
Thats J. Mark Burnett Productions producer of the apprentice.
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:tm8x06.3.3
Of the 2 live trademarks, only one is associated to the apprentice and is owned by J. Mark Burnett Productions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.216.189 ( talk) 16:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
A lot of this reads like a PR piece. In particular the overwhelming majority of the sources are to various of Trump's many autobiographies and memoirs.
This is someone with a well-established history of distorting his personal and business record for public gain.
I notice a number of things are missing here of major importance: 1) The extensive loans he took against his trust fund (never mentioned) and from family members; 2) It presents the casino bankruptcies as decisions Trump made, when in fact they were compelled by creditors one of whose biggest complaints was Trump taking outsized compensation from companies that were all losing money; 3) The discussion of Trump's personal wealth and the assets of the Trump Organization include a major distortion -- the way Trump got out of his personal financial problems, is that he no longer has beneficial interests in what used to be his indirectly owned properties -- the Trump organization principally is paid for managing properties owned by others.
I'd be very surprised if there aren't a *lot* more things like that throughout this article.
And what does anyone care about this guy's presidential-run publicity stunt? Someone's PR campaign is not, of itself, notable...
Is anyone well-versed enough on this guy's history to do a real, objective re-write? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Numerous statements that Donald Trump has made to the media indicate that he is a Tea Party supporter, not to mention that he was a featured speaker at a Tea Party event:
JoelDick ( talk) 22:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything from 2600:1006:b100:ccd4:840d:88bb:6f0b:4171 so I'll assume we have a consensus to add the paragraph back in. JoelDick ( talk) 13:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Making a speech where there are Tea Party supporters in the audience does not make a person "associated with the Tea Party Movement" and does not make the person in any sense a member of such a movement. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
(od)Sure looks like there ain't a current consensus for the material. Contentious claims about living persons require exceedingly strong sourcing.
Seem to cover most of the problems. And in case you did not notice it consensus can change is part of WP:CONSENSUS. A two or three person consensus is not generally considered of any more than moot value. Collect ( talk) 00:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Collect asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#query about this. I answered in the following manner and I'm copying it over here for what it's worth. Let me add, in light of the specific issues raised above, that I do believe that consensus can be formed by two editors, that no formality is required to form consensus, and that timing does play a part in judging whether consensus has been formed by concession or by silence, but I think most or all of that is largely irrelevant here for reasons stated below:
I do a lot of dispute resolution work and have to look at questions like this fairly often. Let me note here that the agreement which asserts the two-person consensus was made in this edit on July 4, with a corresponding edit in the article that same day. The next edit to challenge it was, I think, made in the article text in this edit on July 18 and on the talk page in this edit on July 25. Unless there were some prior edits that I've missed that's 14 days between consensus assertion and objection-by-editing. In a "hot" article such as Donald Trump (i.e. one which gets a lot of editor attention), I have to say that I think that in ordinary circumstances it would be a very close call whether or not the subsequent objections were sufficient to prevent a consensus from being formed by the prior agreement and edit. However, this is a BLP article, it was a clearly controversial edit, and the quality of both sources and consensus (see the second bullet point of the WP:No consensus section of this policy) are of importance. On the whole, I either think that either there was no consensus formed due to the subsequent objection or that the quality of the consensus (and the interpretation of the source, though that's a different issue) should keep the disputed edit in play without further bickering over whether or not there was a consensus. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) PS #1: Unusually, I disagree with Blueboar in this instance. A consensus is a consensus. However weak it may be, it cannot be set aside merely by objecting to it. A new consensus must be formed to set aside the old consensus. An objection to the prior consensus may be enough to form a new consensus, of course, if no one objects to the objection. PS #2: I strongly object to the idea that any sort of formality should have to be observed in order to form consensus. I could say more about that, but I don't think that's really necessary to resolution of the specific problem here. TM — 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
I don't have a dog in this hunt, so that's about all I'm probably going to say here. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I remember reading this biography once, and it makes reference to supposed court documents filled during Donald and Ivana's divorce, documents which supposedly contain allegations by Ivana that Donald raped her once after coming home angry from some liposuction and hair replacement procedures, the results of which he was unhappy with. The biography is available on eBay, and here is a review of it which mentions these allegations. - 101.169.127.245 ( talk) 11:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC) http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-21/news/vw-15193_1_donald-trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.127.245 ( talk) 11:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I was going to put this in, but Ivana Trump (or her lawyers) recanted the claim. This is discussed in the article you cite. There really should be some major edits to this page to include the material from that book, though. I remember when that book came out, and if its correct that a huge amount of the stuff on this page about his business history, ownership, and so forth, is incorrect.
A key contention of the book is that the wealth claims are bogus. Trump had, through entities, owned lots of properties in the late 1980s, and had claimed as his net worth the total value of those properties without deducting billions of dollars in debt owed on them. Then, after a series of debt workouts in the early 1990s, and since then, Trump's actual business has been in property management, and does not actually have real beneficial ownership interests in the properties bearing his name.
Let me try to make this clearer: The claim, which was made in the book referenced above and has been reinforced numerous times, is that ownership of the properties in New York that bear Trump's name is structured so that Trump has either no, or only a minimal, economic interest in the real estate. Instead, his company received a management fee. But, he continues to assert that his "net worth" is equal to the total potential sale value of all of those real estate assets combined, without regard to debts or ownership structure.
This does appear to be the case. One of the things that came out during the financial crisis, when a slew of "Trump" properties in Florida and elsewhere failed, was that Trump hadn't actually owned the properties, but merely licensed his name.
Djcheburashka ( talk) 06:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are the sources:
sufficient to label Trump in the possibly contentious category "People associated with the Tea Party movement"? 00:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*Don't apply the category. The bot sent me. Trump doesn't appear to be affiliated with any group. He doesn't even seem to have any allegiance to the Republican Party. This is a BLP and while he isn't being put into a category like a racist hate group, like La Raza or the KKK, for instance, it seems best to have a scholarly source that is peer reviewed. Some editors have mentioned headlines, (which are written by editors, not writers), as well as referred to vague comments made by Trump and/or news anchors. This seems
WP:UNDUE and could be a BLP vio. Especially given the sources above which are very poor sources. If you had a scholarly source from a peer reviewed journal that identified Trump with a particular group or ideology, I'd say apply the category, especially since it seems benign compared to other groups. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, so I'd just drop it. It doesn't seem crucial anyway. Agree with Collect's assessment below.
SW3 5DL (
talk) 07:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that labeling any person as "associated with the Tea Party movement" may readily be deemed contentious under WP:BLP, and that WP:BLP requires more than a person saying he agrees with some particular positions of a movement or making a speech to a group which is not specifically directed at the movement or about the movement. Some of the sources are videos and some are clearly editorial opinion about Trump, but I cannot find in any of them that he specifically states any "association" with that controversial movement, and plenty of sources which have him taking positions rather antithetical to the movement other than on government spending. I suggest further that being opposed to government spending is not in itself sufficient to label a person as being associated with a controversial group or movement. I also suggest that contentious categories be generally avoided in BLPs. Collect ( talk) 00:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So I asked him straight out if he considers himself a member of the Tea Party. "I certainly seem to be in a sense.Los Angeles Times:
Asked if he considered himself part of tea party, Trump said, "I think so.Therefore, Trump, by his own admission, certainly seems to be a Tea Party member in a sense. starship .paint ~ regal 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
(od) In which case, folks who were once members of Communist Front organizations in the 1930s should be categorized as "associated with the Communist Party" - right? The "Tea Party movement" is clearly "contentious" as a claim about a living person who does not clearly and unambiguously self-identify specifically with such a group. Which is how I consider contentious claims must always be handled - including "claims by categorization." Collect ( talk) 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not arguing any such thing. I examined the sources posted by Collect at the start of the RfC. I made the comment about the headlines because I noted that some other editors had mentioned headlines and news shows and found them adequate. My comment had absolutely zero to do with your comments. Owing to the fact that this is a BLP, I find the sources above to be inadequate for placing Trump in the suggested category. My suggestion is to find a scholarly text/article that is peer reviewed. You, on the other hand, appear to have taken offense because I, who don't even know you or care to know you, have posted an opposing view. If you are easily offended, especially where no offense was intended, then you'd best find another project. Also, I'm moving my comment back where I placed it and restoring the 'discussion' section which you deleted. I'm not going to bother responding to you and deeply regret ever responding to you in the first place as you appear to be trolling. It's just an RfC. Take a wikibreak.
SW3 5DL (
talk) 21:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
What is Associated ??? - does that mean politically active in that way or is it a celebrity just at the level of agree with them somewhat ? I think it's there are too many folks active in it for 'association' alone to make the cut, or half the names in WP might have to get tagged, so for it to mean something it has to be a significant involvement or a significant marker for some reason. Markbassett ( talk) 00:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The more I think about the issues here, the more I am becoming convinced that the real problem lies with the way that the category, Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement, is worded. The words "associated with" are simply too nebulous to be used where WP:BLP applies. If I were to go to WP:CFD, and start a discussion about changing the category to Category:Tea Party movement activists or Category:Tea Party movement advocates, with the understanding that persons who are not clearly such activists/advocates would be removed from the category, and if that proposal were to achieve consensus, could we then resolve this RfC by removing this page from the resulting new category? I, for one, would believe that the new category would no longer apply. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
None of this is notable. Shall we add sections to the biographies of every person with a PR rep everytime they tweet?
I propose to take virtually all of that out, stripping it to the bare core that he made statements about a presidential run but did not, and so forth.
Djcheburashka ( talk) 06:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Plan is to strip the entire discussion of his politics down to brief mentions that he made statements about a presidential run, and the like.
Going once, going twice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "coverage" equals notability, because if so then someone can press-release themselves to create their wiki page, but I agree that trimming rather than stripping works. Doing it now...
Djcheburashka ( talk) 00:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Wayback machine is described in the article as a travel agency, Wayback machine is in fact an internet archive, perhaps someone who knows more about the subject could correct or remove as appropriate. Pincrete ( talk) 22:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Herschel Walker recently said some interesting things about Trump. Perhaps that was related to a large direct payment? According to The Terrible Truth about Lawyers, a book I just ran across, Trump personally guaranteed Walker's salary (around $6 million) as part of his desperate efforts to keep the USFL alive. In relation to Trump's ownership of casinos, you could say he's just fond of gambling, but I think it shows a more serious and broader lack of good judgment... Even apart from the "living persons' restrictions", it seems really hard to approach anything related to Trump with anything like a NPV. Shanen ( talk) 07:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with @ Professor JR:. These sorts of speculations are not notable. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 14:38, 9 July 2015 (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 6 | → | Archive 10 |
In the introduction to this page it says "Trump is also the founder of Trump Entertainment Resorts, which operates numerous casinos and hotels worldwide", while on the trump entertainment resorts page it says that they only operate 2 hotels in america. Could someone with the right knowledge and editing abilities please correct which ever page is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.99.17 ( talk) 11:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I have made a bunch of copy edits to the lead to improve encyclopedic tone and to remove excess details etc per WP:LEAD which specifies that the lead should be a summary of the article. For example, we don't need to know that he was the fourth of five children. That info can come later in the body of the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This part is not accurate: and in 1968 officially joined the company.[7] He was given control of the company in 1971 and renamed it The Trump Organization.[8][9]"
According to the New York Department of State, The Trump Organization, Inc. was created by Donald J Trump on APRIL 23, 1981, (many years after Fred Trump founded his company) if you check its name history, the name Elizabeth Trump & Son is not on the list; that company was founded and owned by Fred Trump, which makes both companies different entities. So Trump didn't join the family business (something he said even on the Art of the Deal and he said it in his book 'How To Get Rich' (978-1400063277)), he broke away from the family business and tried his luck in Manhattan alone.
Isn't the level of detail on this dispute a bit mighty for a BLP? It's four detailed paragraphs of argumentative blow-by-blow. Is this appropriate for a BLP? At what point s/ this be spun off so the BLP can contain a mere summary? Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 09:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, if I may voice an opinion. Mr T has been closely involved in the project and it appears to be linked in his mind with his Scots-born mother. He has had discussions with Alex Salmond and has appeared at PR events relating to the project. It seems arbitrary, to say the least, to maintain that this particular matter is a 'business issue', hence not properly part of his biography. It's hugely controversial in the UK - where he isn't known for much else. If this subject is ignored in the article dedicated to him, as it now is, one might ask whether it is because events outside the USA are considered relatively unimportant by Wikipedia editors, or because of the controversy. Other business issues are mentioned here. Costesseyboy ( talk) 16:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
There's no need for sarcasm. Trump himself has explicitly linked the project to his Scots-born mother on several occasions, so no "second guessing T's inner psychology" is required; and he has been closely involved in the project on a personal level, with several personal appearances and personal statements, as well as other interventions, in what is, actually, an "extended controversy"; so yes, I would say that it belongs in his biog. And that as it stands the article lacks objectivity, being strongly biased in favour of someone who is a highly controversial figure. Costesseyboy ( talk) 19:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not "trying to imply" anything there: it is you who have read things unwritten. I simply mentioned her to show how personally T is involved in this project, mothers usually being dear to their offspring's hearts. The fact remains that given the scale of the controversy in the UK and now worldwide thanks to 'You've Been Trumped' and (as I maintain) the depth of T's personal involvement, it's extremely strange that it's not mentioned at all in the Wikipedia article about him. Odd too that an original suggestion to reduce the length of the relevant section resulted so quickly in its complete removal. Costesseyboy ( talk) 14:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OK I have. Down to one para now so hopefully no one will find it too detailed. Ihardlythinkso, would you mind not using words like 'whining' to characterise what I've said? Thanks. Costesseyboy ( talk) 23:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
'Consensus' for cutting/removing it before was you and one other. Another person has suggested mentioning the movie. I've given reasons why this is important and why it has a place here: it's a personal project for DT. Perhaps you're not much aware of the controversy where you are but it is big here. It's down to one para from 4. Can't we compromise on that, please? Costesseyboy ( talk) 18:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you please explain without rudeness how the para violates BLP? Costesseyboy ( talk) 22:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC) I've revised & shortened the para. Costesseyboy ( talk) 00:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
When was the portion discussing how Trump Management Corp. was sued in 1973, while Trump was the president, for not renting to African Americans? Not only that but other allegations of racism that once appeared here have also been removed, references for all of which can be found in various newspapers. Why are his political and media-related controversies detailed but not his other public controversies? Honestly, it looks as though this article was simply washed to remove any sources that discussed negative aspects of Trump's life. Derekc06 ( talk) 15:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There has been a noteworthy documentary prepared about Donald Trump regarding his Scottish golf course. It's been reported here in the UK Guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/sep/13/youve-been-trumped-scotland-golf-course).
Haven't got time to add it myself, thought I'd leave the reference here in case anyone has time Saganaki- ( talk) 23:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Saganaki, unfortunately there's nowhere obvious to put the reference at the moment because some people feel the issue the film deals with is not properly part of this article, and all mention of it has been removed. When you have a minute perhaps you'd like to contribute to the relevant discussion above. Costesseyboy ( talk) 19:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
See here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284917/trump-questions-obamas-birth-certificate-katrina-trinko
Trump has NOT abandoned his cause. Trump claims that the long-form certificate is faked or otherwise suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.3 ( talk) 21:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The books Trump "wrote" should go in order by date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.197.24 ( talk) 00:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
CNN just announced that Donald Trump is no longer affiliated with the Republican Party. He is now an Independent. I would change the Donald Trump page but it's locked. Someone needs to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.130.241 ( talk) 21:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section :
Family
Please change :
On April 26, 2004, he proposed to Melania Knauss (Melanija Knavs), a native of Slovenia. Trump and Knauss (who is 24 years Trump's junior) married on January 22, 2005...
to : On April 26, 2004, he proposed to Melania Knauss (Melanija Knavs), a native of Slovenia. Trump and Knauss married on January 22, 2005...
The parenthetical "who is 24 years Trump's junior" does not add value to the article and should be removed. I asked for opinions on this edit in March of 2011 with no responses.
Thanks for your time and consideration. Xburrows ( talk) 19:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The article says his mother was born on the "Island of Lewis". This should read "Isle of Lewis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.27.253 ( talk) 06:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is a citation link for "Trump also has a business simulation game called Donald Trump's Real Estate Tycoon": http://uk.gamespot.com/donald-trumps-real-estate-tycoon/ BarkingNigel ( talk) 10:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Why only one line on the USFL? I think his influence in it's rise/demise and the impact of the league make this at least a paragraph? Anyone else? -- Monstermike99 ( talk) 18:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
That section starts off with one sentence about Deutsche Bank but doesn't tell the reader what on earth the project in question is. The sentence should include that it is about the the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago.
21:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Mac291 ( talk) 21:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/business/05norris.html?_r=1
Drives me crazy when people don't know how to write. It's like running together two sentence fragments or lack of punctuation. You see it all the time nowadays.
Thank you.
The article claims he's a billionaire, but the reference (#3) cites his earnings (only 53 million at the moment), not his net worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.108.33 ( talk) 15:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Bfergel ( talk) 00:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)"I just know it's very hard for them [Ivana and Marla] to compete because I do love what I do." Nightline ABC, February, 2008 Bfergel ( talk) 00:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of one incident classified by the media as a "controversy" - the building of a golf course in Aberdeenshire. Are there others? Worth a section? Syneil ( talk) 08:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the 'announcement' he is claiming on President Obama, when this is added to wiki, it needs to be clear that Trump is not an unbiased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.177.221 ( talk) 14:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hambudge ( talk) 16:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC) "Michael Forbes, whose tussles with Donald Trump were captured on film in an award-winning documentary, has been named the “Top Scot” of the year, ahead of other contenders like Billy Connolly, Andy Murray and Sir Chris Hoy." http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/farmer-who-took-on-trump-triumphs-in-spirit-awards-1-2668649#.ULjRliCXbfM.twitter
why is trump listed as this in categories at the bottom of the article when he clearly is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.152.163 ( talk) 11:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Parts of the Real estate developments section need re-org for chronological consistency. I moved one paragraph, but the rest looks to be a bit messier. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion as a journalist:
This Wikipedia article about Donald Trump erronoeously asserts -- as a claim of fact -- that the "birther" issue (i.e., the questions re Obama's birth certificate and origin) has been "debunked".
The claim is incorrect.
The "birther" issue has been CLAIMED to be "debunked, but the "birther" issue, and the possible validity of the "birther's" claims, is very much alive.
The article's effort to substantiate its claim, by (a) turning, via Footnote #171, to a factually inaccurate, CBS News article -- which itself unacceptably states certain things as being “fact” even though those alleged “facts” are yet in dispute –- and then (b) citing, and presenting as “FACT”, the CBS News item’s ASSERTIONS of "fact", rather than stating that the CBS News item WAS ITSELF declaring ITS OPINION to be "fact" -- that the “birther” issue had been “debunked”, is an egregious –- and highly misleading and unacceptable –- failing of this Wikipedia article.
Whether the Wikipedia article’s writer, of that section, believed, or disbelieved, that the “birther” issue had or had not been “debunked”, is not the point. The point is that the article should be ACCURATE, and VERIFIABLY SO, in whatever it states.
That the Wikipedia article’s footnoted source, and the Wikpedia article itself, simply STATE that something is a fact does not MAKE that something a fact.
And for the Wikipedia article to turn to a source that equally errs as to the facts, and then to present that source’s erroneous information as being a fact in and of itself – and to do so WITHOUT STATING that the information is that source’s CLAIM – is beyond the standards of honest logic – or of proper journalism.
At least if the Wikipedia article had perhaps stated that various sources (such as that footnoted CBS News item) have CLAIMED that the “birther” issue had been “debunked”, then the Wikipedia article would have been on more solid ground as to clarity and accuracy.
In addition, as the “birther” controversy is, properly, relevant to this Wikipedia bio of Donald Trump, there are additional problems with the article’s facile assertion that the “birther” claims have been “debunked”:
For example, the article (a) inaccurately presents the “birther” controversy – and the “birther” arguments – as a dead issue (even though the issue is very much alive), (b) presents – and also misrepresents – source material that is itself biased and that only look at one side of the issue, and (c) excludes any reference to, or findings of, the various forensics experts, the various news organs and investigative journalists, even the investigative team lead by Arizona Sheriff Arpaio (whose efforts and findings re these issues, and even his ability to remain in office, are reportedly now being squelched), whose – findings which, these persons say, provide powerful evidence bearing on the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President.
Thus, while this Wikipedia article about Trump gives some useful information on various other points, it is notably unbalanced, misleading, improperly grounded, and inaccurate, as to the above points regarding the “birther” issue.
In my opinion.
(NOTE: SOME SOURCES):
[http://www.wnd.com/?s=birther WORLDNETDAILY -- Many WND articles analyzing these issues]
[http://www.wnd.com/?s=obama+eligibility%20 WORLDNETDAILY -- Additional WND analyeis of the birther/eligibility issues]
Note Dame Law School Professor Emeritus Charles Rice, on Obama's Eligibility
Orly Taitz, Esq. -- "World's Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site"
Warning: This website orlytaitzesq is frequently infected with malware. (Warning inserted by me into Protonius2's comment. JamesMLane t c 01:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC))
Canada Free Press article - Investigative Report re the Obama Eligibility Controversy" Washington Times - Arizona Sheriff Arpaio Claims Obama's B.C. is Forged
Devvy Kidd -- Many of Devvy's Commentaries, including re Obama's Eligibility
[ http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.se "Obama Release Your Records" (blogspot
-- Protonius2 ( talk) 19:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)PROTONIUS2 (09 February 2013). @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
As I'm sure you know, there has been recent controversy regarding Mr. Trump's birth name. According to some sources, Donald Trump was actually born Fuckface Von Clownstick, a name originating from the now defunct Nation of Leibowitzia. Purportedly, he later changed the name to make business situations less awkward. While such allegations may seem ridiculous, I am personally trying to disambiguate the issue, and, if you'll excuse the expression, clear his name. Does anyone have any information regarding the validity of these claims?
Judging from the article, the Forbes-reported net worth of $3.2 billion has been disputed by credible sources:
Considering that, should WP really accept the Forbes figure at face value for the info box? -- Baumi ( talk) 12:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with all the comments above. There is not enough RSs and consensus among them to warrant Trump's net worth being defined in the info box in WP's voice. It should go in the appropriate section of the article and be appropriately attributed and summarized.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The links provided for the You're Fired! trademark are not valid.
The following link shows the trademark that was awarded to JMBP in 2008 for the purposes of Entertainment services in the nature of a reality television series.
Thats J. Mark Burnett Productions producer of the apprentice.
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:tm8x06.3.3
Of the 2 live trademarks, only one is associated to the apprentice and is owned by J. Mark Burnett Productions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.216.189 ( talk) 16:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
A lot of this reads like a PR piece. In particular the overwhelming majority of the sources are to various of Trump's many autobiographies and memoirs.
This is someone with a well-established history of distorting his personal and business record for public gain.
I notice a number of things are missing here of major importance: 1) The extensive loans he took against his trust fund (never mentioned) and from family members; 2) It presents the casino bankruptcies as decisions Trump made, when in fact they were compelled by creditors one of whose biggest complaints was Trump taking outsized compensation from companies that were all losing money; 3) The discussion of Trump's personal wealth and the assets of the Trump Organization include a major distortion -- the way Trump got out of his personal financial problems, is that he no longer has beneficial interests in what used to be his indirectly owned properties -- the Trump organization principally is paid for managing properties owned by others.
I'd be very surprised if there aren't a *lot* more things like that throughout this article.
And what does anyone care about this guy's presidential-run publicity stunt? Someone's PR campaign is not, of itself, notable...
Is anyone well-versed enough on this guy's history to do a real, objective re-write? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Numerous statements that Donald Trump has made to the media indicate that he is a Tea Party supporter, not to mention that he was a featured speaker at a Tea Party event:
JoelDick ( talk) 22:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything from 2600:1006:b100:ccd4:840d:88bb:6f0b:4171 so I'll assume we have a consensus to add the paragraph back in. JoelDick ( talk) 13:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Making a speech where there are Tea Party supporters in the audience does not make a person "associated with the Tea Party Movement" and does not make the person in any sense a member of such a movement. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
(od)Sure looks like there ain't a current consensus for the material. Contentious claims about living persons require exceedingly strong sourcing.
Seem to cover most of the problems. And in case you did not notice it consensus can change is part of WP:CONSENSUS. A two or three person consensus is not generally considered of any more than moot value. Collect ( talk) 00:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Collect asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#query about this. I answered in the following manner and I'm copying it over here for what it's worth. Let me add, in light of the specific issues raised above, that I do believe that consensus can be formed by two editors, that no formality is required to form consensus, and that timing does play a part in judging whether consensus has been formed by concession or by silence, but I think most or all of that is largely irrelevant here for reasons stated below:
I do a lot of dispute resolution work and have to look at questions like this fairly often. Let me note here that the agreement which asserts the two-person consensus was made in this edit on July 4, with a corresponding edit in the article that same day. The next edit to challenge it was, I think, made in the article text in this edit on July 18 and on the talk page in this edit on July 25. Unless there were some prior edits that I've missed that's 14 days between consensus assertion and objection-by-editing. In a "hot" article such as Donald Trump (i.e. one which gets a lot of editor attention), I have to say that I think that in ordinary circumstances it would be a very close call whether or not the subsequent objections were sufficient to prevent a consensus from being formed by the prior agreement and edit. However, this is a BLP article, it was a clearly controversial edit, and the quality of both sources and consensus (see the second bullet point of the WP:No consensus section of this policy) are of importance. On the whole, I either think that either there was no consensus formed due to the subsequent objection or that the quality of the consensus (and the interpretation of the source, though that's a different issue) should keep the disputed edit in play without further bickering over whether or not there was a consensus. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) PS #1: Unusually, I disagree with Blueboar in this instance. A consensus is a consensus. However weak it may be, it cannot be set aside merely by objecting to it. A new consensus must be formed to set aside the old consensus. An objection to the prior consensus may be enough to form a new consensus, of course, if no one objects to the objection. PS #2: I strongly object to the idea that any sort of formality should have to be observed in order to form consensus. I could say more about that, but I don't think that's really necessary to resolution of the specific problem here. TM — 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
I don't have a dog in this hunt, so that's about all I'm probably going to say here. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I remember reading this biography once, and it makes reference to supposed court documents filled during Donald and Ivana's divorce, documents which supposedly contain allegations by Ivana that Donald raped her once after coming home angry from some liposuction and hair replacement procedures, the results of which he was unhappy with. The biography is available on eBay, and here is a review of it which mentions these allegations. - 101.169.127.245 ( talk) 11:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC) http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-21/news/vw-15193_1_donald-trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.127.245 ( talk) 11:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I was going to put this in, but Ivana Trump (or her lawyers) recanted the claim. This is discussed in the article you cite. There really should be some major edits to this page to include the material from that book, though. I remember when that book came out, and if its correct that a huge amount of the stuff on this page about his business history, ownership, and so forth, is incorrect.
A key contention of the book is that the wealth claims are bogus. Trump had, through entities, owned lots of properties in the late 1980s, and had claimed as his net worth the total value of those properties without deducting billions of dollars in debt owed on them. Then, after a series of debt workouts in the early 1990s, and since then, Trump's actual business has been in property management, and does not actually have real beneficial ownership interests in the properties bearing his name.
Let me try to make this clearer: The claim, which was made in the book referenced above and has been reinforced numerous times, is that ownership of the properties in New York that bear Trump's name is structured so that Trump has either no, or only a minimal, economic interest in the real estate. Instead, his company received a management fee. But, he continues to assert that his "net worth" is equal to the total potential sale value of all of those real estate assets combined, without regard to debts or ownership structure.
This does appear to be the case. One of the things that came out during the financial crisis, when a slew of "Trump" properties in Florida and elsewhere failed, was that Trump hadn't actually owned the properties, but merely licensed his name.
Djcheburashka ( talk) 06:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are the sources:
sufficient to label Trump in the possibly contentious category "People associated with the Tea Party movement"? 00:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*Don't apply the category. The bot sent me. Trump doesn't appear to be affiliated with any group. He doesn't even seem to have any allegiance to the Republican Party. This is a BLP and while he isn't being put into a category like a racist hate group, like La Raza or the KKK, for instance, it seems best to have a scholarly source that is peer reviewed. Some editors have mentioned headlines, (which are written by editors, not writers), as well as referred to vague comments made by Trump and/or news anchors. This seems
WP:UNDUE and could be a BLP vio. Especially given the sources above which are very poor sources. If you had a scholarly source from a peer reviewed journal that identified Trump with a particular group or ideology, I'd say apply the category, especially since it seems benign compared to other groups. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, so I'd just drop it. It doesn't seem crucial anyway. Agree with Collect's assessment below.
SW3 5DL (
talk) 07:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that labeling any person as "associated with the Tea Party movement" may readily be deemed contentious under WP:BLP, and that WP:BLP requires more than a person saying he agrees with some particular positions of a movement or making a speech to a group which is not specifically directed at the movement or about the movement. Some of the sources are videos and some are clearly editorial opinion about Trump, but I cannot find in any of them that he specifically states any "association" with that controversial movement, and plenty of sources which have him taking positions rather antithetical to the movement other than on government spending. I suggest further that being opposed to government spending is not in itself sufficient to label a person as being associated with a controversial group or movement. I also suggest that contentious categories be generally avoided in BLPs. Collect ( talk) 00:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So I asked him straight out if he considers himself a member of the Tea Party. "I certainly seem to be in a sense.Los Angeles Times:
Asked if he considered himself part of tea party, Trump said, "I think so.Therefore, Trump, by his own admission, certainly seems to be a Tea Party member in a sense. starship .paint ~ regal 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
(od) In which case, folks who were once members of Communist Front organizations in the 1930s should be categorized as "associated with the Communist Party" - right? The "Tea Party movement" is clearly "contentious" as a claim about a living person who does not clearly and unambiguously self-identify specifically with such a group. Which is how I consider contentious claims must always be handled - including "claims by categorization." Collect ( talk) 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not arguing any such thing. I examined the sources posted by Collect at the start of the RfC. I made the comment about the headlines because I noted that some other editors had mentioned headlines and news shows and found them adequate. My comment had absolutely zero to do with your comments. Owing to the fact that this is a BLP, I find the sources above to be inadequate for placing Trump in the suggested category. My suggestion is to find a scholarly text/article that is peer reviewed. You, on the other hand, appear to have taken offense because I, who don't even know you or care to know you, have posted an opposing view. If you are easily offended, especially where no offense was intended, then you'd best find another project. Also, I'm moving my comment back where I placed it and restoring the 'discussion' section which you deleted. I'm not going to bother responding to you and deeply regret ever responding to you in the first place as you appear to be trolling. It's just an RfC. Take a wikibreak.
SW3 5DL (
talk) 21:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
What is Associated ??? - does that mean politically active in that way or is it a celebrity just at the level of agree with them somewhat ? I think it's there are too many folks active in it for 'association' alone to make the cut, or half the names in WP might have to get tagged, so for it to mean something it has to be a significant involvement or a significant marker for some reason. Markbassett ( talk) 00:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The more I think about the issues here, the more I am becoming convinced that the real problem lies with the way that the category, Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement, is worded. The words "associated with" are simply too nebulous to be used where WP:BLP applies. If I were to go to WP:CFD, and start a discussion about changing the category to Category:Tea Party movement activists or Category:Tea Party movement advocates, with the understanding that persons who are not clearly such activists/advocates would be removed from the category, and if that proposal were to achieve consensus, could we then resolve this RfC by removing this page from the resulting new category? I, for one, would believe that the new category would no longer apply. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
None of this is notable. Shall we add sections to the biographies of every person with a PR rep everytime they tweet?
I propose to take virtually all of that out, stripping it to the bare core that he made statements about a presidential run but did not, and so forth.
Djcheburashka ( talk) 06:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Plan is to strip the entire discussion of his politics down to brief mentions that he made statements about a presidential run, and the like.
Going once, going twice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "coverage" equals notability, because if so then someone can press-release themselves to create their wiki page, but I agree that trimming rather than stripping works. Doing it now...
Djcheburashka ( talk) 00:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Wayback machine is described in the article as a travel agency, Wayback machine is in fact an internet archive, perhaps someone who knows more about the subject could correct or remove as appropriate. Pincrete ( talk) 22:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Herschel Walker recently said some interesting things about Trump. Perhaps that was related to a large direct payment? According to The Terrible Truth about Lawyers, a book I just ran across, Trump personally guaranteed Walker's salary (around $6 million) as part of his desperate efforts to keep the USFL alive. In relation to Trump's ownership of casinos, you could say he's just fond of gambling, but I think it shows a more serious and broader lack of good judgment... Even apart from the "living persons' restrictions", it seems really hard to approach anything related to Trump with anything like a NPV. Shanen ( talk) 07:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with @ Professor JR:. These sorts of speculations are not notable. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 14:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)