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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I think saying where this beer went adds to the completeness of the article - it's getting a fair bit of press, maybe it should just reference ' a Chicago-based chain Pizzeria' or something like that to avoid any PR creep on the page? Victor Grigas ( talk) 03:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Both references in the article and numerous more quote Trump as saying "they're rapists" e.g. New York Times. Trump himself, in his official annotated statement on it says "they're rapists". This is very different from saying "they're bringing .... their rapists." Valenciano ( talk) 11:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Trump should be treated fairly. His remark mentioned a sequence of crimes and implies....'they're bringing their' for each crime mentioned, since he follows up with, .. "And some, I assume, are good people." @ Professor JR:. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 14:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
What about "The Donald's" previous support for all things Democrat: abortion, path to citizenship, etc, and the money he's given to Dem canditates? Why no mention that he received a medical deferment from service in the military upon graduation from college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 ( talk) 01:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The talk page for Hillary Clinton includes a FAQ that says: Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see here — and the same was subsequently done for some other political figures' articles, including those running in the 2012 presidential election and those likely to be running in the 2016 election.
To be in compliance with WP policies, and especially those for 2016 presidential candidates, this section should be removed and the content included in context elsewhere within the article. Are there any arguments as to why this should not be the case? 217IP ( talk) 19:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This is content in the other controversies section:
There are two news sources on the tweet but they don't really provide any sort of commentary or analysis. It is essentially "Donald Trump tweeted this and here's a quote from someone who was offended". In an attempt to reorganize the controversies subject (which violates policies as discussed above this on talk page) - where should this information go, if anywhere? Trump has had dozens of news articles about his tweets spanning over many years. I don't see why we would include this one but not other controversial tweets. I don't know of policies against including them, but it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to include every tweet on this article that makes it into the news. 217IP ( talk) 03:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
References
(addressed to me, moved here from my talk page -- Mathmensch ( talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)) This is not in any way acceptable on Wikipedia as a political position. It is hearsay about a joke from the early 1990s, expressed in a book written by an ex-employee. It is questionable whether reporting hearsay comments is even notable for inclusion on wikipedia at all, let alone attempting to dress it up as a 'political position' for a presidential candidate. I understand that you might want to express your political views about certain candidates, but Wikipedia pages are not the places to do it. Avaya1 ( talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
(revised edition by Avaya:-- Mathmensch ( talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)) This is not in any way acceptable on Wikipedia as a political position section. It is hearsay about a joke from the early 1990s, expressed in a book written by an ex-employee. It is questionable whether reporting hearsay comments is even notable for inclusion on wikipedia at all, let alone attempting to dress it up as a 'political position' for a presidential candidate. I would argue against its inclusion anywhere on a WP:BLP. Wikipedia pages should be giving notable and accurate information, not for reporting hearsay and gossip alleging that someone once said a politically incorrect joke. Avaya1 ( talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
A topic often discussed in the context of Donald Trump are the remarks he made about mexicans. In this context, a number of articles ( [1], [2], [3], [4]) mention O'Donnell's book and the allegations presented within it. Hence, relevance of the subject is given. Further arguments for relevance are that
Furthermore, as I mentioned, Donald Trump himself has said that he probably has made the statements in question.
In accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view, I had avoided presenting O'Donnell's and Trumps opinions about whether Trump said it or not as facts. Instead, as you can read in the two-sentence paragraph, they are explicitly presented as opinions.
Since Eclipsoid and Avaya1 have not successfully argued why the passage shall be excluded, and since I have logically argued that it should be included, I will include it now as announced a day in advance to both users. -- Mathmensch's talk ( They are innocent!) 19:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I plan to add a reference to a Steven Novella blog post about his statements about vaccination, and improve the redaction of the paragraph to a stance more close to scientific consensus, according to the standards of Wikipedia.-- Jardouin ( talk) 21:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
How much money did Donald Trump inherit (from all sources)? I've seen estimates ranging from $40 million to $400 million. This is a basic fact that the biography should include given that the subject's main fame/notoriety is for his alleged business success. Benefac ( talk) 12:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
On 18 July 2015, I (gaas99) inserted the following text in the early life section of the article:
Mr. Trump was of draft age during the Vietnam Conflict. In an interview in 2011 on New York station WNYW [1] he stated "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number." [2] Selective Service records retrieved by "thesmokinggun.com" from NARA records show, however that although Trump did eventually receive a high selective service lottery number, the principle reason for his not being drafted was his receipt of student deferments (2-S) while attending college and the receipt of a medical deferment (1-Y later converted to 4-F) prior to the lottery to which he referred. [3]
References
Shortly thereafter, "Professor JR" made some edits to the text and to the section title. I had no problem with his changes and thanked him for them. Several hours later "Eclipsoid" deleted the paragraph (as modified by "Professor JR") with the explanation "Trump's draft deferment is already explained in the preceding paragraph. This material is of very low significance other than partisan muckraking." The material was not mentioned in the preceding paragraph. On 19 July, user "Callinus" added material to the Trump article, including the info contained in my initial edit. Eclipsoid proceeded to delete the section of the Callinus post concerning Trump's draft status without any explanation or entry in any talk page.
The following is a transcript of the discussion I (gaas99) have had with Eclipsoid to date on his talk page:
Hello Eclipsoid,
I disagree with your deletion of my addition to the Donald Trump article regarding his selective service / military status during the Vietnam conflict
1) He is a declared Presidential candidate and any and all information regarding his US military service (or lack thereof) is certainly of interest to all readers and significant information. This information has become particularly significant in light of Mr. Trump's recent statements regarding John McCain's Vietnam service.
2) I find no reference to his selective service status or military status in the preceding paragraph (or anyplace in the article). The only possible reference is the mention of his college attendance which does not touch at all on his medical disqualification from service
3) I do not consider this material "partisan muckraking." The references quoted represent a fairly wide range (political right to middle) of respected publications from The National Review to CBS news, all of which still have active links to their articles four years later. There are, of course, numerous additional references which could be cited but I felt that some of these might be questioned for bias being further left.
Gaas99 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"Declared Presidential candidate" encompasses quite an assortment of people: Joe Walsh, Pat Paulsen, Christopher Walken, Stephen Colbert and Vermin Supreme come to mind. Are we pretending that readers actually care about the military records of these individuals? No, merely being a declared candidate would not seem to be the appropriate test for this. Should Trump survive into the primary season and emerge as a serious contender for the nomination, then it would be something to add to the article. Or were it to become a topic in the campaign, for some reason. Then it would acquire weight. But at this point, no, it is undue weight to mention this kind of trivia in his biography. Eclipsoid (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe that Fox news recently found Trump leading in their poll of Republican voters "Friday's Fox News poll found Trump leading with support from 18% of Republican primary voters nationwide" [1].
Unless you dispute the accuracy and impartiality of Fox, I think that the seriousness of his campaign is established. Must we wait until November 1, 2016 before mentioning the (undisputed) facts of his selective service status and his response when questioned about that status? He has quite publicly stated his opinion of John McCain's service during the Vietnam Conflict. Are we not entitled to question the qualifications of the speaker (Trump) to make such statements?
In any case, that is not the question here. The question is "is the information I presented factual, is it impartial and is it adequately sourced". You felt compelled to make a wholesale deletion of the information I presented but did not dispute the facts. You stated it was adequately discussed in the previous paragraph but it was not. You dismissed my addition as "partisan muckraking" but one of my sources was from a respected conservative political journal. IMHO my additions belong in the article and with your permission I will restore them as edited by "Professor JR".
Gaas99 (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The question is "is the information I presented factual, is it impartial and is it adequately sourced". Entirely wrong. Sourcing is but a threshold to inclusion, and only comes into play after criteria of due weight and relevance are met. Here, I have already explained why this material fails those tests. You're right--I'm not disputing any facts; I'm saying these particular facts don't belong in the article. Do try to remember, we're discussing a biography. It's not a narrative account of his current political campaign or an exhaustive statement of his political stances. Eclipsoid (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
So am I to conclude that the exact date of his grandfather's wedding is more significant than his military service or lack thereof?
I fail to see the significance of your statement that "It's not a narrative account of his current political campaign or an exhaustive statement of his political stances." My edit did not refer in any way to his current campaign or his political stances. Your argument seems to be that the events are too insignificant to mention. If so, why are you going to such lengths to keep it out of the article?
I note that in addition to your deletion of my edit, you have deleted the subsequent insertion of the same material by "Calinus" and, as in my case you did not notify him/her of that deletion. In his case you did not even mention it in your explanation of the deletion. It is beginning to smell like an edit war.....
In any case, it is time to move this discussion to the article's talk page and see what others think..
Gaas99 (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Jump up ^ http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/politics/donald-trump-poll-2016-elections Poll: Donald Trump continues rise, Scott Walker gets bump "CNN.com" Retrieved 18 July, 2015 Gaas99 ( talk) 03:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Trump frequently makes seemingly self-contradictory statements when he says one thing then has to walk it back. At one Christian right rally he said that he doesn't ask God for forgiveness then walked the statement back, expressing that Eucharist is "a form of asking for forgiveness."
Including lengthy quotes, or analysis of parts of them, or potential impact on evangelical voters should be placed in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. -- Callinus ( talk) 11:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Shall we mention this or does it constitute as trivia as per WP:Trivia ? http://boingboing.net/2015/07/13/whatthefucktrump.html -- 88.104.136.214 ( talk) 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section titled POLITICS, third paragraph, last sentence the word change-denialing is used. I believe climate-denial is the correct phrase. 71.218.234.32 ( talk) 21:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The reference does not support this statement so another supporting reference should be substituted or the statement should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.36.190 ( talk) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This article contains the phrase "a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, which is a Presbyterian denomination". Is that really an adequate description? The Dutch Reformed Church is most notable for having claimed to provide a theological underpinning to apartheid rather than just being one of many, mostly quite respectable, Presbyterian denominations. 82.9.185.151 ( talk) 21:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Lindsay Graham is not really notable, he polls at 0 to 1% and its already mentioned in the campaign article. Looks like a WP:POV fork. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 20:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Recently, OrganicEarth has added text to the first sentence of the lead multiple times that indicates Trump is running for president. Multiple editors have reverted this, including MrX and Cwobeel, citing WP:RECENTISM and the existing full paragraph describing his candidacy that exists in the lead. I also agree that this places undue weight on recent events. It is better to simply call him a politician in the first sentence and expand later in the lead. WP:RECENTISM definitely applies here. I've pinged all involved editors to resolve this edit war. ~ Rob Talk 14:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraph Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor removed a somewhat opinionated piece of writing in the article today, and it was readded. I've reverted again to err on the side of caution, as this comes somewhat close to a WP:BLP violation if not properly sourced. See [5].
The additional statements are heavily opinionated, and reflect negatively on Trump. They also do not appear to be fully supported by sources, as GOP leaders aren't going to come out and say they're annoyed Trump's in the lead, even if they are. At best, we're stating speculation of a journalist as fact. At worst, we're reporting something inaccurate. If such a statement isn't thoroughly sourced, this violates WP:BLP. Pinging involved editors: @ Anythingyouwant and Rjensen: ~ Rob Talk 13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, but I also do not believe it's been properly sourced. Adding that information back to the article while discussion is ongoing is not particularly helpful, especially under a misleading edit summary such as "tweaks": [6]. None of the sources you've listed above (or in the article) support the statement that the Republican Party has taken actions to oppose Trump. ~ Rob Talk 04:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Trump's comments on Mexican immigrants, as they have led to NBC and many others cutting ties with him, may deserve to be quoted in the article. If not in the beauty pageants section, where they were just removed from as a quote, then maybe in another section. Where in the article should we quote those comments, if at all? -- Distelfinck ( talk) 01:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add, under External links, the following template link:
This will allow some trimming of the existing links, and also discourage further additions. 71.23.178.214 ( talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC) 71.23.178.214 ( talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
{request edit: I'm not editing at the moment, but I have to say that I really think someone should add the following rather notable quotation from Trump's notable presidential announcement. I do think it's fair to say that Trump's inflammatory comments have been extremely notable, and even more notably, led to many companies severing their ties with Trump. I think the full quote is worthy of inclusion, in all its naked, glorious notability: “When "Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
–Real estate mogul Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech, June 16, 2015
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/ http://gawker.com/a-comprehensive-list-of-everyone-trying-to-sever-ties-w-1715314213 http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/29/nbc-to-donald-trump-youre-fired/?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/25/univision-severs-ties-with-donald-trump-and-beauty-pageants/ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/01/his-remarks-are-taking-a-financial-toll-on-donald-trump/
I think that someone should add the quote and Trump's firings to the article. Kingshowman ( talk) 01:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman}
Ok, thanks. Kingshowman ( talk) 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I read the aforementioned discussion, and I personally unequivocally side with those who argued for inclusion. I don't understand what the force of the arguments against including it were at all. The comments themselves caused a great deal of news coverage, were part of an extremely newsworthy event (his presidential announcement) and resulted in the termination of a number of notable business partnerships. I don't see how the notability of the quote is at all questioned by those who opposed, other than some specious overfocus on the present argument. Wikipedia articles include far, far more trivial events all the time. But I don't think the issue matters very much at all and I'm fine with your decision. I'm not going to lose sleep over it or press it further, just registering my agreement with those who argued for adding Trump's words to the article. Kingshowman ( talk) 02:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
There was an article on The Verge and The Washington Post about this page being blanked for like a picosecond earlier today. I really don't know what to say. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 02:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Well it's the fifth Google result for Wikipedia right now... Maltice ( talk) 13:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Done Mentioned that this article was mentioned in the media. Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Trump is running for President, and leading in the polls. He is a politician all right. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
References
I'm sorry but placing his net worth at 4-8 billion is so unbelievably vague, wide ranging and inaccurate as to be false. It doesn't matter if his net worth is 4 billion, or 8 billion, having a net worth on Wikipedia listed as "X dollars plus or minus about 4 billion" is just absurd. This is not a few dollars, a few thousand, or even a few hundred thousand... this is a billion we are talking about... and the imprecision is in the range of 4? 50% deviation of the max possible net worth is considered an accurate approximation? You cannot be serious. I suggest not having an income figure listed that is so laughably enormous in its range that it could be overshooting by 4 billion dollars. It could also potentially be wrong at 4 billion as that is the total worth estimated by forbes and even admitted by them to be guesswork at best that gives enormous leniency to Trump. I recall other estimates saying his actual net worth (Trump likes to include things that he doesn't actually own in his net worth and tends to assign absurd valuation to them [ex: Miss America ~$400 million] to inflate his... worth) as being conservatively estimated at 700 million. And even that is giving Trump credit that's undeserved by going on and on about how he's such a successful self-made man when 400 million came from his father. I'm going to change it to the less ridiculous # as cited by Forbes, not the # cited by Trump himself to "prove" he was rich that was "done by super impressive accountants.. trust me" during his campaign announcement. ..I mean, even for Wikipedia a deviation of 4 BILLION DOLLARS, c'mon guys. 68.180.28.140 ( talk) 08:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The article now shows Trump's net worth at $10 billion in four locations, citing the FEC filing. But, I don't think the FEC filing reports on net worth and this isn't supported by the cited articles. The $10 billion number is something that he claimed on the day he made the FEC filing. And, he has stated other numbers. Shouldn't we use an RS like the Forbes article that was used prior to this? Objective3000 ( talk) 19:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Done Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Donald Trump is interviewed by HollywoodReporter and is asked about his wife.
Headline-1: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine"
QUOTE: When will you get Melania out there talking about you? "Pretty soon. She wants to do it. She is a very confident person. You've seen her on The View, and you've seen her on different shows. Larry King. You've seen her being interviewed. She's got a great style, and she would be an amazing first lady with heart." -- AstroU ( talk) 05:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
Headline-2: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine
QUOTE: "What would Melania care about as first lady?" She would care very much about women's issues. We're talking about mostly medical issues but women's issues. She was very strong on that with me the other day. Ivanka and Melania said, "You're not getting fairly treated on your feeling toward women." My mother was this incredible woman. I have known incredible women. I have many women executives, frankly, that are better than my men executives. I pay them the same or more." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 13:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
The article in Hollywood Reporter
[7] is amazing!
FYI, here are a few (from the many) issues he answered:
On Tom Brady: Tom is an unbelievable guy. He's a very good friend of mine. I have his number right here someplace. Whatever. Here, look, he just called me. (He holds up a Post-it that says "Tom Brady's New Cell #.")
--
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- The many, many issues in the interview will be great for editing this article.
FoxNews just asked their frequent guest, Karl Rove, if the aggressive stance of Donald Trump will hurt or help the Republican image. Rove says he has a concern, "But first, let's go over some basics of his plan [crafted with Senator from Alabama, Jeff Sessions.] Rove then uses his familiar chalkboard, saying it is what other Republican candidates want also:
I'll put this over to his WP "Trump Campaign" page. -- AstroU ( talk) 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
In the section on politics there is a sourced statement that seems to have little to do with politics: "Statements of Trump's hinting that vaccination would cause autism were subject to criticism in various media by the scientific community." Belief in fringe theories is not political in nature. Should this be in another section? Dimadick ( talk) 12:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump and Melania divorced early August 2015. They decide it was best for both of them, because Melania couldnt take the stress of the presidential campaign.
75.89.161.114 ( talk) 15:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have read reports that Trump is disliked by some Republicans (ie the Bush family etc) because he is not WASP. But as his mother was British (born in Scotland means British..Scotland despite all the noise is not a separate country) he has a WASP connection. What I find strange and interesting however is that NOWHERE are there ANY details of his mothers upbringing or education which I believe took place entirely in England. Does anyone have any details about this? The Britishness of his mother seems ro be completely obscured. The paragraph about his grandfather's wedding, at /info/en/?search=Donald_Trump#Early_life_and_education, is not entirely correct. In 1902 the city was part of an enclave belonging to the Kingdom of Bavaria. It hasn't been part of its mainland, respectively isn't part of modern day Bavaria at all.
One of the following two choices would be a better fit
Looks like it has been Done Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The article states that his sister is a former federal circuit court judge, whereas the Wiki on his sister and everything else I've read lists her as a current federal appellate court judge. It might be rather important because as an active appellate court judge she's in theory eligible to be appointed to SCOTUS, putting her in play as a presidential issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.112.97.111 ( talk) 01:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the main profile picture should be changed.
If you look at all the other candidates, they have professional favorable pictures. This picture is slightly ugly and needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.224.215 ( talk) 19:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of good pictures, a simple google search bring them up:
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danschawbel/files/2011/10/donald-trump.jpg http://www.fixthisnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/trump.jpg
I don't understand what's taking so long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.224.215 ( talk) 01:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Vesuvius: that makes sense, I'll see what I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.224.215 ( talk) 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Under the Legal affairs sections, paragraph twelve, in the discussion of his filing against Bill Maher, it says: "I don't think he was joking", Trump said. "He said it with venom."[196] Mayer replied that Trump needed to learn the difference between "what a joke is and what a contract is". My question is who is this person, "Mayer"? Not even a gender is implied. This is the only place in the article the name appears. Do the authors mean "Maher" or has something been deleted that would have provided context for the identity of this person? Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 00:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
It is hard to summarise this incident in a comprehensible way, because the incident is rather strange. It appears Trump sued Bill Maher for breach of contract, not defamation. Hence the claim for $5 million. Therefore, quoting Trump saying, "It was venom", confuses this issue. It probably should also be made clear that Maher was making fun of Trump's attack on Obama.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:01, 19 August 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I think saying where this beer went adds to the completeness of the article - it's getting a fair bit of press, maybe it should just reference ' a Chicago-based chain Pizzeria' or something like that to avoid any PR creep on the page? Victor Grigas ( talk) 03:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Both references in the article and numerous more quote Trump as saying "they're rapists" e.g. New York Times. Trump himself, in his official annotated statement on it says "they're rapists". This is very different from saying "they're bringing .... their rapists." Valenciano ( talk) 11:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Trump should be treated fairly. His remark mentioned a sequence of crimes and implies....'they're bringing their' for each crime mentioned, since he follows up with, .. "And some, I assume, are good people." @ Professor JR:. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 14:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
What about "The Donald's" previous support for all things Democrat: abortion, path to citizenship, etc, and the money he's given to Dem canditates? Why no mention that he received a medical deferment from service in the military upon graduation from college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 ( talk) 01:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The talk page for Hillary Clinton includes a FAQ that says: Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see here — and the same was subsequently done for some other political figures' articles, including those running in the 2012 presidential election and those likely to be running in the 2016 election.
To be in compliance with WP policies, and especially those for 2016 presidential candidates, this section should be removed and the content included in context elsewhere within the article. Are there any arguments as to why this should not be the case? 217IP ( talk) 19:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This is content in the other controversies section:
There are two news sources on the tweet but they don't really provide any sort of commentary or analysis. It is essentially "Donald Trump tweeted this and here's a quote from someone who was offended". In an attempt to reorganize the controversies subject (which violates policies as discussed above this on talk page) - where should this information go, if anywhere? Trump has had dozens of news articles about his tweets spanning over many years. I don't see why we would include this one but not other controversial tweets. I don't know of policies against including them, but it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to include every tweet on this article that makes it into the news. 217IP ( talk) 03:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
References
(addressed to me, moved here from my talk page -- Mathmensch ( talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)) This is not in any way acceptable on Wikipedia as a political position. It is hearsay about a joke from the early 1990s, expressed in a book written by an ex-employee. It is questionable whether reporting hearsay comments is even notable for inclusion on wikipedia at all, let alone attempting to dress it up as a 'political position' for a presidential candidate. I understand that you might want to express your political views about certain candidates, but Wikipedia pages are not the places to do it. Avaya1 ( talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
(revised edition by Avaya:-- Mathmensch ( talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)) This is not in any way acceptable on Wikipedia as a political position section. It is hearsay about a joke from the early 1990s, expressed in a book written by an ex-employee. It is questionable whether reporting hearsay comments is even notable for inclusion on wikipedia at all, let alone attempting to dress it up as a 'political position' for a presidential candidate. I would argue against its inclusion anywhere on a WP:BLP. Wikipedia pages should be giving notable and accurate information, not for reporting hearsay and gossip alleging that someone once said a politically incorrect joke. Avaya1 ( talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
A topic often discussed in the context of Donald Trump are the remarks he made about mexicans. In this context, a number of articles ( [1], [2], [3], [4]) mention O'Donnell's book and the allegations presented within it. Hence, relevance of the subject is given. Further arguments for relevance are that
Furthermore, as I mentioned, Donald Trump himself has said that he probably has made the statements in question.
In accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view, I had avoided presenting O'Donnell's and Trumps opinions about whether Trump said it or not as facts. Instead, as you can read in the two-sentence paragraph, they are explicitly presented as opinions.
Since Eclipsoid and Avaya1 have not successfully argued why the passage shall be excluded, and since I have logically argued that it should be included, I will include it now as announced a day in advance to both users. -- Mathmensch's talk ( They are innocent!) 19:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I plan to add a reference to a Steven Novella blog post about his statements about vaccination, and improve the redaction of the paragraph to a stance more close to scientific consensus, according to the standards of Wikipedia.-- Jardouin ( talk) 21:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
How much money did Donald Trump inherit (from all sources)? I've seen estimates ranging from $40 million to $400 million. This is a basic fact that the biography should include given that the subject's main fame/notoriety is for his alleged business success. Benefac ( talk) 12:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
On 18 July 2015, I (gaas99) inserted the following text in the early life section of the article:
Mr. Trump was of draft age during the Vietnam Conflict. In an interview in 2011 on New York station WNYW [1] he stated "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number." [2] Selective Service records retrieved by "thesmokinggun.com" from NARA records show, however that although Trump did eventually receive a high selective service lottery number, the principle reason for his not being drafted was his receipt of student deferments (2-S) while attending college and the receipt of a medical deferment (1-Y later converted to 4-F) prior to the lottery to which he referred. [3]
References
Shortly thereafter, "Professor JR" made some edits to the text and to the section title. I had no problem with his changes and thanked him for them. Several hours later "Eclipsoid" deleted the paragraph (as modified by "Professor JR") with the explanation "Trump's draft deferment is already explained in the preceding paragraph. This material is of very low significance other than partisan muckraking." The material was not mentioned in the preceding paragraph. On 19 July, user "Callinus" added material to the Trump article, including the info contained in my initial edit. Eclipsoid proceeded to delete the section of the Callinus post concerning Trump's draft status without any explanation or entry in any talk page.
The following is a transcript of the discussion I (gaas99) have had with Eclipsoid to date on his talk page:
Hello Eclipsoid,
I disagree with your deletion of my addition to the Donald Trump article regarding his selective service / military status during the Vietnam conflict
1) He is a declared Presidential candidate and any and all information regarding his US military service (or lack thereof) is certainly of interest to all readers and significant information. This information has become particularly significant in light of Mr. Trump's recent statements regarding John McCain's Vietnam service.
2) I find no reference to his selective service status or military status in the preceding paragraph (or anyplace in the article). The only possible reference is the mention of his college attendance which does not touch at all on his medical disqualification from service
3) I do not consider this material "partisan muckraking." The references quoted represent a fairly wide range (political right to middle) of respected publications from The National Review to CBS news, all of which still have active links to their articles four years later. There are, of course, numerous additional references which could be cited but I felt that some of these might be questioned for bias being further left.
Gaas99 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"Declared Presidential candidate" encompasses quite an assortment of people: Joe Walsh, Pat Paulsen, Christopher Walken, Stephen Colbert and Vermin Supreme come to mind. Are we pretending that readers actually care about the military records of these individuals? No, merely being a declared candidate would not seem to be the appropriate test for this. Should Trump survive into the primary season and emerge as a serious contender for the nomination, then it would be something to add to the article. Or were it to become a topic in the campaign, for some reason. Then it would acquire weight. But at this point, no, it is undue weight to mention this kind of trivia in his biography. Eclipsoid (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe that Fox news recently found Trump leading in their poll of Republican voters "Friday's Fox News poll found Trump leading with support from 18% of Republican primary voters nationwide" [1].
Unless you dispute the accuracy and impartiality of Fox, I think that the seriousness of his campaign is established. Must we wait until November 1, 2016 before mentioning the (undisputed) facts of his selective service status and his response when questioned about that status? He has quite publicly stated his opinion of John McCain's service during the Vietnam Conflict. Are we not entitled to question the qualifications of the speaker (Trump) to make such statements?
In any case, that is not the question here. The question is "is the information I presented factual, is it impartial and is it adequately sourced". You felt compelled to make a wholesale deletion of the information I presented but did not dispute the facts. You stated it was adequately discussed in the previous paragraph but it was not. You dismissed my addition as "partisan muckraking" but one of my sources was from a respected conservative political journal. IMHO my additions belong in the article and with your permission I will restore them as edited by "Professor JR".
Gaas99 (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The question is "is the information I presented factual, is it impartial and is it adequately sourced". Entirely wrong. Sourcing is but a threshold to inclusion, and only comes into play after criteria of due weight and relevance are met. Here, I have already explained why this material fails those tests. You're right--I'm not disputing any facts; I'm saying these particular facts don't belong in the article. Do try to remember, we're discussing a biography. It's not a narrative account of his current political campaign or an exhaustive statement of his political stances. Eclipsoid (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
So am I to conclude that the exact date of his grandfather's wedding is more significant than his military service or lack thereof?
I fail to see the significance of your statement that "It's not a narrative account of his current political campaign or an exhaustive statement of his political stances." My edit did not refer in any way to his current campaign or his political stances. Your argument seems to be that the events are too insignificant to mention. If so, why are you going to such lengths to keep it out of the article?
I note that in addition to your deletion of my edit, you have deleted the subsequent insertion of the same material by "Calinus" and, as in my case you did not notify him/her of that deletion. In his case you did not even mention it in your explanation of the deletion. It is beginning to smell like an edit war.....
In any case, it is time to move this discussion to the article's talk page and see what others think..
Gaas99 (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Jump up ^ http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/politics/donald-trump-poll-2016-elections Poll: Donald Trump continues rise, Scott Walker gets bump "CNN.com" Retrieved 18 July, 2015 Gaas99 ( talk) 03:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Trump frequently makes seemingly self-contradictory statements when he says one thing then has to walk it back. At one Christian right rally he said that he doesn't ask God for forgiveness then walked the statement back, expressing that Eucharist is "a form of asking for forgiveness."
Including lengthy quotes, or analysis of parts of them, or potential impact on evangelical voters should be placed in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. -- Callinus ( talk) 11:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Shall we mention this or does it constitute as trivia as per WP:Trivia ? http://boingboing.net/2015/07/13/whatthefucktrump.html -- 88.104.136.214 ( talk) 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section titled POLITICS, third paragraph, last sentence the word change-denialing is used. I believe climate-denial is the correct phrase. 71.218.234.32 ( talk) 21:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The reference does not support this statement so another supporting reference should be substituted or the statement should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.36.190 ( talk) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This article contains the phrase "a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, which is a Presbyterian denomination". Is that really an adequate description? The Dutch Reformed Church is most notable for having claimed to provide a theological underpinning to apartheid rather than just being one of many, mostly quite respectable, Presbyterian denominations. 82.9.185.151 ( talk) 21:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Lindsay Graham is not really notable, he polls at 0 to 1% and its already mentioned in the campaign article. Looks like a WP:POV fork. Thomas Paine1776 ( talk) 20:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Recently, OrganicEarth has added text to the first sentence of the lead multiple times that indicates Trump is running for president. Multiple editors have reverted this, including MrX and Cwobeel, citing WP:RECENTISM and the existing full paragraph describing his candidacy that exists in the lead. I also agree that this places undue weight on recent events. It is better to simply call him a politician in the first sentence and expand later in the lead. WP:RECENTISM definitely applies here. I've pinged all involved editors to resolve this edit war. ~ Rob Talk 14:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraph Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor removed a somewhat opinionated piece of writing in the article today, and it was readded. I've reverted again to err on the side of caution, as this comes somewhat close to a WP:BLP violation if not properly sourced. See [5].
The additional statements are heavily opinionated, and reflect negatively on Trump. They also do not appear to be fully supported by sources, as GOP leaders aren't going to come out and say they're annoyed Trump's in the lead, even if they are. At best, we're stating speculation of a journalist as fact. At worst, we're reporting something inaccurate. If such a statement isn't thoroughly sourced, this violates WP:BLP. Pinging involved editors: @ Anythingyouwant and Rjensen: ~ Rob Talk 13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, but I also do not believe it's been properly sourced. Adding that information back to the article while discussion is ongoing is not particularly helpful, especially under a misleading edit summary such as "tweaks": [6]. None of the sources you've listed above (or in the article) support the statement that the Republican Party has taken actions to oppose Trump. ~ Rob Talk 04:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Trump's comments on Mexican immigrants, as they have led to NBC and many others cutting ties with him, may deserve to be quoted in the article. If not in the beauty pageants section, where they were just removed from as a quote, then maybe in another section. Where in the article should we quote those comments, if at all? -- Distelfinck ( talk) 01:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add, under External links, the following template link:
This will allow some trimming of the existing links, and also discourage further additions. 71.23.178.214 ( talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC) 71.23.178.214 ( talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
{request edit: I'm not editing at the moment, but I have to say that I really think someone should add the following rather notable quotation from Trump's notable presidential announcement. I do think it's fair to say that Trump's inflammatory comments have been extremely notable, and even more notably, led to many companies severing their ties with Trump. I think the full quote is worthy of inclusion, in all its naked, glorious notability: “When "Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
–Real estate mogul Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech, June 16, 2015
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/ http://gawker.com/a-comprehensive-list-of-everyone-trying-to-sever-ties-w-1715314213 http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/29/nbc-to-donald-trump-youre-fired/?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/25/univision-severs-ties-with-donald-trump-and-beauty-pageants/ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/01/his-remarks-are-taking-a-financial-toll-on-donald-trump/
I think that someone should add the quote and Trump's firings to the article. Kingshowman ( talk) 01:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman}
Ok, thanks. Kingshowman ( talk) 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I read the aforementioned discussion, and I personally unequivocally side with those who argued for inclusion. I don't understand what the force of the arguments against including it were at all. The comments themselves caused a great deal of news coverage, were part of an extremely newsworthy event (his presidential announcement) and resulted in the termination of a number of notable business partnerships. I don't see how the notability of the quote is at all questioned by those who opposed, other than some specious overfocus on the present argument. Wikipedia articles include far, far more trivial events all the time. But I don't think the issue matters very much at all and I'm fine with your decision. I'm not going to lose sleep over it or press it further, just registering my agreement with those who argued for adding Trump's words to the article. Kingshowman ( talk) 02:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
There was an article on The Verge and The Washington Post about this page being blanked for like a picosecond earlier today. I really don't know what to say. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 02:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Well it's the fifth Google result for Wikipedia right now... Maltice ( talk) 13:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Done Mentioned that this article was mentioned in the media. Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Trump is running for President, and leading in the polls. He is a politician all right. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
References
I'm sorry but placing his net worth at 4-8 billion is so unbelievably vague, wide ranging and inaccurate as to be false. It doesn't matter if his net worth is 4 billion, or 8 billion, having a net worth on Wikipedia listed as "X dollars plus or minus about 4 billion" is just absurd. This is not a few dollars, a few thousand, or even a few hundred thousand... this is a billion we are talking about... and the imprecision is in the range of 4? 50% deviation of the max possible net worth is considered an accurate approximation? You cannot be serious. I suggest not having an income figure listed that is so laughably enormous in its range that it could be overshooting by 4 billion dollars. It could also potentially be wrong at 4 billion as that is the total worth estimated by forbes and even admitted by them to be guesswork at best that gives enormous leniency to Trump. I recall other estimates saying his actual net worth (Trump likes to include things that he doesn't actually own in his net worth and tends to assign absurd valuation to them [ex: Miss America ~$400 million] to inflate his... worth) as being conservatively estimated at 700 million. And even that is giving Trump credit that's undeserved by going on and on about how he's such a successful self-made man when 400 million came from his father. I'm going to change it to the less ridiculous # as cited by Forbes, not the # cited by Trump himself to "prove" he was rich that was "done by super impressive accountants.. trust me" during his campaign announcement. ..I mean, even for Wikipedia a deviation of 4 BILLION DOLLARS, c'mon guys. 68.180.28.140 ( talk) 08:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The article now shows Trump's net worth at $10 billion in four locations, citing the FEC filing. But, I don't think the FEC filing reports on net worth and this isn't supported by the cited articles. The $10 billion number is something that he claimed on the day he made the FEC filing. And, he has stated other numbers. Shouldn't we use an RS like the Forbes article that was used prior to this? Objective3000 ( talk) 19:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Done Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Donald Trump is interviewed by HollywoodReporter and is asked about his wife.
Headline-1: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine"
QUOTE: When will you get Melania out there talking about you? "Pretty soon. She wants to do it. She is a very confident person. You've seen her on The View, and you've seen her on different shows. Larry King. You've seen her being interviewed. She's got a great style, and she would be an amazing first lady with heart." -- AstroU ( talk) 05:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
Headline-2: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine
QUOTE: "What would Melania care about as first lady?" She would care very much about women's issues. We're talking about mostly medical issues but women's issues. She was very strong on that with me the other day. Ivanka and Melania said, "You're not getting fairly treated on your feeling toward women." My mother was this incredible woman. I have known incredible women. I have many women executives, frankly, that are better than my men executives. I pay them the same or more." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 13:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
The article in Hollywood Reporter
[7] is amazing!
FYI, here are a few (from the many) issues he answered:
On Tom Brady: Tom is an unbelievable guy. He's a very good friend of mine. I have his number right here someplace. Whatever. Here, look, he just called me. (He holds up a Post-it that says "Tom Brady's New Cell #.")
--
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- The many, many issues in the interview will be great for editing this article.
FoxNews just asked their frequent guest, Karl Rove, if the aggressive stance of Donald Trump will hurt or help the Republican image. Rove says he has a concern, "But first, let's go over some basics of his plan [crafted with Senator from Alabama, Jeff Sessions.] Rove then uses his familiar chalkboard, saying it is what other Republican candidates want also:
I'll put this over to his WP "Trump Campaign" page. -- AstroU ( talk) 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
In the section on politics there is a sourced statement that seems to have little to do with politics: "Statements of Trump's hinting that vaccination would cause autism were subject to criticism in various media by the scientific community." Belief in fringe theories is not political in nature. Should this be in another section? Dimadick ( talk) 12:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump and Melania divorced early August 2015. They decide it was best for both of them, because Melania couldnt take the stress of the presidential campaign.
75.89.161.114 ( talk) 15:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have read reports that Trump is disliked by some Republicans (ie the Bush family etc) because he is not WASP. But as his mother was British (born in Scotland means British..Scotland despite all the noise is not a separate country) he has a WASP connection. What I find strange and interesting however is that NOWHERE are there ANY details of his mothers upbringing or education which I believe took place entirely in England. Does anyone have any details about this? The Britishness of his mother seems ro be completely obscured. The paragraph about his grandfather's wedding, at /info/en/?search=Donald_Trump#Early_life_and_education, is not entirely correct. In 1902 the city was part of an enclave belonging to the Kingdom of Bavaria. It hasn't been part of its mainland, respectively isn't part of modern day Bavaria at all.
One of the following two choices would be a better fit
Looks like it has been Done Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The article states that his sister is a former federal circuit court judge, whereas the Wiki on his sister and everything else I've read lists her as a current federal appellate court judge. It might be rather important because as an active appellate court judge she's in theory eligible to be appointed to SCOTUS, putting her in play as a presidential issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.112.97.111 ( talk) 01:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the main profile picture should be changed.
If you look at all the other candidates, they have professional favorable pictures. This picture is slightly ugly and needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.224.215 ( talk) 19:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of good pictures, a simple google search bring them up:
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danschawbel/files/2011/10/donald-trump.jpg http://www.fixthisnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/trump.jpg
I don't understand what's taking so long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.224.215 ( talk) 01:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Vesuvius: that makes sense, I'll see what I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.224.215 ( talk) 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Under the Legal affairs sections, paragraph twelve, in the discussion of his filing against Bill Maher, it says: "I don't think he was joking", Trump said. "He said it with venom."[196] Mayer replied that Trump needed to learn the difference between "what a joke is and what a contract is". My question is who is this person, "Mayer"? Not even a gender is implied. This is the only place in the article the name appears. Do the authors mean "Maher" or has something been deleted that would have provided context for the identity of this person? Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 00:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
It is hard to summarise this incident in a comprehensible way, because the incident is rather strange. It appears Trump sued Bill Maher for breach of contract, not defamation. Hence the claim for $5 million. Therefore, quoting Trump saying, "It was venom", confuses this issue. It probably should also be made clear that Maher was making fun of Trump's attack on Obama.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)