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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Why am I not surprised that you've chosen an picture with an unflattering expression?
BTW Our local school is blocking Wikipedia because its so 'Neutral and Liberal/Zionist'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.51.163 ( talk) 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Some additional current and recent presidential candidate BLP lead images. Note the smiles (or Carson & Paul, understated smiles). None of these shots are taken while the subject was talking (where their mouths look as though also perhaps smiling). Also note the dates of photos and that currency is not a requirement.
Also, Rubio's head isn't "straight", and Romney's and Carson's eyes aren't clearly visable. IHTS ( talk) 22:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
IHTS is pushing an obvious anti-Trump POV". Earth to William! Earth to William!: How could that possibly be true, seeing that it is precisely the same photo used on the webpage www.donaldtrump.com?? IHTS ( talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
(Obviously photo currency is not a requirement too--2009 for Hillary?!)Barack Obama (2012), Mitt Romney (2013), John McCain (2009), Hillary Clinton (2009), Bernie Sanders (2007), Ben Carson (2015), Marco Rubio (2011), Ted Cruz (2013), Carly Fiorina (2015), Rand Paul (2011), Mike Huckabee (2010), John Kasich (2011), Lindsay Graham (2006).
Your take that a smile shows the candidate is fake or is indicative of "typical politician" is refuted by the simple fact that a smile (for millennia!?) conveys sociability, instead of its opposite. Please don't confuse the issue with Trump's new book, which has a specific focus, is not an encyclopedia BLP. (Trump said on ABC today he preferred a family photo where he was smiling, but the publishers had other plans. [I don't buy that either, so please don't shoot from the hip as you are prone to do. Again, that book has a different and specific focus. Trump will be on SNL this Saturday, are you going to hold me to account for any still shot that show produces too?!]) The choice of photo is largely subjective, but the arguments you are offering for your preferred photo are less quality arguments than my rebuttals and arguments for the 2013 photo. (And if it's good enough for the Trump campaign, how can anyone reasonably call it "unflattering"?!)
(ec) There are lots of photos of Trump on Commons, but in most all of them he is animated/speaking with mouth open. The fact the 2013 photo is used by the Trump campaign, confirms for me the advantages of that photo versus alternatives on Commons. Your suggestion that my preference is "entirely based" on the use of that photo at www.donaldtrump.com, is another example of your shoot-from-the-hip and crass argumentation.) IHTS ( talk) 20:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's my opinion the 2013 photo can be interpreted as having a frown or scowl. You're trying to get me to debate my opinion versus a theoretical opinion about "constipation" that no one has stated including you. (What kind of a discussion argument is that? Manipulative, I'd say.) "An encyclopedic photo is one in which the head is straight, the expression neutral, and the eyes open.
" Says who? Can you diff that in policy or guideline? And if according to you expressions s/b neutral, what accounts for the vast majority of the BLPs named where current & former candiates sport smiles?
The photo you have preference for never had consensus on Talk. Photos are different than article text in that they are subjective, and little exists in policy & guideline that applies. We disagree, and I think I've shown the weakness in all your shoot-from-the-hip arguments. Input from other editors is the way to go at this point. IHTS ( talk) 20:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
To help resolve dispute between two contending lead images. IHTS ( talk) 22:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Zppix from FRS here. use the 2013 the 2015 is of poor quality thanks Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 15:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Neither photo is a good representation of the man and his personality. And let's face it: Trump is a personality as much as he is a presidential candidate. In 4 of the 5 photos suggested by Squirrel, Trump is speaking, with his mouth is agape. And yet, they seem more appropriate than the two relatively expressionless photos under consideration. I would choose one of those, or something similar that is more true to Trump. Kerdooskis ( talk) 21:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Ya'll should check over the image I've selected & implimented. GoodDay ( talk) 13:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of the RfC was to resolve a dispute between two images. It seems that 2013 image beats 2015 image per consensus. Meanwhile two other images have been tried, plus Stemoc's preferred image is included below:
(My own preference is 2013 (CPAC) is best, April 2015 is next-best. But whatever.) IHTS ( talk) 05:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Started with Rush Limbaugh and others, the term 'Trump phenomenon' is taking off.
Headline-1: The Republican Establishment Hates Trump Because He Owns the Media
QUOTE: "the Trump phenomenon is a phenomenon [where] Donald Trump owns the media." -- AstroU ( talk) 22:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. And we can expand later.
Although the article itself is protected, this talk page is still not protected. Therefore it is vulnerable to vandalism by trolls and angry people, especially due to the many controversial things Donald Trump has said (some offensive). Therefore this page should also be protected as some people may turn to this page to vent out their fustration and anger. This is just an idea. Signed 99.240.204.52 ( talk) 07:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
He's sprouted a middle initial. J for... 137.205.183.109 ( talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The White House has announced that Trump is disqualified from running for presidency. Please clarify that he is a former candidate, not a current one. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/8/trump-ban-on-muslims-entering-US-disqualifies-him-from-presidency.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Comtes ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to leave it to the readers what they think about the statement from the White House. I propose the following sentence: In response to anti-Muslim remarks by Trump that were widely condemned as racist, the White House announced in December 2015 that he was disqualified from becoming president." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Comtes ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Trump didn't say what everyone (in their bias) is assuming he said. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 16:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I straightened the infobox image. See File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped2).jpg. This is a pretty standard practice in order to display the subject in a more encyclopedic manner. It was reverted because "your 'straightening' of the image is a modification of it out of its natural setting and context." That is true, but doesn't the modification make the image more encyclopedic? -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 22:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi there, can someone please add this ref in support of
However, this degree was revoked on December 9th 2015 because Trump had made 'a number of statements that are wholly incompatible with the ethos and values of the university'.
Thanks 79.20.91.220 ( talk) 10:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Done p b p 15:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Now with references--
Here is the text to add: "Trump has been widely accused of fascism by both Republicans and Democrats for his proposals such as banning all Muslims from entering the country, requiring Muslims to carry religious identification cards at all times, and creating a national registry of Muslims, as well as for his descriptions of Mexicans as "drug dealers" and "rapists," and his calls to deport approximately 25 Million Mexican-Americans, including close to 15 million full American citizens of Mexican descent born in the United States whose families did not emigrate legally." [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
Recently, User:Reattacollector added to the lead "Various media outlets and his opponents have described his platform as being fascist in nature.", followed by twelve references in a row. Do we really want that that early in the article? Maybe move it to the criticism section, or the campaign section? And maybe only 3-4 references? p b p 13:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The "Trump is fascist" talk goes back to his campaign announcemen, months ago, based on his deportation plans. All 3 Democratic candidates have called him a fascist, along with all but 1 or 2 Republican candidates, and every major newspaper and news outlet in the country. How can this article present itself as an encylopedic article when it reads like a campaign announcement, and about 90 percent of those who post here are openly cheering Trump on? There are even long threads of complaints that the pictures of Trump are "unflattering" when Trump more or less looks the same in every picture of him which has ever been taken. My fellow encylopedists: plugging our ears, and pretending the "Trump is fascist" talk does not exist, will not make it go away. I can show you references going back to the campaign announcement where Trump is labeled a Fascist, if you really wish to insist on the canard that this is "too recent for an encylopedia." An event being recent does not make it non-encylopedic when it is major, and the fascism talk long predates his proposal to institute a religious test for entry to the country, and began when he proposed that American citizens who were born in the States with Mexican families should be deported . What is even the argument that Trump is not fascist? And honestly, we don't need to be debating it: it has been such a major theme of the news coverage of his campaign that to ignore it is deeply irresponsible. It is not sufficient to just say that he is "populist" and "appeals to the working class." We are not writing his campaign ad here. DefenderOfFreedom ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is a reference, one of the earliest mentions of Trump qua fascist in the media, from Newsweek in July. This is 6 months old. Citing RECENTISM is dose genius. this is the defining issue of his campaign. His supporters support him because he is widely understood to be a fascist, and his detractors oppose him for the same reason. Not mentioning that Donald Trump supports fascist policies like banning Members of certain religions from the country is like having an article on the Klan that doesn't mention that they are white nationalists. Let's show some common sense. http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fascist-354690 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefenderOfFreedom ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Some Proposed text to add to the the lead regarding Trump's fascism: "Trump has been widely criticized for political proposals his detractors regard as Fascist in nature, by both Democrats, Republicans, and most major media outlets. For example, Trump has made campaign promises to bar further Muslims from entering the country, while creating a national registry of existing Muslims, and requiring them to carry identification cards. Trump has also been accused of fascist tendencies for his proposal to forcibly deport 25 million Mexicans, including American citizens born in the United States of Mexican descent with family that did not enter the country legally. ·Trump's ridicule of persons with disabilities has also been described as close to fascism. In reply, many of Trump's critics have proposed a compromise, suggesting that they would agree to Trump's plan to require Muslims to carry identification cards, on the condition that Trump's supporters will agree to wear their "let's make America great again" hats at all times, so that these dangerous individuals who hate our freedoms can also be quickly identified, and the danger to Democracy defused.~~<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefenderOfFreedom ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hell, no. "To the right of Adolph Hitler", eh? Do you have a reference for that little gem? Godwin's Law, anyone? Why on earth is this page not protected from SPAs like Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies ( talk · contribs) and DefenderOfFreedom ( talk · contribs)? Does anyone think these accounts are not here to push an agenda? This is ridiculous. Doc talk 01:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The link appears broken , but if you google "trump" "right of Adolf Hitler", it should appear. Cheers! Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies ( talk) 01:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I have acted boldly and redacted the offensive, unsourced personal commentary of the new, redlinked account on the grounds of BLP guidelines for article talk pages. If anyone other than the account that made the comments here disagrees with the redaction, go ahead and revert -- but let's talk about it here, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Reinstating the above subsection, which was removed by the new account at the same time that he reinstated his comments. Coretheapple ( talk) 02:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I just watched a tape of the interview with John Sweeney (have a look, it's easy to find on YouTube) and doesn't "walk out" of the interview like is stated here - the interview is finished after 15 minutes, he stands up to leave and John Sweeney calls out another question at him about as he is on his way out of the room. This should be clarified.
Sorry (this is the original poster), this actually my first suggesting anything on a Wikipedia page (in a long time) since they introduced the whole log-in thing and this probably represents the 2nd or 3rd time I have suggested anything on Wikipedia, so I don't totally get the procedure, but I will try to follow it here (btw, I have no idea who User 591J is, but clearly I have walked into the middle of something here). So I guess back to my original point, I have no idea if Trump has links to organized crime (which it sounds like a lot of the responses to my original comment are attempting to claim), I am simply making the point that (as someone who is actually a big fan of awkward interview moments) I have looked all over the internet and CANNOT find anything showing Donald Trump "walking out" of a BBC interview. Maybe he did. If so, show us the video tape and I will concede the point. I loves me a good awkward interview point - but where's the video of it so I can get my fix? If no one can post a link to it, then I don't see how this can stay here when the only other evidence shows a reporter calling out questions to Trump after the interview is clearly over and he's heading out of the room.
I suppose that Trump could say that the interview was over so the cameras were cut and that's why there's a gap in the footage? (that would seem to be a reasonable explanation) And maybe turned right back on again when Sweeney seemed to indicate he didn't want the interview to end? Maybe that happened or maybe something else, but the only video evidence I see is one of a person leaving an interview that is finished getting questions called out to him after the interview ended.
Ir Trump is editing BBC interviews in a conspiracy to make himself not seem involved with a mobster, why isn't the news full of stories from the BBC about him doing so?
Frankcarle ( talk) 08:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)FrankCarle, Dec 12th, 2015
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page to me appears to be vandalized and I want to fix it Golluman ( talk) 23:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This to me appears to be vandalized and I want to fix it
Of all of Mr. Trump's positions, the one that gets currently serving leaders of other countries, the pentagon, and main three leaders of his own political party to intervene in a presidential primary, is of historic significance, and so deserves expanded coverage in the main article on Mr. Trump, not just in the daughter article on his presidential campaign.
I propose replacing
...in response to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting called for a complete ban on Muslims entering the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". The press release drew wide criticism from sources both within the U.S. and abroad, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls and Canadian Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion. The U.S. Pentagon issued a statement stating "anything that bolsters ISIL's narrative and pits the United States against the Muslim faith is certainly not only contrary to our values but contrary to our national security." A petition to block Trump from entry to the UK has gained over 450,000 signatures. Trump, in an interview on Good Morning America, drew comparisons between his plan and Franklin D. Roosevelt's actions during World War II."
with
(begin new paragraph) In response to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, Trump proposed a ban on Muslims entering the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". Trump cited President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's wartime application of presidential powers under the Alien and Sedition Acts (whereby immigrants of Japanese, German, and or Italian ancestry could be legally apprehended, restrained, or removed from the United States without further due process during and after World War II) as examples of saimilar previous use of presidential powers in regard to immigrants. He cited Roosevelt's being regarded as a good president as evidence that this was a good application of presidential powers. He later clarified that US citizens and people serving in the US military would be let back in. The proposal drew wide criticism from sources both within the U.S. and abroad, and from unusual sources, such as foreign leaders who normally do not get involved in United States presidential campaigns, and leaders of Trump's own party holding party positions that do not normally get involved in its own party's presidential primary. Critics included British Prime Minister David Cameron, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, and Canadian Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion, as well as the chairman of the Republican Party Reince Priebus , Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, and Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Members of Trump's own party argued that a proposal banning members of a major world religion violated the party's conservative values, the constitution's first amendment, and the country's core values. Critics pointed out that the proposal would result in the exclusion of many of the most important allies in the country's war on terror, from interpreters helping the CIA to Jordan's King Abdullah, and that it would bolster ISIL by furthering its narrative that the US is pitted against the Muslim faith. The U.S. Pentagon issued a statement stating "anything that bolsters ISIL's narrative and pits the United States against the Muslim faith is certainly not only contrary to our values but contrary to our national security." A petition to block Trump from entry to the UK has gained over 450,000 signatures.
Mr. Trump issued a written press release statement saying "until our representatives can figure out what is going on". He then made several verbal statements, sometimes "until we can figure out what is going on", or more colorfully appealing to the 6th grade mentality of many voters, "until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on"( CNN source for Malerooster's revision), and "until we can figure out what the hell is going on". User:Malerooster added "the hell", but kept the original source to the written press release, which lacked the language with the added color. We need to decide which version to use in the article, then have a source that matches the version we use. MBUSHIstory ( talk) 16:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I am unable to find my own story to substantiate this claim, although I grant I didn't try very hard. I am not supposed to need to if it's all that obvious. The reference to The Hill *says* he said that and as proof links to another story where he doesn't say that. The Blaze (seriously? the Blaze??) does in fact provide a quote that says that Muslim-Americans *who are in the military* will be "taken care of" and "able to come home" which leaves a lot of wiggle but more importantly does not address the question of what about let's say an American citizen who is a Muslim but not in the military. Also, The Blaze is...please find a better source. If this interview was broadcast someone else covered it. Elinruby ( talk) 11:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This article is in over 70 categories. Am I the only one here who thinks that's overkill? Maybe remove some of his peripheral involvements, like writing and video games, and focus primarily on his principal business ventures and his current political aspirations? p b p 23:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
agreed, I thought that was quite startling also. Amma gonna do some light weed whacking. or at least take a look. Elinruby ( talk) 01:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
off the top of my head seem candidates for pruning
(This is a serious proposal.) There is nothing in the article about Mr. Trump's hair. It is the frequent subject of jokes and other references all over the media, including by Mr. Trump himself. It is iconic.
A Wikipedia user from a culture that is very different from Mr. Trump's might be mystified by all of the references, come to Wikipedia for information as to what all the hair talk is about, and would not have access to the information, so they can make sense of all of the references to Mr. Trump's hair. There are 250K results in a google search of "Donald Trump's hair", and 26,000 results in a google news search, many of which meet WP:RS. Content should be added as to Mr. Trump's hair. MBUSHIstory ( talk) 01:36, 11 December 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Why am I not surprised that you've chosen an picture with an unflattering expression?
BTW Our local school is blocking Wikipedia because its so 'Neutral and Liberal/Zionist'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.51.163 ( talk) 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Some additional current and recent presidential candidate BLP lead images. Note the smiles (or Carson & Paul, understated smiles). None of these shots are taken while the subject was talking (where their mouths look as though also perhaps smiling). Also note the dates of photos and that currency is not a requirement.
Also, Rubio's head isn't "straight", and Romney's and Carson's eyes aren't clearly visable. IHTS ( talk) 22:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
IHTS is pushing an obvious anti-Trump POV". Earth to William! Earth to William!: How could that possibly be true, seeing that it is precisely the same photo used on the webpage www.donaldtrump.com?? IHTS ( talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
(Obviously photo currency is not a requirement too--2009 for Hillary?!)Barack Obama (2012), Mitt Romney (2013), John McCain (2009), Hillary Clinton (2009), Bernie Sanders (2007), Ben Carson (2015), Marco Rubio (2011), Ted Cruz (2013), Carly Fiorina (2015), Rand Paul (2011), Mike Huckabee (2010), John Kasich (2011), Lindsay Graham (2006).
Your take that a smile shows the candidate is fake or is indicative of "typical politician" is refuted by the simple fact that a smile (for millennia!?) conveys sociability, instead of its opposite. Please don't confuse the issue with Trump's new book, which has a specific focus, is not an encyclopedia BLP. (Trump said on ABC today he preferred a family photo where he was smiling, but the publishers had other plans. [I don't buy that either, so please don't shoot from the hip as you are prone to do. Again, that book has a different and specific focus. Trump will be on SNL this Saturday, are you going to hold me to account for any still shot that show produces too?!]) The choice of photo is largely subjective, but the arguments you are offering for your preferred photo are less quality arguments than my rebuttals and arguments for the 2013 photo. (And if it's good enough for the Trump campaign, how can anyone reasonably call it "unflattering"?!)
(ec) There are lots of photos of Trump on Commons, but in most all of them he is animated/speaking with mouth open. The fact the 2013 photo is used by the Trump campaign, confirms for me the advantages of that photo versus alternatives on Commons. Your suggestion that my preference is "entirely based" on the use of that photo at www.donaldtrump.com, is another example of your shoot-from-the-hip and crass argumentation.) IHTS ( talk) 20:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's my opinion the 2013 photo can be interpreted as having a frown or scowl. You're trying to get me to debate my opinion versus a theoretical opinion about "constipation" that no one has stated including you. (What kind of a discussion argument is that? Manipulative, I'd say.) "An encyclopedic photo is one in which the head is straight, the expression neutral, and the eyes open.
" Says who? Can you diff that in policy or guideline? And if according to you expressions s/b neutral, what accounts for the vast majority of the BLPs named where current & former candiates sport smiles?
The photo you have preference for never had consensus on Talk. Photos are different than article text in that they are subjective, and little exists in policy & guideline that applies. We disagree, and I think I've shown the weakness in all your shoot-from-the-hip arguments. Input from other editors is the way to go at this point. IHTS ( talk) 20:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
To help resolve dispute between two contending lead images. IHTS ( talk) 22:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Zppix from FRS here. use the 2013 the 2015 is of poor quality thanks Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 15:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Neither photo is a good representation of the man and his personality. And let's face it: Trump is a personality as much as he is a presidential candidate. In 4 of the 5 photos suggested by Squirrel, Trump is speaking, with his mouth is agape. And yet, they seem more appropriate than the two relatively expressionless photos under consideration. I would choose one of those, or something similar that is more true to Trump. Kerdooskis ( talk) 21:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Ya'll should check over the image I've selected & implimented. GoodDay ( talk) 13:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of the RfC was to resolve a dispute between two images. It seems that 2013 image beats 2015 image per consensus. Meanwhile two other images have been tried, plus Stemoc's preferred image is included below:
(My own preference is 2013 (CPAC) is best, April 2015 is next-best. But whatever.) IHTS ( talk) 05:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Started with Rush Limbaugh and others, the term 'Trump phenomenon' is taking off.
Headline-1: The Republican Establishment Hates Trump Because He Owns the Media
QUOTE: "the Trump phenomenon is a phenomenon [where] Donald Trump owns the media." -- AstroU ( talk) 22:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. And we can expand later.
Although the article itself is protected, this talk page is still not protected. Therefore it is vulnerable to vandalism by trolls and angry people, especially due to the many controversial things Donald Trump has said (some offensive). Therefore this page should also be protected as some people may turn to this page to vent out their fustration and anger. This is just an idea. Signed 99.240.204.52 ( talk) 07:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
He's sprouted a middle initial. J for... 137.205.183.109 ( talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The White House has announced that Trump is disqualified from running for presidency. Please clarify that he is a former candidate, not a current one. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/8/trump-ban-on-muslims-entering-US-disqualifies-him-from-presidency.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Comtes ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to leave it to the readers what they think about the statement from the White House. I propose the following sentence: In response to anti-Muslim remarks by Trump that were widely condemned as racist, the White House announced in December 2015 that he was disqualified from becoming president." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Comtes ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Trump didn't say what everyone (in their bias) is assuming he said. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 16:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I straightened the infobox image. See File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped2).jpg. This is a pretty standard practice in order to display the subject in a more encyclopedic manner. It was reverted because "your 'straightening' of the image is a modification of it out of its natural setting and context." That is true, but doesn't the modification make the image more encyclopedic? -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 22:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi there, can someone please add this ref in support of
However, this degree was revoked on December 9th 2015 because Trump had made 'a number of statements that are wholly incompatible with the ethos and values of the university'.
Thanks 79.20.91.220 ( talk) 10:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Done p b p 15:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Now with references--
Here is the text to add: "Trump has been widely accused of fascism by both Republicans and Democrats for his proposals such as banning all Muslims from entering the country, requiring Muslims to carry religious identification cards at all times, and creating a national registry of Muslims, as well as for his descriptions of Mexicans as "drug dealers" and "rapists," and his calls to deport approximately 25 Million Mexican-Americans, including close to 15 million full American citizens of Mexican descent born in the United States whose families did not emigrate legally." [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
Recently, User:Reattacollector added to the lead "Various media outlets and his opponents have described his platform as being fascist in nature.", followed by twelve references in a row. Do we really want that that early in the article? Maybe move it to the criticism section, or the campaign section? And maybe only 3-4 references? p b p 13:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The "Trump is fascist" talk goes back to his campaign announcemen, months ago, based on his deportation plans. All 3 Democratic candidates have called him a fascist, along with all but 1 or 2 Republican candidates, and every major newspaper and news outlet in the country. How can this article present itself as an encylopedic article when it reads like a campaign announcement, and about 90 percent of those who post here are openly cheering Trump on? There are even long threads of complaints that the pictures of Trump are "unflattering" when Trump more or less looks the same in every picture of him which has ever been taken. My fellow encylopedists: plugging our ears, and pretending the "Trump is fascist" talk does not exist, will not make it go away. I can show you references going back to the campaign announcement where Trump is labeled a Fascist, if you really wish to insist on the canard that this is "too recent for an encylopedia." An event being recent does not make it non-encylopedic when it is major, and the fascism talk long predates his proposal to institute a religious test for entry to the country, and began when he proposed that American citizens who were born in the States with Mexican families should be deported . What is even the argument that Trump is not fascist? And honestly, we don't need to be debating it: it has been such a major theme of the news coverage of his campaign that to ignore it is deeply irresponsible. It is not sufficient to just say that he is "populist" and "appeals to the working class." We are not writing his campaign ad here. DefenderOfFreedom ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is a reference, one of the earliest mentions of Trump qua fascist in the media, from Newsweek in July. This is 6 months old. Citing RECENTISM is dose genius. this is the defining issue of his campaign. His supporters support him because he is widely understood to be a fascist, and his detractors oppose him for the same reason. Not mentioning that Donald Trump supports fascist policies like banning Members of certain religions from the country is like having an article on the Klan that doesn't mention that they are white nationalists. Let's show some common sense. http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fascist-354690 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefenderOfFreedom ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Some Proposed text to add to the the lead regarding Trump's fascism: "Trump has been widely criticized for political proposals his detractors regard as Fascist in nature, by both Democrats, Republicans, and most major media outlets. For example, Trump has made campaign promises to bar further Muslims from entering the country, while creating a national registry of existing Muslims, and requiring them to carry identification cards. Trump has also been accused of fascist tendencies for his proposal to forcibly deport 25 million Mexicans, including American citizens born in the United States of Mexican descent with family that did not enter the country legally. ·Trump's ridicule of persons with disabilities has also been described as close to fascism. In reply, many of Trump's critics have proposed a compromise, suggesting that they would agree to Trump's plan to require Muslims to carry identification cards, on the condition that Trump's supporters will agree to wear their "let's make America great again" hats at all times, so that these dangerous individuals who hate our freedoms can also be quickly identified, and the danger to Democracy defused.~~<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefenderOfFreedom ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hell, no. "To the right of Adolph Hitler", eh? Do you have a reference for that little gem? Godwin's Law, anyone? Why on earth is this page not protected from SPAs like Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies ( talk · contribs) and DefenderOfFreedom ( talk · contribs)? Does anyone think these accounts are not here to push an agenda? This is ridiculous. Doc talk 01:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The link appears broken , but if you google "trump" "right of Adolf Hitler", it should appear. Cheers! Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies ( talk) 01:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I have acted boldly and redacted the offensive, unsourced personal commentary of the new, redlinked account on the grounds of BLP guidelines for article talk pages. If anyone other than the account that made the comments here disagrees with the redaction, go ahead and revert -- but let's talk about it here, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Reinstating the above subsection, which was removed by the new account at the same time that he reinstated his comments. Coretheapple ( talk) 02:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I just watched a tape of the interview with John Sweeney (have a look, it's easy to find on YouTube) and doesn't "walk out" of the interview like is stated here - the interview is finished after 15 minutes, he stands up to leave and John Sweeney calls out another question at him about as he is on his way out of the room. This should be clarified.
Sorry (this is the original poster), this actually my first suggesting anything on a Wikipedia page (in a long time) since they introduced the whole log-in thing and this probably represents the 2nd or 3rd time I have suggested anything on Wikipedia, so I don't totally get the procedure, but I will try to follow it here (btw, I have no idea who User 591J is, but clearly I have walked into the middle of something here). So I guess back to my original point, I have no idea if Trump has links to organized crime (which it sounds like a lot of the responses to my original comment are attempting to claim), I am simply making the point that (as someone who is actually a big fan of awkward interview moments) I have looked all over the internet and CANNOT find anything showing Donald Trump "walking out" of a BBC interview. Maybe he did. If so, show us the video tape and I will concede the point. I loves me a good awkward interview point - but where's the video of it so I can get my fix? If no one can post a link to it, then I don't see how this can stay here when the only other evidence shows a reporter calling out questions to Trump after the interview is clearly over and he's heading out of the room.
I suppose that Trump could say that the interview was over so the cameras were cut and that's why there's a gap in the footage? (that would seem to be a reasonable explanation) And maybe turned right back on again when Sweeney seemed to indicate he didn't want the interview to end? Maybe that happened or maybe something else, but the only video evidence I see is one of a person leaving an interview that is finished getting questions called out to him after the interview ended.
Ir Trump is editing BBC interviews in a conspiracy to make himself not seem involved with a mobster, why isn't the news full of stories from the BBC about him doing so?
Frankcarle ( talk) 08:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)FrankCarle, Dec 12th, 2015
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page to me appears to be vandalized and I want to fix it Golluman ( talk) 23:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This to me appears to be vandalized and I want to fix it
Of all of Mr. Trump's positions, the one that gets currently serving leaders of other countries, the pentagon, and main three leaders of his own political party to intervene in a presidential primary, is of historic significance, and so deserves expanded coverage in the main article on Mr. Trump, not just in the daughter article on his presidential campaign.
I propose replacing
...in response to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting called for a complete ban on Muslims entering the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". The press release drew wide criticism from sources both within the U.S. and abroad, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls and Canadian Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion. The U.S. Pentagon issued a statement stating "anything that bolsters ISIL's narrative and pits the United States against the Muslim faith is certainly not only contrary to our values but contrary to our national security." A petition to block Trump from entry to the UK has gained over 450,000 signatures. Trump, in an interview on Good Morning America, drew comparisons between his plan and Franklin D. Roosevelt's actions during World War II."
with
(begin new paragraph) In response to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, Trump proposed a ban on Muslims entering the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". Trump cited President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's wartime application of presidential powers under the Alien and Sedition Acts (whereby immigrants of Japanese, German, and or Italian ancestry could be legally apprehended, restrained, or removed from the United States without further due process during and after World War II) as examples of saimilar previous use of presidential powers in regard to immigrants. He cited Roosevelt's being regarded as a good president as evidence that this was a good application of presidential powers. He later clarified that US citizens and people serving in the US military would be let back in. The proposal drew wide criticism from sources both within the U.S. and abroad, and from unusual sources, such as foreign leaders who normally do not get involved in United States presidential campaigns, and leaders of Trump's own party holding party positions that do not normally get involved in its own party's presidential primary. Critics included British Prime Minister David Cameron, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, and Canadian Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion, as well as the chairman of the Republican Party Reince Priebus , Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, and Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Members of Trump's own party argued that a proposal banning members of a major world religion violated the party's conservative values, the constitution's first amendment, and the country's core values. Critics pointed out that the proposal would result in the exclusion of many of the most important allies in the country's war on terror, from interpreters helping the CIA to Jordan's King Abdullah, and that it would bolster ISIL by furthering its narrative that the US is pitted against the Muslim faith. The U.S. Pentagon issued a statement stating "anything that bolsters ISIL's narrative and pits the United States against the Muslim faith is certainly not only contrary to our values but contrary to our national security." A petition to block Trump from entry to the UK has gained over 450,000 signatures.
Mr. Trump issued a written press release statement saying "until our representatives can figure out what is going on". He then made several verbal statements, sometimes "until we can figure out what is going on", or more colorfully appealing to the 6th grade mentality of many voters, "until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on"( CNN source for Malerooster's revision), and "until we can figure out what the hell is going on". User:Malerooster added "the hell", but kept the original source to the written press release, which lacked the language with the added color. We need to decide which version to use in the article, then have a source that matches the version we use. MBUSHIstory ( talk) 16:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I am unable to find my own story to substantiate this claim, although I grant I didn't try very hard. I am not supposed to need to if it's all that obvious. The reference to The Hill *says* he said that and as proof links to another story where he doesn't say that. The Blaze (seriously? the Blaze??) does in fact provide a quote that says that Muslim-Americans *who are in the military* will be "taken care of" and "able to come home" which leaves a lot of wiggle but more importantly does not address the question of what about let's say an American citizen who is a Muslim but not in the military. Also, The Blaze is...please find a better source. If this interview was broadcast someone else covered it. Elinruby ( talk) 11:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This article is in over 70 categories. Am I the only one here who thinks that's overkill? Maybe remove some of his peripheral involvements, like writing and video games, and focus primarily on his principal business ventures and his current political aspirations? p b p 23:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
agreed, I thought that was quite startling also. Amma gonna do some light weed whacking. or at least take a look. Elinruby ( talk) 01:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
off the top of my head seem candidates for pruning
(This is a serious proposal.) There is nothing in the article about Mr. Trump's hair. It is the frequent subject of jokes and other references all over the media, including by Mr. Trump himself. It is iconic.
A Wikipedia user from a culture that is very different from Mr. Trump's might be mystified by all of the references, come to Wikipedia for information as to what all the hair talk is about, and would not have access to the information, so they can make sense of all of the references to Mr. Trump's hair. There are 250K results in a google search of "Donald Trump's hair", and 26,000 results in a google news search, many of which meet WP:RS. Content should be added as to Mr. Trump's hair. MBUSHIstory ( talk) 01:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)