Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Content in Lede

I don't believe this statement is appropriate in the lede to Trump's bio. It isn't neutral and gives the topic WP:Undue weight. The topic is already (and more appropriately) addressed in the article on his campaign.CFredkin (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Question: Do you disagree with it? Do you think it is not documented in RS? Do you think it isn't suitable for the lead? Or, not suitable for the article? Certainly seems neutral to me and something that the man is highly known for. Objective3000 (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
For the reasons stated above, I don't believe it's suitable for the lede.CFredkin (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The statement is also false. (Trump's comments about some illegal aliens doesn't equate to comments about "Mexicans" [unqualified], implying all Mexicans. Duh.) IHTS (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
You are right that a blanket statement about Mexicans would be inappropriate since he was referring to Mexican immigrants. It should read more like this:
During the campaign he generated significant controversy for his remarks about the Mexico-U.S. border and Muslims entering the U.S.
This reflects the fact that Trump's "controversy" with illegal immigration extends beyond just that one comment about Mexican illegal immigrants bringing "rapists" etc. "We are going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it." is also one of the most notable lines of his campaign to generate controversy. The Muslim line is significant for Trump both because of its enormous political ramifications, but also because it affected Trump a personally by affecting his business deals in countries like Dubai and Vancouver. For these reasons I think this summary meets the criteria for notability within the lede, though I am open to amended wording. Spudst3r (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
There's already a reference to his opposition to illegal immigration in the lede. I think the additional language provides undue weight. The "controversy" may be significant to his campaign, but the fact that it received significant press coverage doesn't necessarily make it notable in the lede to his bio.CFredkin (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
You might be right we can remove the part about the U.S. Mexico border, but Muslims entering the U.S. =! illegal immigration. Either the first sentence in the lede should be reworked, or amended to include his comments about Muslims because they are very significant (we're talking about a policy position affecting a billion plus people). It's worth noting that Trump's comments about Mexico have two significant components: 1. his comments about illegal immigrants being rapists, etc. 2. His campaign to build a wall that Mexico will pay for. Right now the current sentence in the lead does not adequately describe these two conflicts. Spudst3r (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's just not press coverage that's the issue here. Yes he's generated plenty of that. But his remarks have also inspired protests and downright violence across the country. They've also drawn international reactions from world leaders. How is that not notable for the lead? The mild level of chaos that he's causing in American society absolutely needs to be mentioned in the lead. The version I just put in is a lot more neutral. Why? Because it mentions that protesters are coming out both in favor of him and against him. So it represents both sides.UBER (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

End of the lead

This lead is chronological after the opening paragraph. So, the latest item should be at the end. Even if it repeats something that's in the opening paragraph. The Hillary Clinton BLP is the same way, with many things in the opening paragraph of the lead repeated later in the lead, allbeit rephrased. So, I would like to add the following at the end of this lead: "and is very widely expected to be the Republican nominee".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, a couple hours have lapsed without objection, so will go ahead. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
"Widely expected" is not the best language. Sounds too vague. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It's fine the way it is now, IMO: "On May 3, 2016, after winning 28 contests in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries and after the last remaining rivals in the Republican Party, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, suspended their campaigns, Trump was declared by Republican Chairman Reince Priebus to be the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong information in the lead

This edit introduced some wrong information into the lead, with the following edit summary: “Added citations and clarified description of positions: he is against legal and illegal immigration, and wants to prevent both American and foreign Muslims from entering the US, with no clearly stated end to the proposed ban.”

Actually, our article Political positions of Donald Trump says: “Trump has proposed a temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States (approximately 100,000 Muslim immigrants are admitted to the U.S. each year)[1] until better security precautions are implemented.[2][3][4][5].”
[1]"The Religious Affiliation of U.S. Immigrants: Muslim Immigrants". Pew Research Center. May 17, 2013.
[2]Amanda Holpuch. "Trump re-ups controversial Muslim ban and Mexico wall in first campaign ad". the Guardian.
[3]Scott, Eugene. "Trump: My Muslim friends don't support my immigration ban", CNN (December 13, 2015).
[4]"Voters Like Trump's Proposed Muslim Ban", Rasmussen Reports. Retrieved December 18, 2015.
[5]Barro, Josh. "How Unpopular Is Trump's Muslim Ban? Depends How You Ask", The New York Times (December 15, 2015).

Both of the footnotes inserted into the lead are broken links, and anyway this lead uses the style that excludes footnotes.

Additionaly, the idea that Trump opposes legal immigration is incorrect. He does support a pause for a couple years in issuance of the H-1B visa, but the H-1B is a non-immigrant visa in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act; see Trump's comments about it in March.

So, I object to the recent edit to the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this edit is not supported by sources, as well as being undue (Trump's comments have primarily been focused on illegal immigration), and have restored the previous language.CFredkin (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted subsection

This edit removed a large amount of reliably-sourced content, with an edit summary that said: “No consensus. Please ask for consensus on Talk page.” The removed content was under a subsection header in the politics section, and the subheader was “Comments related to fringe theories”. The removed content is a follows:

[1]Benen, Steve. "A conspiracy theorist and his powerful pals", MSNBC (December 3, 2015)
[2]Shafer, Jack. "Did We Create Trump?", Politico (May 2016).
[3]Maggie Haberman, Even as He Rises, Donald Trump Entertains Conspiracy Theories, New York Times (February 29, 2016).
[4] Benjy Sarlin, Donald Trump's Long History of Conspiracy Theories, NBC News (May 3, 2016).
[5]Mahoney, Emily. "Fact Check: Donald Trump's claim on spaced-out vaccines, autism rate", Arizona Republic (October 16, 2015).
[6]"American President: Barack Obama". Charlottesville, VA: Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. 2009. Archived from the original on January 23, 2009. Retrieved January 23, 2009. Religion: Christian {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
[7]Moody, Chris and Holmes, Kristen. "Donald Trump's history of suggesting Obama is a Muslim", CNN (September 18, 2015).
[8]Colvin, Jill. "Trump joshes with audience over Muslim comments, Clinton", Associated Press (January 6, 2016).
[9]Caitlin Yilek, Trump flirts with suggestion that Scalia was murdered, The Hill (February 16, 2016).
[10]Rebecca Kaplan, Donald Trump considers theory Scalia might have been murdered, CBS News (February 16, 2016).
[11]Pearce, Matt. "Scalia's death and lack of an autopsy bring out the conspiracy theorists", Los Angeles Times (February 16, 2016).
[12]Bump, Philip. "The 50-year-old mystery behind that photo of Lee Harvey Oswald", Washington Post (May 3, 2016).
[13]Blake, Aaron. "Donald Trump’s day of many contradictions", Washington Post (May 5, 2016).
[14]"DONALD TRUMP FULL INTERVIEW ON FOX & FRIENDS | FOX NEWS (5/3/2016)" (YouTube).
[15]"Fox Host Regrets Not Pressing Trump When He Linked Cruz's Dad To Oswald", Talking Points Memo (May 5, 2016).

I think it ought to go without saying that I am not trying to make Trump look bad. Heck, less than an hour before this subsection was deleted, I inserted an image of Trump together with Ronald Reagan at the White House.[6] The deleted subsection discusses a very notable aspect of Trump (that he often says outrageous things to get media attention), and some of these incidents have gotten extremely wide coverage recently in reliable sources, especially when Trump linked Cruz's father to the killing of JFK. This subsection is very balanced, and I think an intelligent reader will see that what Trump actually said was not quite as outrageous as it seemed. Anyway, the comments of other editors are welcome. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The removal of this content could be considered the "revert" in WP:BRD, though I disagree that consensus must be obtained before adding information. FWIW, I think the section is acceptable. It's well-sourced and it's widely understood that Trump has said very outrageous things and associated himself with very fringe groups. He was a big name with the birthers a few years ago, for instance. clpo13(talk) 18:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's way too much detail. This could be trimmed down to something like "Trump has drawn criticism for comments that lend credence to fringe theories such as that vaccines cause autism, that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim, that Antonin Scalia was murdered, and that Ted Cruz's father was associated with Lee Harvey Oswald." Toohool (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be grossly misleading, because Trump did not lend credence to any of those theories. Take the vaccines; as explained, his comments about it would likely have the affect of increasing vaccination rates. You just want to give readers a misleading soundbyte? And the whole first paragraph explains that this is all part of Trump's effort to get free media, not because he's nuts. Moreover, a lot of this stuff has gotten an incredibly large amount of attention in reliable sources. I get more than 150,000 hits on google news for the Oswald-Cruz stuff alone.[7] We owe readers an explanation of what Trump actually said, which includes that he does not believe that Cruz's father knew Oswald. I therefore strongly disagree that this is undue weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant removed all related content on a different article, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 based on a consensus to do so on this article talk page. Is this an accurate assessment? I think a discussion should have begun on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 talk page before removing so much content. Liz Read! Talk! 18:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Liz, I'm the one who put this content at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 in the first place, and I think it's more appropriate for this article because we're talking about a trend throughout Trump's career, not just during this campaign. I mean, he was the guy talking the most about Obama's birth certificate a long time ago. And I am not sure that a discussion of Scalia's death, or some of this other stuff, is really campaign-related. Anyway, can't I do both the "B" and the "R" in BRD? In any event, I have put a notice at that talk page, pointing here.[8]Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, this BLP has 693 words in the subsection titled "Allegations of business links to organized crime" even though the subsection starts out by saying "A reporter for the Washington Post writes, 'he was never accused of illegality, and observers of the time say that working with the mob-related figures and politicos came with the territory.'" In contrast to that hit job of a subsection, the very appropriate subsection that was just deleted has only 508 words, per my word counter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Liz:Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I was just concerned that you deleted a substantial amount of content on one article (X) based on an ongoing discussion on a different article talk page (Y). I'm glad to see that you mentioned this connection not only in an edit summary but on the X talk page. I still am not sure it is a good practice to connect edits done on X with a discussion occurring on Talk:Y. Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I shouldn't have put it into that article to begin with, because much of it is not part of the campaign (e.g. Scalia's death and Obama's non-muslimness are part of a broader pattern that goes beyond the 2016 campaign).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason why this sourced biographical information was removed twice by ThiefOfBagdad in less than 60 minutes [9][10] with zero discussion on this talk page (and apparently no one had the gall to revert him). Regarding Obama's birth certificate, Trump was talking about that before he started his presidential campaign. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, looks to me from this discussion like it's three to one to include, so will do so....with some small tweaks (e.g. I like the heading "Admitted outrageousness" which tracks the 1987 quote from Art of the Deal).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course, someone changed the header already, to "Controversies".[11] The edit summary contains a BLP violation, so I won't quote it. The header "Controversies" is much too vague and much too general. There's nothing wrong with the heading "Admittedly a little outrageous" given that the very first paragraph says this: "Shafer quotes a sentence from Trump’s 1987 book The Art of the Deal: 'If you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.'"Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
There is something wrong with it. It's not an encyclopedic tone. Toohool (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I suppose the old heading had a better tone: "comments related to fringe theories".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Clinton attacks

This entire page is obviously filled with what political contenders say about Trump. Can we at least add what Trump has discredited Hillary for, in order for this page to be fair? E.g. add what Trump has been discrediting his contender Clinton for in the "General election" section.

Also, could we add how Trump vs Hillary is doing in the national polls already? The nominations are obviously pretty much set. (Except Trump will lose to a ghost) ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If the page is filled with what political contenders say about Trump, then that ought to be reduced, instead of adding everything Trump says about those political contenders. There are other articles for that kind of stuff, like United States presidential election, 2016. How about we also shorten the huge section on Trump's alleged mob ties?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Fringe theories section should be short

Right now, a section on Trump's conspiracy theory fanatics is incredibly long, includes random political quotes, and includes theories where Trump has already stated he "definitely doesn't believe in, it was a misrepresentation." Then why is it in there. I shortened it already, if somebody is somehow against this, please comment/debate here. Just please remember this is Trump's main lifestory page, not a collection of random fun facts on him. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There was already a discussion about this above, and the consensus was for inclusion. Who are the "fanatics" to whom you refer? Where did you get the quote "definitely doesn't believe in, it was a misrepresentation"? A major part of Trump's persona is to say stuff that will get a lot of media attention, and that's why we discuss it. I am against shortening this version which is already shorter than what was agreed to in the section above to which I referred.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

Note: this question has been settled by RfC on this page. This is being posted here because some of the participants here may wish to pitch in and help on the other pages listed.

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016

  • Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[12] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[13] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[14] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[15] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[16]
  • Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[17] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[18] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[19] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[20] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
  • Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
  • Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion
  • Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[21] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Just do it. Do not discuss it endlessly. Have the courage of your convictions. Just do it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Bunching footnotes together

In many places, this article bunches footnotes together in a way that is unnecessary and counterproductive. For example, consider this sentence:


Superficially, it looks okay. One footnote should be sufficient. But when you drag your cursor over footnote "392" you find this:


This kind of thing happens over and over in this article. Not only is it footnote-overkill, but it also makes it difficult to figure out which footnote is being used to support which words in the article text. I therefore plan on eliminating all of these footnote clusters unless someone can give a good reason not to, and I will trim the number of footnotes to a set that is necessary and sufficient to support what we're writing in the article text. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Great initiative! Trimming down redundant stuff improves clarity of meaning and readability or prose. — JFG talk 20:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

List of things named after Donald Trump

Are there any objections to List of things named after Donald Trump being listed under the See also section of this article? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It's better not to put things in the Seealso section that are already in the article, as that is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Anythingyouwant: This is the only reason I asked, and sorry I didn't see it referenced in this article before. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for pointing out that that RFC has just closed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump Force One

Can the following be made a new section under politics as a merge with the Trump Force One article? Thanks. Picomtn (talk)

Trump Force One proposal

Prior to his running for president, Trump’s plane was a Boeing 727 operated by American Airlines[1] that was replaced by a Boeing 757-2J4ER he personally owns[2] and uses for his campaign and is popularly known as Trump Force One.

Trump Force One was assembled in Renton, WA, USA and initially delivered to Sterling Airlines in Denmark in 1991,[3] and later sold to TAESA in Mexico.[4] It was then used as a private jet to Paul Allen in 1995 before being acquired for Donald Trump.[3] Registration expires March 31, 2018.

In 2015, it was removed from publicly available government tracking of its movements.[4]

References

  1. ^ "Trump force one: 'The Donald' shows off gaudy new $100 million 'presidential' 757 jet - Daily Mail Online". Mail Online. 2 June 2011. Retrieved 22 April 2016.
  2. ^ Colin Campbell (30 January 2016). "Donald Trump's plane landing in Iowa – Business Insider". Business Insider. Retrieved 22 April 2016.
  3. ^ a b "Trump Force One: cómo es el "avión presidencial" del candidato republicano". lanacion.com.ar. 14 April 2016. Retrieved 22 April 2016.
  4. ^ a b "Trump's plane gives new meaning to first class". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 22 April 2016.

Wait

Let's wait and see what happens at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump Force One.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It just closed. Here's the closing statement: "The result was merge to List of things named after Donald Trump. Opinion is more or less evenly split between delete, merge, and keep, more heavily weighted on the delete side. The merge seems like a reasonable middle ground. On a personal note, it's a silly article. Nobody but a hard-core plane geek cares what kind of engines it has or where it was assembled. But, whatever. -- RoySmith" Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes in lead

Per WP:WHENNOTCITE we have not put footnotes in the lead. Someone just inserted one. I suppose ArbCom would get its knickers in a twist if I reverted within 24 hours of my last edit, so I won't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Birtherism

There is not enough detail in the article about the conspiracy theories espoused by Trump, in particular Birtherism - Cwobeel (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Added some, needs way more. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

There was already plenty of detail on this subject, and I object to your addition of huge amounts more. The BLP already said (and continues to say) this:

Adding reams more about this violates WP:Undue weight. I would revert this highly POV edit, but apparently 1RR is now in force here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

We can consolidate that material, which BTW doe3s not mention neither conspiracy theories nor Birtherism with the other material I added. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The material you added is inappropriate and I object to it. There's plenty already. And we already have a piped link to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories so you're mistaken about not having a link to birtherism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Lede

The lede does not summarize any of the controversies related to this person as described in the article's text, and papers over most of these. See WP:LEDE, which reads: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It does not summarize any of his golf courses either. The lead says, "His controversial remarks have inspired protests both opposing and supporting him." Details are later in the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. The lede needs to summarize the article, and what we have there does no5t come close. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Public persona

There is a lot of material available, and more surfacing, now that this guy is the probable nominee of the GOP, and is getting vetted by media outlets. A section on public persona is therefore due. I will collect information and start adding as it sees the light, for example the very well and recent story about his impersonation of a PR person: [http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article77401932.html[ )one of the many articles covering this totally weird stuff. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a separate article about his 2016 campaign where that info could go, assuming the bit about the PR person is not too trivial for that article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
This is not about the campaing. It is about the persona, and this is indeed a BLP - Cwobeel (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Please abide by 1RR, per the warnings at the top of this talk page. If you do so, then we can discuss whether this "PR" incident is part of the 2016 campaign or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

New image proposal

Proposed
Current
Proposed photo (left) and long-standing current photo (right)

More recent photo that is straight on, and has a smile rather than a slightly confused look, hoping to seek consensus to change the main portrait. Calibrador (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Just a note; I wouldn't necessarilly call the current one Presidential either, it looks a bit weird to me. Calibrador (talk)
  • Support current. Between these two, the one at right is more appropriate for a top image. We recently had an RFC about the top image. Bottom line is that we still could use a better image, so I will try to find one for uploading.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep current per recent RfC (March 2016) where it was chosen among 20 pictures. Also, the edited version "Donald Trump crop 2015.jpeg" has the best quality of all variants of this picture floating around. — JFG talk 23:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep current. (The long-standing current image. Not the one Photo-Shop'd & rotated that user JFG replaced the long-standing current image with today, without consensus.) IHTS (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep current. What's considered flattering or not is often subjective, but the current photo comes off photogenically better. That said, if someone comes across a portrait of Trump that mimics the portraits that are common for U.S. Senators or Presidents (as Obama and Hillary have), I think we should move to a photo of that type as soon as one like it can be found.Spudst3r (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: this has been going on for a year. How much discussion does there have to be?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please advise if this paragraph can be introduced in the Article, at the end of the section called Politics. Thank you.

Relationship with the UK

After having made several offensive remarks during his US Presidency Campaign, Trump feels offended himself. He has declared on the ITV programme Good Morning Britain that he is offended by the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron’s remark: ‘divisive, stupid and wrong’ to claim that Muslims should be banned from entering the US[1], as well as by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan’s remark: ‘ignorant view of Islam’[2]. In the interview taken by Piers Morgan, Trump responded to Sadiq Khan by a clear threat: ‘I think they were very rude statements and frankly tell him I will remember those statements’[3]. He also replied to the UK Prime Minister by declaring that, given David Cameron’s remark, they ‘will not have a very good relationship’[4].

Nope. Just reread the first "proposed" sentence. And then, read it again. Not encyclopedic material. Doc talk 09:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else's opinion please? Is this discussion closed? Thank you.--Clairec78 (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think some mention (complying with WP:NPOV of his comments about Cameron and Khan and the potential relationship they would have is notable, especially in the context of United Kingdom–United States relations and the so-called "special relationship" AusLondonder (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ David Cameron REFUSES to apologise to Donald Trump for saying he was 'divisive, stupid and wrong' to claim Muslims should be banned from entering America, in Daily Mail, May 16th 2016 [1].
  2. ^ Sadiq Khan warns Donald Trump's 'ignorant' view of Islam could make Britain and US less safe, in The Telegraph, May 10th 2016 [2].
  3. ^ Piers Morgan and Donald Trump interview puts Good Morning Britain viewers off their breakfast after vile comments, in Mirror, May 16th 2016 [3].
  4. ^ Piers Morgan and Donald Trump interview puts Good Morning Britain viewers off their breakfast after vile comments, in Mirror, May 16th 2016 [4].

Lede - Re: Trump's determination to build a wall along the Mexico–United States border

User CFredkin recently removed the phrase:

his determination to build a wall along the Mexico–United States border, that Mexico will pay for

from the lede summary. I think this deletion should be reverted. I appreciate that this may phrase may be in repetition with the line of Trump being known 'for his opposition to illegal immigration', but that statement on its own does not accurately summarize what's notable about his stances.

Trump's promise to build a wall that "Mexico will pay for" is a feature stump speech of his campaign, and notable on its own beyond Trump's remarks about illegal immigration because of how it affects the United States' relationship with its southern neighbour. What's notable here is Trump's antagonism with Mexico on the issue, not that it affects illegal immigration.

So I propose we add this specific phrase back to the lede, or replace it with something similar to reflect the fact that Trump's statements around building a wall around Mexico are an extremely notable aspect of his campaign that deserves to be mentioned specifically in the lede. Spudst3r (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how including that proposed language in the lead would convey what you say you want to convey: that he wants Mexico to pay for it, and that he has antagonism against Mexico. Also, if we simply put back the language about his "determination to build a wall along the Mexico–United States border" then we might have to clarify in the lead that there's already a wall at portions of the border, and that he wants the wall to have a "big, beautiful door" for people to come legally. All in all, I think his stance is adequately summarized in the lead by saying that he is known for opposition to illegal immigration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Here are few ways of phrasing it:
his determination to build a wall along the entire Mexico–United States border that Mexico will pay for or
his determination to make Mexico pay for the construction of a full wall between the Mexico–United States border or
his determination to make Mexico pay for the building of a full border wall between the Mexico–United States border or
his call to make Mexico pay for the construction of a full border wall between the Mexico–United States border
All of them I think get address your point in better describing 1. the antagonism created from Trump's statement with Mexico, and 2. that the desired wall is an expansion of existing segments. Let me know what you think.Spudst3r (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Spudst3r that this deserves mention in the lede; it is unquestionably one of the things that he is most known for. My choice is: "his determination to build a wall along the entire Mexico–United States border that Mexico will pay for." The reason that I underlined that Mexico will pay for is because this has been a long-standing talking point (which obviously shouldn't be underlined in the lede.) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
It's appropriate for mention in the lede of Political positions of Donald Trump, but not in the lede for his main BLP. If he's elected and builds the wall, then I would agree that it should be included. At this point, it's just campaign rhetoric. In addition, the higher level issue is already addressed with the reference to his opposition to illegal immigration.CFredkin (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Cfredkin on this, because it's already covered by the higher-level statement, because readers would be puzzled by what a "full wall" means, and because I'm not sure Trump wants to build anything where a big wall already exists at the border. Of course, discussion of this subject lower down in this BLP is fine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This should be in the article

In 1991 Donald Trump saved a man's life who was being beaten to death with a baseball bat: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/report-donald-trump-stopped-baseball-bat-beating-on-new-york-city-street-in-1991/ --TRUMP TRAIN 2016 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump got out of his car and yelled two sentences to a man 25 years ago. And you made 10 one character edits to your sandbox to be autoconfirmed so you could add this? Your username tends to suggest a WP:SPA.Objective3000 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, regardless of how we found out about it, this article is interesting, and says that he did a bit more than utter two random sentences.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Info about his mother

@Socheid: Thanks for the info about Donald Trump's mother. I have copied it to the article about his father, Fred Trump. There is lots of room in that article about Fred Trump, because he did not have such a famous and eventful life as his son, and therefore the info you provided is most suitable at the Fred Trump article. Accordingly, I will shorten the info that you inserted at this article, but it will all remain at the Fred Trump article for anyone who wants it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Strange aside in the family section

I recently made this edit and was reverted shortly after. The sentence I removed from the family section was "(Trump had previously used the pseudonym "John Baron" (or Barron) in some business deals and when communicating with journalists.)" which follows directly on from "In March 2006, she gave birth to their son named Barron William Trump." While I don't disagree that Trump has used that pseudonym it has no place in the family section of the article (if anywhere at all) and it certainly shouldn't follow the name of his son, as it implies some sort of connection between the two. Note that none of the sources make any connection between the two. I'll leave it up to the regulars here to decide what to do, I was not intent on editing this article when I read over it (US politics is not one of my usual areas and I tend to avoid places with ArbCom remedies), but that parenthetical aside stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Pinging Vesuvius Dogg who made the revert. Jenks24 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I added a sentence and source that makes another link. I do think it's significant that he has used the Barron pseudonym and even suggested it be used in a biopic television series, "The Tower", which he commissioned a couple years before Barron was born. Also, per a source cited on Melania Trump, Trump suggested Barron's first name (and Melania picked his middle name). Maybe it belongs elsewhere in the article, but the discussion of pseudonym use does belong somewhere in his biography, if not in the middle of this personal life section. Perhaps you might find a better place to park it? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the pseudonym belongs in the article at this point. There is currently a lot of media interest in Trump's use of pseudonyms, but I don't think that it is notable enough for an encyclopedia unless something significant emerges.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree, for now, it's not relevant at all. But if the media keeps writing about the "John Barron" thing throughout the year, it might be relevant at some point to include it in this article, so as to clarify what the big fuss is all about. HempFan (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been posted at talk:Stop Trump movement#RfC: Should this article list people who have merely stated that they will not endorse, support, or vote for Trump?. Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 02:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Much of the "Legal affairs" section repeats stuff from previous sections. So, I suggest renaming it "Other legal matters" and removing the redundant stuff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've started a new article Legal affairs of Donald Trump, so will modify this one accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Just be careful how much you edit / remove / move to another article. It may be a concern that one isn't removing negatives too much. Obviously we need to be NPOV and balanced in our coverage of people. Centerone (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I'm just trying to leave a concise summary here of every item, whether it's flattering or unflattering. Feel free to keep an eye on me to make sure (even though that's not necessary!).  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
All done for the day, reduced article size from 283 kb to 260 kb.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The bankruptcy material is also legal in nature, so I plan on copying it (with attribution!) to legal affairs of Donald Trump, and leaving a summary here in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Climate

Regarding this reversion, I just want to note that the article Political positions of Donald Trump says the following:

[1]"TRUMP: I was joking when I said the Chinese 'created' the concept of climate change". Business Insider. January 8, 2016. Retrieved January 30, 2016.
So, it seems sufficiently covered in that article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Defacing star on Walk of Fame

I'd added a note about Trump's star on the walk of fame being a target of vandalism in the wake of his 2016 bid for the presidency and that was removed in the edit http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=722664462&oldid=722655868 . Just wanted to bring up my desire to keep this in, as it's not everyday that people will target a unique object like this for their ire. However, I didn't want to revert as it is currently my opinion vs. that of Ihardlythinkso, and my opinion is no more valid than that of his, so tossing it open for input of others. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds trivial. Did you know that Donald Duck has a star on the walk of fame? Objective3000 (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The star itself is mentioned and pictured, which seems okay. Vandalism of the star doesn't seem notable enough for this article, plus I'd hate to see people vandalizing it in new and different ways so as to get mentioned in a Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
John Lennon, Sharon Stone, and the Olsen Twins have also had their Hollywood Walk-of-Fame stars defaced. It doesn't merit mention in their Wikipedia biographies.Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like there is a lack of consensus to retain mention of the star in the article. Trump is mentioned at List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame#T. Maybe this is sufficient. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You are apparently mixing up two very different things. There is no consensus to include that the star has been defaced. That's a separate issue from whether to mention the star at all, and I don't see any consensus to remove the longstanding mention of the star.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless the vandalism hits the 24 hour news cycle, it is too trivial to mention. TFD (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If Stephen Hawking is behind the defacement, then it's notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

A short list of Trump's appearances in numerous programs now seems rather unremarkable, given how extremely popular he has become internationally and the sheer number of important or controversial statements he makes a week and references to him in daily shows. Due to his large prominence to the point that he has become practically a household name, it would be nearly impossible to complete this section. Unless somebody can come up with something substantial to add, I think this section should be dissolved and points moved to other appropriate sections. Longbyte1 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It might be better to just modify the header to something like "In popular culture prior to the 2016 election campaign".Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and put a time cutoff into the section header.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Drugs

I removed

Trump has never done drugs, or smoked cigarettes, and has always heeded a warning from his older brother (an alcoholic) to not drink alcohol.< ref name=fifteen />

as "15 fact" lists are rarely reliable; the source might have been quoting Trump (allowable as if attributed), a relative of Trump (possibly allowable if attributed), or a person or persons unknown. If the publication was less reliable, it could even have been made up entirely, but I consider that unlikely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There are additional sources for it, such as this one: McAfee, Tierney. "Donald Trump Opens Up About His Brother's Death from Alcoholism: It Had a 'Profound Impact on My Life'", People (October 8, 2015): "[T]here are a few hard and fast principles that he himself lives by: no drugs, no cigarettes and no alcohol. Trump's abstinence from alcohol was largely shaped by the death of his brother, Fred Jr., from alcoholism in 1981." So, I will restore with this additional footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with the material inserted by this edit. We have two reliable sources that say he doesn't smoke, drink, or do drugs. Neither source couches that fact with "he says" or "he claims" or anything like that.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's another one for good measure: Morgan, Piers. The Hot Seat: Love, War, and Cable News, p. 31 (Simon and Schuster 2014): "[H]e’s never touched a drop of alcohol, smoked a cigarette, or tried a drug".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

For Your Information

Stephen Hawking expresses his point of view on Donald Trump. He also says that it is important for the UK to stay in the EU for economic, political, security and scientific reasons[1].

Thank you.--Clairec78 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't see how this improves this article. Objective3000 (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
It might improve the Stephen Hawking article, by giving insight into his political views. If Trump were to imitate him, that would belong here for sure.😡Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Quite right. I considered adding that it might make sense in Hawking's article. I also considered the possibility of Trump imitating him. Thought I'd wait for that.:) Objective3000 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Trump's popularity inexplicable and Brexit spells disaster, says Stephen Hawking [5]

Yahoo News: 'War of Words escalates as Clinton knocks Trump'[22]--Clairec78 (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Howdy folks. Please, don't be adding the Republican presidential nominee stuff into the infobox, as we've never done that for any presidential and vice presidential nominees, in the past. PS - Can you imagine (for example) how long Nixon's infobox would be if we added 1952 & 1956 Republican vice presidential nominee info & 1960, 1968 & 1972 Republican presidential nominee info? How about the infobox of FDR, as another example? So again, let's be consistent & not do that :) GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It is different. Trump's main notability is now the presumption of winning the nomination, while both Nixon and Roosevelt were notable mainly as presidents. If Trump wins the presidency, then we can change to field to president. TFD (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not different. We didn't do this for Mitt Romney in 2012, for either Barack Obama or John McCain in 2008, nor for John Kerry in 2004. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with keeping presumptive nominee out of the infobox. But, when he's actually nominated, there's a stronger argument for including it, and we can discuss it at that point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Presidential nominee, is not a political office & should be excluded, per 2004, 2008 & 2012 examples. But yes, it's something we shall re-vist in July. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Those examples are interesting and worth considering, but they are not policies or guidelines, and the circumstances are not exactly the same either. Reince Priebus has an infobox that states his position in the GOP, and I think presidential nominee might be just as significant a position in the GOP. But at this point we don't even know for sure that he'll even be nominated, given the violence that's being used against his campaign, et cetera. So we wait.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
My position won't change, even after Trump is actually nominated. Same with the Democratic prez nomination, the Green prez nomination & Gary Johnson, the Libertarian prez nominee. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
My position might change, because I have an open mind and am willing to consider thoughtful arguments from other editors.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I support this, Trump is not even the nominee yet so it was even more inappropriate. I'm also glad you've removed "Chairman of the Trump Organisation" from the info box as there is no precedent for categorising company chairpersons as office holders. Long overdue edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzema (talk • contribs) 14:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Not cut out of the will

I reverted an edit that asserts Trump tried to cut his nephew out of his father's will. The source doesn't say that, as explained in my edit summary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So, I've been reverted. The article now falsely claims that Trump "cut Fred III and his sibling out from their grandfather's will". The cited source says "Although they did inherit money from their father, they are seeking one-fifth...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I fixed it. Thanks for pointing out.--Ahmad Bougouredi (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Where do the cited sources say, "Fred Sr. freely provided medical coverage to his family through his company for decades"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
First paragraph of the cited source:
"... medical coverage that Fred Trump freely provided to his family for decades..."
--TMCk (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Order of subsections

In the section on Finances and commercial ventures, I've ordered the subsections alphabetically for ease of navigation. The previous section, on his business career, is chronological, but the section on Finances and business ventures has never been chronological so making it alphabetical makes sense to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, now the order of Trumps's financial ventures. To place them in alphabetical order is nonsensical! There has to be flow according to context and meaning, rather than, of all things, the first letter of the topic! Everything was good until just a few days ago - why did everything have to be turned upside down all of a sudden? Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, the section has never been chronological, and you haven't suggested that we try to make it chronological. There should be some rhyme or reason to the order of subsections, and making them alphabetical will help readers find what they're looking for. It will make this BLP less random too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with chronological order. I do find alphabetical order to be absurd here, however. Either way, introduction of the Trump Organization and Trump Tower must be mentioned first and paramount, because that is (at least currently) his defining corporate identity. I am going to make this change, and I support you on making the remainder chronological. Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The subsection that you have put first mentions that a "running labor lawsuit was settled in 1999, after 16 years in court" and also discusses the apprentice. There is no way that a chronological treatment would put that first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've found a satisfactory way to address both your concerns and mine, and have edited the article accordingly. Please let me know what you think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Pics of buildings

When this BLP discusses one of his buildings, I don't see any problem with including a pic to go with that discussion. The Chicago pic is accompanied, for example, by "Trump personally guaranteed $40 million to secure a $640 million loan for Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago, and when Deutsche Bank tried to collect it, Trump sued the bank for harming the project and his reputation,[497] and the bank then agreed to extend the loan term by five years.[498]" The Vegas pic seems to lack corresponding text, so maybe we can put in text, or use an alternative image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Those two images (Trump Las Vegas and Chicago) are excessive and WP:UNDUE here. Trump has many properties which are discussed in the text. There's no pertinent discussion of significance that renders these two necessary beyond a significant threshold. Instead, those same two valuable slots could be take up with different (non-property) types of images. I request you to consider taking these down so that they can indeed be used for something different at those points in the article. Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You can suggest further images right here. But when article text discusses a Trump building, there's nothing undue about showing the Trump building.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Why not just put these in a separate Gallery section then? This would free up space for other images, including political speeches or other appearances. It's WP:UNDUE per too many buildings pictured, simply that. Castncoot (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
There's still tons of room for more pictures. Why not suggest one? A gallery would not be appropriate in this article. Per WP:Gallery, "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." Here, all aspects of the subject can be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I support keeping the Vegas and Chicago building pics, per comments by Anythingyouwant in particular and per WP:IUP in general. I believe the images help raise the reader's understanding of Trump by showing some of the architecture he's commissioned over the years. Is his esthetic judgment good or bad? Readers can use these images to decide for themselves. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Pic of basketball game

The "Trump at a baseball game in 2009" image should be speedily removed from the "Football and boxing" section. It's neither appropriate to the section nor helpful to the reader's understanding of the subject. (No one is known to have publicly questioned whether Trump enjoys attending basketball games.) I can take it down myself tomorrow. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a basketball game, but rather a baseball game. It's a sports event so it has relevance to the section in which it appears. More significantly, this article includes only two images of the subject between 1990 and 2010, and this is one of them. Obviously, a BLP should show images of the subject during various decades if available, preferably a couple per decade to get a different angle on the subject. I don't understand why you are proposing such edits as these.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome to change the section title to "Sports", in which case no readers could question our judgment. Otherwise some may find it odd that WP would include an image of a baseball game in a section titled "Football and boxing".
Many readers are not as thoughtful as you or I, Anythingyouwant. I try to examine a controversial BLP as if I were a comparatively sensitive and somewhat thoughtless reader, rather than a sophisticated and knowledgeable writer.
Do you now understand why I would propose such an edit? --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
If that's the problem, the easiest way to solve it is by shortening the caption so it doesn't say what kind of game. Going to the source of the image at Flickr, it doesn't seem clear what kind of game it was, but even if it's ice hockey or chicken-fighting we don't have to specify in the caption. This way, we can have a section on "Football and boxing" which is immediately followed alphabetically by a section on "Golf courses".Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

/ˈdɒnəld ˈdʒɒn ˈtrəmp/
I very much doubt the veracity of the pronunciation of his surname. A stressed schwa? Schwa is usually used to represent an unstressed vowel - given that it is the only vowel in his monosyllabic surname, I highly doubt it would be a schwa. Surely the vowel should be a ʌ? Compare pronunciation of the noun/verb "trump" here - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trump - pronunciation is given as /tɹʌmp/ Mcruic (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need pronunciation information if it's pronounced simply as it's spelled?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
If we do, it should at least be correct. The letter "u" is not pronounced as a schwa in American English. "Pronounced as it's spelled" only makes sense if you understand the correspondence between sounds and letters. It's not only native English speakers who use the English Wikipedia, and therefore, this correspondence may not be as obvious. One could also say "donut" sounds as it is spelled. However, the "do" in donut is not the same as the "do" in Donald (both are "do" followed by an unstressed syllable, so it's not obvious here if you've never heard the name). Also, there are differences between American and UK English pronunciation, particularly with respect to the vowels. If you went to, for example, a Romanian Wikipedia page, to get the correct pronunciation of a Romanian name - "pronounced as it's spelled" wouldn't be much use unless you knew the entire phonology of Romanian beforehand. Mcruic (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not a schwa. I've changed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:PRON, "a simple pronunciation hint, such as an unambiguous rhyme ('rhymes with kind'), an unambiguous homonym ('pronounced like Smith'), or a spelled-out acronym ('pronounced S-O-S'), does not generally need an IPA transcription". So, we could give a hint like "pronounced like the English word 'trump'" or "rhymes with jump", though I could see where the latter might get problematic if people change it to frump or plump or dump or chump or grump....So I suggest we follow these examples, and say "pronounced like the English word 'trump'"Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It's now been changed back! We are saying that "Trump" is not pronounced the same as "trump"!--Jack Upland (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know who changed it back, but no one objected here to removing the IPA stuff, so I've just done so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Donald Trump (pronounced like the word trump)" is honestly one of the dumbest things I've read on this wiki. Why is it in place, and what is the reason for it not having been removed yet? Chase (talk | contributions) 05:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the pronunciation even needed? (talk | contributions) 05:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not as dumb as having an elaborate IPA pronunciation. Per WP:PRON, "a simple pronunciation hint, such as an unambiguous rhyme ('rhymes with kind'), an unambiguous homonym ('pronounced like Smith'), or a spelled-out acronym ('pronounced S-O-S'), does not generally need an IPA transcription".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone else having déjà vu? There's always been inconsistency on whether we place the pronunciation of someone's name in the lede: see George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, but compare Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Generally, I'd suggest that if it be included at all, it should be included as IPA. As it is, it's confusingly tautological; to use an above example, "Newt" is pronunced like "newt", but it's not a terribly helpful way of explaining the pronunciation. It's important to consider that the link to Wiktionary doesn't translate well to print, screen-readers, etc., which the self-reference guideline discourages. —0xF8E8 (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer to go with the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton style, instead of using IPA for such a simple situation (hardly anyone understands IPA anyway). But maybe the best idea wold be to just swap the link to wiktionary with a link to this. I'll give that a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer IPA if a pronunciation is given (supplemented with an audio file) if only for the fact that IPA is generally standard across Wikipedia, and possesses templates (Template:IPAc-en, etc.) to deal with problems of dialect variation. Though byzantine to the native English speaker, as the talk page FAQ for MOS:PRON states, it is the only system readily accessible to a non-native English speaker. Nonetheless, I think it'd be fine to dispense with the pronunciation altogether, given its commonness. —0xF8E8 (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I made a nice new audio file that we link to now. But we could abandon it if need be; is the audio file readily accessible to a non-native English speaker? If we include IPA, could we just do the last name for conciseness, or maybe put the full IPA stuff at the linked audio file?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that we should keep both have both the IPA and audio file. I was the original creator of the IPA and it is the ə. See the Oxford Dictionary IPA for the word trump (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/trump). Henry TALK 04:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
But for "British and World English" it says ʌ. Is there really a difference in pronunciation of "trump" between American and British English?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Considering that Donald Trump is an American, I think the ə would be more suitable. ~ Henry TALK 05:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
This says ʌ: [23] Someone should check a reputable American dictionary - preferably a paper one!--Jack Upland (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The schwa mentioned above is a SIMPLIFIED SPELLING, not a definitive IPA pronunciation. Check by clicking on the question mark beside the pronunciation in the link (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/trump). It is used to represent the sound in ago, run and Person - I am not convinced these are all the same sound even. To reiterate, the oxforddictionaries site uses simplified spelling, in some cases based on IPA symbols. The official IPA symbol would be ʌ:. But, it's a moot point if the pronunciation has been removed. Mcruic (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The paper Shorter Oxford says ʌ.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to add my support to the apparent historic consensus that we can omit the pronunciation: it isn't needed and we've found no reason to include it.
[+] "Do we really need pronunciation information if it's pronounced simply as it's spelled?"
[+] "Is the pronunciation even needed?" (Comment by Chase)
[+?] "I would prefer to go with the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton style." [no pronunciation] (Comment by Anythingyouwant)
[+] "I think it'd be fine to dispense with the pronunciation altogether, given its commonness." (Comment by 0xF8E8)
[-] "I think that we should keep both have both the IPA and audio file." (Comment by Henry)
MOS:BEGIN indicates that the pronunciation should be included in the lead if the article name has a pronunciation that's not apparent from its spelling. And no editor has yet suggested that it's not apparent.
(Coincidentally, WP:NAD cites "Bush" as an illustration of a proper noun whose pronunciation can and should be omitted.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 06:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
There has been zero discussion about the current location of the pronunciation in the "Early life" section. Dervorguilla, you are quoting other editors out of context, including me; I said "I would prefer to go with the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton style, instead of using IPA...." And I still would prefer that. Moreover, I see nothing at WP:NAD indicating "Bush" as a proper noun whose pronunciation can and should be omitted. Currently, the pronunciation is merely in a note after the lead, and there could not possibly be a less obtrusive place for it, so why not be a little bit collegial here and let it be? You can see that I've tried repeatedly to address your concerns. For most readers, the name of the article has a pronunciation that's apparent from its spelling, but for some readers the name of the article has a pronunciation that's not apparent from its spelling.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
"There has been zero discussion about the current location of the pronunciation in the "Early life" section."
If you reread the comments above, Anythingyouwant, you may well find that you, Chase, 0xF8E8, and I all appear to be contending that the pronunciation should be omitted. We're not saying it should be included in one particular section rather than another. The issue at hand was whether to include it, not where.
"I said "I would prefer to go with the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton style, instead of using IPA...." And I still would prefer that."
So would I. The George W. Bush style is to omit the pronunciation from the article. The Bill Clinton style is to omit the pronunciation from the article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer to go with the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton style, instead of using IPA, but those are not the only alternatives, obviously. I think you're treating this as a black-and-white issue, when it is not. What I've done is to put pronunciation in a footnote at the early life section. When people inevitably complain that the article has no pronunciation information, this footnote will satisfy them, and thus contribute to article stability, which I consider an important goal. The footnote is obviously accurate, completely harmless, and a compromise. Note that an editor said above "I think that we should ... have both the IPA and audio file". Well, this allows the audio file. When the discussion took place above, no one suggested that the pronunciation should be given after the lead, so you're taking the discussion above out of context, just like you quoted me out of context. I don't want to spend the next four years arguing with people who want to include a pronunciation in this BLP, when it would be much easier to include a tiny little footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Relevant fact: Over the past year, the name "Donald Trump" was written or spoken in 590 news items published or broadcast (in 27 languages) on BBC News. Google Search, Donald-Trump site:bbc.com. In each such item broadcast, the word "Trump" was likely pronounced in authoritative Standard English.
Over the same time span, the name "George W. Bush" was written or spoken in 406 such BBC News items.
  • "Donald Trump": 590 items
  • "George W. Bush": 406 items
Analogous calculations for popular U.S. and Canadian broadcasters have not yet been undertaken. But for purposes of convenience, we can accept that the pronunciation of Donald Trump's name is well known throughout the U.S. and the former Commonwealth. Or, at least, that it's better known than the pronunciation of George W. Bush's name.
"When people inevitably complain that the article has no pronunciation information..."
For helpful background material about such common "logical fallacies of argument", see Lunsford. “Begging the Question. The problem with the claim is that it’s made on grounds that cannot be accepted as true because those grounds are in doubt... Begging the question — that is, assuming as true the very claim that’s disputed — is a form of circular argument, divorced from reality.”
Merely claiming that "people are inevitably complaining" doesn't make it so, Anythingyouwant. According to Lunsford, p. 508, such an earnest but unsupported claim about "people complaining" may perhaps be divorced from reality. --00:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, take it out, it's not worth quarreling about, and hopefully we won't have people trying to insert pronunciation over and over again. The info is harmless and useful but whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks, sir! --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_12&oldid=1136668975"