This is an archive of past discussions about Donald Trump. 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.
Wikipedia hasn't reported he's a racist-- we just have a duty to report that everyone along the entire spectrum is calling him a racist. I bet that's uncomfy, but it's a fact. Bill Cosby and Al Sharpton are deeply respected leaders of the politicallly-active African-American community. Bob Scheiffer is a respected veteran journalist making an unprecedented denunciation.
This is notable and verifiable, removing it a million times, but people will keep writing it back in. History is history. --Tangledorange (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, trying to erase the connection from trump to the correspondent's dinner is just silly. it's international news. It's getting into the article, and warring over it for a few hours won't resurrect trump as a member of civil society. --Tangledorange (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I apologize that those words sounded 'closed to debate', Balloonman. A more nuanced way to communicate my thought would be "I believe that it is inevitable that consensus will eventually form to cover these events". --Tangledorange (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
My main point was that this has never happened in my political lifetime. The minority party front-runner publicly questioned the legitimacy of the sitting president, and then the head of a respected journalistic institution public accused the front-runner of being racist. These events are so insanely notable, their inclusion is simply inevitable. Honestly, objectively, provably, this is the most notable thing that trump has ever been involved in. --Tangledorange (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree if it were those dancing Nazi's in Elton John's music video. (Simply irresistible.) But it wasn't. It was Bob Schieffer airing unsubstantiated personal opinion, remarks, and conjecture of a sensationalist and slanderous nature. Because Trump is a high-profile public and now political figure, he gets attacks like that. Obama gets attacks like that. So what is your logic that Trump's (or Obama's) most significant life event/achievement can somehow be determined by the arbitrary decision of a news correspondent to go on TV and air his personal opinion? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Ihardly, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting we say trump is a racist nor that we report my personal guess about this event's significance. But Schieffer's comment is a fact-- it doesn't mean his opinions true, but it's a fact that happened. A media denouncement of that magnitude substantially reduces the likelihood Trump will become president. That is ALL factual and notable. Whether you agree or disagree with Schieffer's remark is irrelevant-- it happened and it's nationally notable. Deleting it just because you disagree with the conclusion isn't justifiable. --Tangledorange (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
"Honestly, objectively, progably this is the most notable thing that trump has ever been involved in"? I think you are giving a little more credence to Scheiffer's words than merit reality. The coverage of Scheiffer's comments have already left the forefront of media coverage. They were heavily covered for a few days right after they were made and garnered some coverage in weekly magazines, but this specific event has already started to fade from the forefront.
You've also made some other statements that are not 100% accurate. 1) Scheiffer never called Trump a racist, he indicated that Trumps words/attitude represented an "ugly form of racism." This is a nuianced difference, but an important distinction. 2) Scheiffer is not the head of CBS news 3) extra-ordinary statements have been made about politicians by news anchors before 4) Trump is not and was not the "front runner" for the Republican nomination. Some polls show that he was more popular than the other candidates, but those are polls and most analysts agree (even before this event) that he had little/no chance of winning the nomination.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon21:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the updates. Without good online encyclopedia coverage of all these anti-trump events yet, it is hard to keep them all straight. Somebody should write up a whole section on the racist & birther & whcd dinner stuff-- use perfect language, impeccable sourcing.
Or, we can keep deleting each attempt at building a section because reporting the verifiable notable facts might make Trump look bad. --Tangledorange (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not a dumping ground for incindiary potenitally slanderous views of commentators. Commentators commenting on each other is not international news either. It doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion as encylopedic content and it disrupts a neutral point of view. Thus far, candidates have disregarded it, and commentators have dismissed it. It doesn't meet notability requirements and gives WP:undue weight to incidiniary editorials wich disrupts a Neutral Point of View. Glenn Beck of FOX, with one of the highest rated viewer audiences, made similar accusations against President Obama and these are similarly not included. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposed compromise - Tangle seems to be suggesting that we should remove the statement questioning Obama's grades. That is reasonable since Obama has not responded to the issue. That also makes it not very notable. Issues themselves are probably not very notable where the other candidate has not repsonded to them. If that will resolve the matter then we can certainly remove the statement questioning Obama's grades. That would be an appropriate compromise. Then we could agree to have a higher standard to for these issues, where it is kept to candidates exchanges/responses for these types of issues.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Remembering this is a political figure
I think we need to seriously remember that this a major political figure. The article can't be a socialite's article anymore, he's a national politician now. The article has to include ANY major criticisms, once notable enough and documented by reliable sources, because it affects the presidential election. Schieffer's quote is definitely a notable criticism. --Tangledorange (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with that evaluation of the situation since Trump is not, and has never been a candidate. This could just be media manipulation on his part. We just don't know. Until then Trump is what he is; a notable biz exec, TV host and celebrity.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)--
Of course's he a political figure-- whether he's formally declared or not, he's certainly entered the public discourse, topped republican primary voter polls, made many allusions to a potential run. He's a political figure. --Tangledorange (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we see BLP differently. As someone's public notoriety rises, our duty to make the article perfectly NPOV becomes more and more critical. Deleting an unflattering but verifiable fact about a non-notable individual might be justified in some cases. But for people on international television who public say they're likely to make a run at becoming leader of the world, we need _all_ the facts in the article. BLP = factual, not whitewash. --Tangledorange (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no requirement to report every rumor, story, or allegation made. In fact, our policies/guidelines are specifically written so as to avoid that. We only mention issues that are notable and sustainable. Some things are---the allegations of racism might have reached that level (I use might per the reminder above.) Some things, even when cited in reliable sources made by notable individuals, will not be. For example, Richard Dawkins a year or two ago convinced a lawyer to go after the pope for his supposed role in the sex abuse of minors. Dawkins is a notable scientist and somewhat militant athiest. Despite the fact that Dawkins' group had a lawyer and were seeking to extradite the Pope to England for charges, the incident does not belong in the article on the Pope. It is not notable enough for that. There are scores of other examples of allegations/claims made about different people that get in the news, but quickly fade. Just because it creates a stir one day, does not mean it belongs in the article long term. (Again this is on general BLP issues, I am in no way making reference to this specific case.)---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon04:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
There's no rumors or allegations being made. Trump made very controversial statements about Obama on international tv, prompting lots of others on international tv to make their own controversial statements about Trump. You want to repeat the unsubstantiated charges of a racist in this article, and I agree with you that they need coverage. But if you're going to cover the racist's statements, at least cover legitimate people's very notable opinions about Trump's behavior. --Tangledorange (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
There are volumes of editorials. Giving undue weight to incindiary an potentially slanderous editorials would disrupt a Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Other candidates such as George W. Bush and John Kerry have had their college grades brought into question.[1] without such potentially slanderous editorials. The editorial accusation is merely media baiting that the candidates have thus far disregarded and commentators have dismissed and it would disrupt a neutral point of view of the article. A higher level of scrutiny should be required for incidiniary and potentially slanderous accusations from media editorials. There is no warrant for inclusion. Trump has responded that the editorials don't represent his views. Let's wait to see if candidates react then we can take a look. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
If 98 % of the editorial comment and cartoons are negative -- as it appears to be in this case -- then we should not have a 50 % negative and 50 % positive view in the article. WP:UNDUE cuts both way, Thomas and Balloonman. Otherwise, we'd have to have Islamic media's often effusive praise of bin Laden in our articles. I'd rather use phrases like "mainstream media" or "Fox news" or "populist press" to explain where these views are coming from, but that does not seem to be the consensus; when I've inserted such wording it gets reverted. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposed compromise - Tangle seems to be suggesting that we should remove the statement questioning Obama's grades. That is reasonable since Obama has not responded to the issue. That also makes it not very notable. Issues themselves are probably not very notable where the other candidate has not repsonded to them. If that will resolve the matter then we can certainly remove the statement questioning Obama's grades. That would be an appropriate compromise. Then we could agree to have a higher standard to for these issues, where it is kept to candidates exchanges/responses for these types of issues.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
BLP-- do we have higher bar for whites?
Trump makes utterly false allegations about Obama, so Wikipedia covers it? Respected neutral figure Shieffer makes a prominent analysis of the events, but that's "too inflammatory"? Hypocrisy. Barack & Michelle Obama are living people too, you know. --Tangledorange (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Tangle, can you source the "false allegations"? Trump said he had doubt about Obama's natural born citizenship; I'm not aware he made "accusation" - false or not. And Trump questioned how Obama got admitted to Harvard, when it's generally agreed Obama's grades weren't up to par. Again, where is "false accusation", or even "accusation"? The facts are unknown and not publicly available, so Trump asked for the release of the birth certificate, and of college transcripts. If you want to read into that "accusation", that's your choice. But it's not fact - you are still "reading into".[User:Ihardlythinkso|Ihardlythinkso]] (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Trump did, in fact, make false statements, I'll list some of them below. But what kind of statements he made is irrelevant-- they were notable, as are the chorus of notable criticisms of him as a 'race-baiter', 'carnival barker', or just plain 'racist'. Shieffer's and Obama's quotes are by far the most notable and their exclusion reflects poorly on their article. --Tangledorange (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Interesting section title, "... higher bar for whites?" Do you have example or case, of lower bar for non-whites, which would prompt such a title selection? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The basic isssue is not whether Trump is racist - we can't look into his heart - but that he has been widely criticized for his race-baiting, and that has been widely reported and criticized in the media. This article should reflect that state of facts, or otherwise it has a POV slanted towards a rich white guy at the expense of the President of the United States. Bearian (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Bearian, when you say "his race-baiting", are you meaning the reported criticisms were criticisms specifically about Trump race-baiting? Or are you saying the race-baiting is *fact* (i.e., Trump did race-bait), Trump then got criticized, and the criticisms got reported? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to get this article up to GA once more. Please, can a disinterested editor get involved with this? Bearian (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
To be blunt, after all the edits one way and another, in order to avoid any point of view, the article has gotten worse in the past week! The article is now so bland, so much like milk toast, as to make the subject, The Donald, appear to be a milquetoast. He is no Caspar Milquetoast. You all know, love him or hate him, Donald Trump is one of the most fascinating public figures in the United States today. His English Wikipedia article should reflect those circumstances. It should be better written. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Proposed compromise - Tangle seems to be suggesting that we should remove the statement questioning Obama's grades. That is reasonable since Obama has not responded to the issue. That also makes it not very notable. Other candidates such as George W. Bush and John Kerry have had their college grades brought into question.[2] without such potentially slanderous editorials. We should not give WP:Undue Weight to media baiting. Issues themselves are probably not very notable where the other candidate has not repsonded to them. If that will resolve the matter then we can certainly remove the statement questioning Obama's grades. That would be an appropriate compromise. Then we could agree to have a higher standard to for these types of issues, where it is kept to candidates exchanges/responses for these types of issues.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Man if I were a minority and somebody was baiting me I think one of the first defenses I would think of is to not respond. So, how can I accept your compromise? Also, what is it you're giving the other side of this argument? Nothing? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's be patient in order to have neutral article. Obviously, these candidates will engage each other, they just did on the birth certificate issue. So let's wait. This is very early. Obama is the incumbent, the challenger has more to risk by making politcial jabs. We shouldn't make the articles a forum for political jabs and media baiting. Let's have a higher standard. Obama may respond, other candidates may raise issues too. Reporters may ask Obama his response to Trump. If they do, that becomes notable. Trump will then have a response. Obama is not shy about responding, he's responded to conservative media critics. Obama responded to Trump on the birth certificiate issue which no one expected. The split TV screen between Obama and Trump giving press conferences was significant. Obama has many many things he could say about Trump. Politicians engage each other, that becomes notable. We're also going to have more polls. This article, no doubt, will have highly notable content if Trump decides to run. I look forward to your edits. We should resist including media baiting and unilateral political jabs, ad hominems, etc. These types of issues are not really notable unless the other candidate responds. (Link to more media baiting on whether Obama's speech on Bin Laden deliberately pre-empted Trump's show.[3]. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like the proposed compromise is ya'll keep deleting stuff. There is no way in the world trump's questioning obama's grades and the backlash isn't notable-- it's dominated the national news for days. Simply omitting such universally-reported-upon events is not a rational way to build a NPOV article--- though it would be a handy way to whitewash an article, if one's political or financial interests were sufficiently compelling . --Tangledorange (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Other candidates such as George W. Bush and John Kerry have had their college grades brought into question.[4] without such potentially slanderous editorials. Giving undue weight to incindiary an potentially slanderous editorials would disrupt a Neutral Point of View. It would be inappropriate and disruptive to insert unilateral political attacks. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - there are volumes of news stories. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for "scandal mongering." Obama has not responded about his college grades and that has severely diminished the potential for notability. There is a high burden for BLP articles. The editorial accusation is merely media baiting that the candidates have thus far disregarded and commentators have dismissed and it would disrupt a neutral point of view of the article. Wikipedia should not be written like a "tabloid." A higher level of scrutiny should be required for incindiary and potentially slanderous accusations from media editorials. There is no warrant for inclusion. Trump has responded that the editorials don't represent his views. Let's wait to see if candidates react then we can take a look.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Obama Quote
The quote from Obama is Verifiable, has a Neutral Point of View and has No Original Research. No offense, but who are we to summarize anything? Direct quotes are the most reliable source of information about what someone said.
From WP:Wellknown
Public Figures - In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. (emphasis mine)
You will note that we should NOT summarize or edit Obama’s quote or decide who it was directed at. We should merely include it. Richrakh (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
As long as the summary is accurate, a quote can be re-crafted for better readability. What do other folks think? Bearian (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Not only is the obama quote a notable fact absent from the article, but also absent are the many reliable sources who interpreted 'carnival barker' to refer to Trump. Readers unfamiliar with the term or that day's events may be unclear about the relevance and significance of the term. --Tangledorange (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Disagree quote is notable. Tangle is your angle on notability to add to Trump article Obama using name-calling against Trump? I agree w/ Bearian it s/b summarized. WP says go light on quotations. Did anyone consider the quote is also redundant to the summary about spending time on more important matters? (Hey, why not include Obama's entire press address verbatim in the Trump article? Sheesh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The "presidential candidacy" -> "politics and potential presidential candidacy"-- since he has not declared and potentially might not run.
Statements about Obama/Presidents was demoted to be a subsection of the 2012 section, since they involve overlapping time periods and subject matter.
I know the title of the subsection is under discussion in the above section and may undergo future revision, so please recognize these two changes are a separate question which I suspect is boring and noncontroversial. Please don't accidentally revert these two changes unless you actually disagree with them. --Tangledorange (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
And back to substantive
NYT reports on a class action lawsuit against Trump:
Mr. Trump had essentially rented his name to the developments and had no responsibility for their outcomes, according to buyers. In each case, he yanked his name off the projects, which were never completed. The buyers lost millions of dollars in deposits even as Mr. Trump pocketed hefty license fees.
The United States is deciding whether or not to ask this man to become it's leader of the free world. Perhaps we should let our readers have access to these facts. --Tangledorange (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Religion
OK -- Trump apparently attends a "Dutch Reformed Church" but it is not the Dutch Reformed Church, it is the Reformed Church in America which has many churches once named --- Dutch Reformed Church. ([5] as one example) The former is a Dutch Church and not an American church, the latter is American and ... Presbyterian. I think this fixes the silliness for that section. Collect (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Adding: [6] RCA is considered "Presbyterian" by Presbyterians. Also: [7] the RCS is considered "Presbyterian" by the RCA. Should be enough to allow Trump to self-identify as "Presbyterian." Collect (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Your edit makes perfect sense. Btw, I wasn't trying for silliness, I just started researching what the church structure was. I was confused by the various statements and wanted to find what reliable sources were stating. My main point is that there is a difference between Presbyterian and presbyterian and different claims had been reported in the media. Notwithstanding the above citations (which might now possibly be outdated since they're from 1912 & 1922?), The Marble Collegiate Church does not self-identify as being a Presbyterian member-church and widely varying churches can certainly be presbyterian in structure and in relationships without being Presbyterian in fact. From the RCA's own website there is no stated relationship that I could find, The Reformed Church in America seems to regard itself as a different organization from The Presbyterian Church (or PCUSA). That's all I was trying for. Shearonink (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
There are several "Presbyterian" groups (generally using the term "Synod" to differentiate between the different legal entities.) (see [8]) They all trace back to John Calvin via Scotland, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Theologically they are pretty much indistinguishable from Congregationalism (which also has a bit of a range in theology). The difference is precisely in church governance. While the Methodists, Episcopalians etc. use an episcopal form of governance (that is, using Bishops), the Presbyterians are governed by groups of Elders (Presbyters) who govern through a Synod. Congregationalists use individual congregations for governance. While Elizabeth II is head of the Church of England (Episcopal), she is a Presbyterian (Church of Scotland) in Scotland, and not head of that church. The late "Queen Mum" was always a Presbyterian. "Presbyterian" is not a theology, and so the Marble Collegiate Church need not subscribe to a specific non-existent theology <g> (in fact, I would be amazed if it did). The Westminster Confession is a statement of faith common to most, but not all Presbyterian churches. Enough? Collect (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually? I don't really care...big P or little p presbyterianism, Dutch Reformed or not, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, catholic, congregationalist, centralized, localized, independent, bishoprics, cardinals, whatever. I was only trying to gather in an encyclopedic tone from reliable sources what was being said about Trump's possible church membership. Shearonink (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, the Queen Mum was baptized and confirmed as a member of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, according to her recent official biography. Bearian (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Cite: Shawcross, William (2009), Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother: The Official Biography, Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-4050-4859. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
And attended and donated to Presbyterian churches. [9], [10], etc. By the way, the difference is in how the church is governed, and not specifically theology (sharing the Westminster Confession). What your source shows is more that her parents were Episcopalian, not that she was as she grew older. Collect (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Statements regarding President Barack Obama vs Statements regarding 2012 Presidential election
Trump mentioned Bush to make his points about Obama. This section, by and large, is about his statements regarding President Obama.--Artoasis (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Note the word mentioned. Seems to me that is quite sufficient to say that Bush and Obama were both commented upon. Collect (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The bulk of the comments were directed towards Obama. Additionally, the claims about Obama are an order-of-magnitude more notable than Trump's other political comments. Include both if we want, but don't equate them. --Tangledorange (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason to remove the word "President"? Even former presidents are referred to as President (surname). And in this case, Trump made these comments when President Obama is the President. --Artoasis (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Not that I know of. The first comment specifically also refers to George W. Bush, and we ought not elide that fact. Collect (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I have stated my reasons for using the first heading. I don't want to start an edit war by reverting your edits. So I will put a request at WT:BIOG and WP:USPE. Hopefully more editors will participate in this discussion and eventually reach a consensus.--Artoasis (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I removed President at some point just on the grounds of brevity, Obama's universal recognition, and maybe a dash of trying to avoid honorifics. I have no attachment whatsoever to whether the title President is included in the heading title or not-- whatever others think.
The more important point is Artoasis's initial one-- the section is mostly about the racism/birther/birth certificate issue, the heading shouldn't inaccurately suggest the section is substantively about former presidents or presidents in general. --Tangledorange (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Read the discussions at WP:BLP and its talk page. BLPs are not places to simply dish up sensational dirt on anyone, and it surely looks like that is not understood by some editors. Collect (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I express no opinion on the section header or whether to include the Bush reference. I just note that in removing the first part of the section, Collect removed both the Bush reference and Trump's statement about Obama being the worst president, etc. I'm not restoring that part of the sentence because it would look like I approve of the edit, and I neither approve nor disapprove.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the solution was rather brilliant, since that particular sentence was slightly outside the focus of the bulk of the section. If we want to use the bush-obama quote, it might actually work as part of Trump's general political views, since I think that quote does kinda capture part of his political appeal, as someone willing to denounce both republican and democratic presidents. I don't miss it myself, but if anyone else does, that might be a good place to use it. --Tangledorange (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
"Sensational dirt?" That's how you interpret a valid discussion? There's nothing even remotely sensational about this. It's a debate about the section heading, as opposed to somebody's ego. --Artoasis (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Close to beyond repair
This article, which used to be a GA, has been edited into mush. It is close to beyond repair. All facts and truth have been slowly bled out of the article over the past month by two edit-warring SPAs. This highly visible article is an embarassment to Wikipedia, because of its POV laudatory to the subject of the article. We would be better off without such a badly written and scrubbed article. It is bad publicity for us. I am considering nominating it for deletion. Please talk me out of it. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Bearian, "two edit-warring SPAs". I think definitely I know who you mean is SPA on the side wishing to include incendiary content. (With exception of 9-15-10 thru 4-02-11, that editor's contribs are clearly singly-themed.) But, I have no idea who you mean or are suggesting is SPA on the other side. (Claiming or suggesting someone is an SPA is an accusation of sorts [isn't it? or didn't you mean that at all?], and really, I have no idea who you mean. I checked on the contribs of one of the active editors supporting high bar for incendiary content, and, it doesn't check out at all to call or name this person SPA. So, what are you talking about please? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
"Had" to, or chose to? The back-and-forth on that tag was between Tangle, and ThomasPaine. (So you know who to ask, if you like to know his basis.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
If he agreed a dispute exists, he had to. Removing an NPOV-dispute tag without any change in the dispute is sort of akin to deleting another wikipedian's talk page comments-- it's saying their views don't even exist. Though of course, we don't hold it against people who aren't familiar with the culture. --Tangledorange (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I can try talk you out of nominating this for deletion. First off, I think Balloonman has some strong feelings and prior knowledge of Mr. Trump. He's been gone for days. I suggest maybe he should recuse himself.
Then when that's cleared up, I suggest we send this to the noticeboard. There at least a wider audience will get to see the problem, which I agree is outrageous. Unfortunately KeithBob says the noticeboard can be inconclusive, but it's a better step for right now than deletion. Right? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
SusanLesch, I don't think you have to "think" whether Balloonman has strong feelings or not, because, it is plain to see by anyone that he made his feelings perfectly clear in one of his introductory updates. But I'm confused when you say you "think Balloonman has ... prior knowledge of Mr. Trump", and then suggest he recuse himself. (By "prior knowledge", do you mean just plain "knowledge" that any educated person might possess thru reading? Or do you mean personal knowledge from private transactions or dealings w/ Mr. Trump?) Please clarify what you mean. Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC) p.s. Balloonman was your selection of Admin to bring in. Now you suggest he should recuse himself as Mediator. That's the reason for my Qs above. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I only meant from his statements here it seems that he had some feelings about Trump. I don't mean in real life. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't always work perfectly. One of the 'bugs' is that dedicated partisans, left unchecked, will turn any article into garbage. The single article solution is just to get more eyeballs-- post this to every noticeboard you can think of, the official mailing list, anything else. An influx of neutral editors will dilute and wash out the patisans.
I hope I'm just a partisan for a NPOV article, but I must certainly accept the possibility that I'm emotionally compromised. Thus the need for the influx of uninvolved, experienced editors to dilute partisanship-- including my own, if it exists. --Tangledorange (talk)
You: "... warring over it for a few hours won't resurrect trump as a member of civil society." Am I wrong if I said your partisanship is maybe showing a little? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
And, didn't you just add a quotation from Trump where he denied he was a racist? (Yes, you did.) This is from WP:NPOV: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a notable fact, it has a citation. Trump chose to make the public statement, it's been covered in numerous secondary sources. Eventually the Wikipedia immune system will kick in, consensus will form, and the facts that truly belong in the article will be placed in the article. --Tangledorange (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Those who have no case keep changing the topic heading. Giving undue weight to incindiary an potentially slanderous editorials would disrupt a Neutral Point of View. It would be inappropriate and disruptive to insert unilateral political attacks. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - there are volumes of news stories. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for "scandal mongering." Obama has not responded about his college grades and that has severely diminished the potential for notability. There is a high burden for BLP articles. The editorial accusation is merely media baiting that the candidates have thus far disregarded and commentators have dismissed and it would disrupt a neutral point of view of the article. Wikipedia should not be written like a "tabloid." A higher level of scrutiny should be required for incindiary and potentially slanderous accusations from media editorials. There is no warrant for inclusion. Trump has responded that the editorials don't represent his views. Let's wait to see if candidates react then we can take a look. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
ThomasPaine1776, you have no idea what you are talking about. Individual statements are not considered notable; only individual articles are notable or not notable. Individual statements are not POV; only entire articles or sections can be weighted for POV. This article is an embarassment and a mess. The Donald is one of the most fascinating, controversial, and best known Americans living today. His attacks on the POTUS are unprecedented, and have attracted extensive negative editorial commentary from around the world. This extradinarily visible article needs immediate fixing by a large cohort of editors, or it needs to be started again from scratch. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It can refer to portions the topic. A want to insert incendiary or potentially slanderous content in a BLP is unwarranted and unreasonable. Giving undue weight to incindiary and potentially slanderous editorials would disrupt a Neutral Point of View. It would be inappropriate and disruptive to insert unilateral political attacks. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - there are volumes of news stories. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for "scandal mongering." Wikipedia is not supposed to be written like a "tabloid." It seems also that the potentially slanderous media editorial attacking Trump would be WP:Fringe, and Trump has stated it does not represent his views. Further, Obama has not responded regarding his college grades and that has severely diminished the potential for notability of the issue. Obama is not shy, let him respond (Obama responded to the birth certificate issue). Commentators are not candidates. This should not be a forum for unilateral political attacks. Other commentators have dismissed these editorial opinions and candidates have disregarded it. There is no warrant for inclusion. A cohort of several editors has already contributed to writing the article and have done a fine job. Its unwarranted in BLP to insist on inserting incindiary or potentially slanderous content. We should have a high standard for inclusion in a BLP. Obama hasn't responded which severely dimishes potential for notability and we should not be a forum for unilateral political attacks, media baiting, incindiary or potentially slanderous content. Its very early for campaign related issues, let's be patient. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Bearian, if, as you say, "Individual statements are not considered notable; only individual articles are notable or not notable", then why does it say at WP:BLP/WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article"? IMO you owe apology to ThomasPaine for your remark.
Your best effort here seems to have been to claim the article is "beyond repair" and to "delete and start over". But that suggestion has now been refuted by Wikidemon as essentially non-serious and lacking common sense. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
How banal reply. (And mischaracterization what I said. Clearly I'm a Nazi and you are not allowed to have any opinion, regardless how fringe.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Holdings
The "Holdings" section is virtually unsourced. Aside from the subject's name being associated with them, we don't know how much control he has of the properties. It's a distraction from the biography. I suggest spinning it off into a separate article. Thoughts? Will Bebacktalk00:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Recommend that individual holdings be placed in the The Trump Organization article which already exists instead of creating a new article. Other biographies incorporate business careers. Also, much of the politics section may become part of an election article once he declares.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Are all of the holdings owned by The Trump Organization? It'd make sense to move those that are to that article, but if there are other properties that aren't part of that group then it might be odd to put them there. I don't object to covering Trump's career in this article, it's just the unsourced list of properties that's the problem. Will Bebacktalk03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why that's the best sequence. Unsourced material shouldn't be in any articles, but especially not in BLPs. Maybe it'd be best just to delete it outright? Will Bebacktalk04:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Include or Exclude new facts: "Trump after Huckabee" and "Huckabee semi-endorsement"?
Trump spoke right after Huckabee announced he wouldn't run. Now Hucakbee has informally endorsed Trump in a way. [11] I considered adding it right in, but this article is so 'swisscheesed', with lots of notable reliable sources still deleted from the article, that it seemed like something that needs discussion before just including it. --Tangledorange (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Trump's false and misleading statements, a brief sampler
IF you don't keep up with the news, you may have missed these:
"After the U.S.-led military alliance ejected Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait in 1991, the Kuwaitis "never paid us."
South Korea doesn't pay the United States for U.S. troops that protect their country.
"CNN did a poll recently where Obama and I are statistically tied."
"President Obama has spent over $2 million in legal fees defending lawsuits about his birth certificate."
President Obama's "grandmother in Kenya said he was born in Kenya and she was there and witnessed the birth."
Yeah, sorry-- I guess it is pretty confusing if you read after the fact. In the above discussion, I used this list of notable non-truths Trump had made which aren't included in the article. But, I didn't want to break up the flow of the text, so I replied in part above and then added this section as reference.
On Apr 27, Donald Trump held a press conference discussing Obama's birth certificate. These statements have been widely interpreted as being race-related-- variously described as race-baiting, racially insensitive, or just racist. This interpretation has been reported on by numerous reliable sources-- CBS News, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and now, I see even Al Jazeera has covered this interpretation. Trump himself appeared on Fox News and responded to the interpretation, saying 'I am the least racist person there is'.
I agree that we need to be very cautious and careful about how we cover this-- we can't report any interpretation as fact. We must give Trump ample fair room to deny this interpretation and explain why it's invalid. But this interpretation continues to become more and more widely reported on, in ever-increasingly reliable sources. We need to address it in the article, but the text should be crafted by editors with more 'nonpartisan' eyes than mine. --Tangledorange (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Per discussions about BLP - no we do not. Speculation about what a person "might" have meant is right out. Collect (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree no speculation should be allowed, just summation of the reliable sources reporting the notable public reactions.
So how many more sources do you think we need before it'd be okay to mention? Or do you hold that BLP means we can never mention the race-related backlash to Apr 27, no matter how notable it becomes? --Tangledorange (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a BLP. I suggest that the discussions at that talk page on BLP is where you should raise the issue about how to handle criticism over what some people say a person "meant." I think you will find the general position there is that trying to crriticise what people "meant" is not an area for BLPs. Collect (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
So, if it was up to you, we are never gonna be allowed to report the anti-trump backlash from within the black community, no matter how many sources we get on it? Even if effin Al Jazeera and Pravda are covering Trump & Race Relations, User:Collect opposes any mention of it?
Actually the issue of properly written encyclopedic biographies is a strong movement in Wikipedia, and this is one example of material which has little to do with the subject of the biography and a great deal to do with political posturing about ephemera. I suggest you read the talk page for WP:BLP at this point, and try not to make snarky remarks about any editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
As best I can tell, the BLP talk page isn't for specific disputes. I don't think BLP discussion would help resolve your concerns though-- if an unflattering fact isn't notable no matter how many sources you get, then your problem with the text isn't a BLP problem, it's something else. You may mean to say it's a NPOV dispute. --Tangledorange (talk) 08:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Tangle has consistently ignored WP policy and favors mob rule (which he calls "WP immune system"). (See prior section "Racisim purges are futile", a title selected by Tangle.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't ignore policy, you just don't agree with how Bearian et al have applied policy to this article. I do. As for 'mob rule'-- you say that like it's a bad thing. Look around you-- Wikipedia was built by mobs coming together and forming consensus. And if you'll note, I always left room for the possibility that the ultimate influx of editors might take ANY side in the earlier dispute, not necessarily mine. --Tangledorange (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Including White House Correspondents Dinner
In a paragraph about Trump in Entertainment, we discuss Trump's cameo in a film, and then talk about the Comedy Central Roast:
In April 2011, Trump attended the White House Correspondents Association dinner, where comedian Seth Myers and President Obama both included references to Trump in their remarks.
I don't mean for it to be anti-trump. It's just logical that being part of a 'roast' by a sitting president is definitely a notable achievement-- certainly way more of an achievement, and far far more notable than getting 'roast'ed by the 'The Situation'. They're both notable events in Trump's life, so I didn't expect to be seen as pro- or anti- trump for mentioning it.
Since, someone else has altered the section by adding an image of Seth Myers and more material to the section. I prefer no portrait and my wording, but I'm not sure where the vandalism begins and where good faith ends, so I'll just leave the whole thing in place for now till there's clarity. --Tangledorange (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
At its best, it is irrelevant trivia in a BLP. Wikipedia is not an accumulation of every factoid about a person who was at the same event as another person. Myers would be relevant in his own BLP, but not here. And in that BLP, Trump would not be relevant. Simple. Collect (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to lend much weight to your opinion given your take on Trump and BLP. How many more sources about the event do you need before you think it's a notable event in Trump's life? And on the subject, why didn't the less-notable Comedy Central comedians bother you as irrelevant trivia?
I do understand one reason one might conclude the dinner was 'irrelevant trivia'. If Obama isn't really a president, well then the dinner was just some kenyan and some comedian making jokes at the expense of a rich 'Real American'. If one believed that, then I understand they might conclude it was not notable-- because why cover stupid trivial like comical kenyans when we could be covering serious matters like Massa Trump's wonderful performance in World Wrestling.
But if you believe the President of the United States was actually doing the roasting, and not just some random kenyan in a suit, then it's pretty damn notable. --Tangledorange (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Any word on "Politics and Eggs Forum"
Is Trump still attending the forum? We'd been discussing it as a potential sign he's running; now that he's not running, is he still attending the forum? --Tangledorange (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
After today's news, I'm inclined to think this week of Trump in politics deserves its own article. A one sentence quote hardly conveys the sheer volume of outrage. But I agree Schieffer is the most 'neutral and reliable source' to make the racism charge in public thus far. --Tangledorange (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not a dumping ground for views of commentators. Commentators commenting on each other is not international news either. It doesn't meet the guidlines for inclusion as encylopedic content and it disrupts a neutral point of view. Thus far, candidates have disregarded it, and commentators have dismissed it. It doesn't meet notability requirements and gives WP:undue weight to incidiniary editorials which disrupts a Neutral Point of View. Glenn Beck made similar accusations against Obama and these are similarly not included. Commentators are not candidates, and incindiary remarks from commentators don't meet notability guidelines. If candidates react we can take a look. CBS commentators/anchors have a pattern of doing editorial swipes at conservative candidates, so CBS editorials have a bias. There are volumes of editorials. Let's keep higher standards for these sorts of things. It doesn't belong. Trump responded to editorials that they do not represent his views, however, they are merely editorials. Candidates have disregarded and issued no respones commentators have disregarded it, Its not notable. Media baiting candidates is not necessarily notable. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The integrity of the commentator or journalist makes a huge difference. Glenn Beckcriticized Donald Trump and said Trump said "He might be a Muslim too.' I'm like, come on!", but nobody is suggesting that Beck belongs in this article. Mr. Schieffer on the other hand, is chief of CBS News Washington bureau and was selected to moderate a debate between Obama and McCain, which tells me people respect him. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Katie Couric did media baiting interviews with Bob Dole then CBS hired her, CBS Katie Couric went after Sarah Palin, etc, CBS anchor Dan Rather was fired over the false story on George W. Bush's military service. CBS, Bob Shieffer has editorials with a bias. That doesn't make editorials notable material. Glenn Beck made similar accusations about Obama as noted above which are not in Obama's biography. There are volumes of editorials. Giving undue weight to incindiary editorials would disrupt a Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Other candidates such as George W. Bush and John Kerry have had their college grades brought into question.[12] without such potentially slanderous editorials. The editorial accusation is merely media baiting that the candidates have thus far disregarded and commentators have dismissed and it would disrupt a neutral point of view of the article. A higher level of scrutiny should be required for incidiniary and potentially slanderous accusations from media editorials. There is no warrant for inclusion. Trump has responded that the editorials don't represent his views. Let's wait to see if candidates react then we can take a look. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Quite frankly, it does not matter if the editorials don't reflect what a subject claims to be his views or not to be. Editorial opinion and the common person's idea of Trump is that he is a one-note birther in politics, and to be blunt, a race-baiter. It has never been Wikipedia's job to make the subjects of articles of obviously notable status to feel good about themselves. Trump is not a person involved in local politics or a suddenly newsworthy event, for which BLP warns us to take it easy on such marginally notable people. If he can't stand the supposedly erroneous claims, why is he constantly putting himself in the news? "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." It is our work here to reflect what goes on in the world, not to clean it up. Bearian (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Bearian, where did you get he idea that Trump "can't stand the ... erroneous claims"? I'm sure he doesn't *like* them (who would?), but where specifically do you come by the idea that Trump "can't stand the heat"? Curious. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Not like a newspaper-- we're a tertiary source. The model you're looking for is an instantly updatable encyclopedia. A 'Wiki'-pedia, if you will. --Tangledorange (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposed compromise - Tangle seems to be suggesting that we should remove the statement questioning Obama's grades. That is reasonable since Obama has not responded to the issue. That also makes it not very notable. Issues themselves are probably not very notable where the other candidate has not repsonded to them. If that will resolve the matter then we can certainly remove the statement questioning Obama's grades. That would be an appropriate compromise. Then we could agree to have a higher standard to for these issues, where it is kept to candidates exchanges/responses for these types of issues.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
(Added note out of chronological order.) I would still like to see this small addition to the article. I don't plan to revisit this page or this request but you can reach me on my talk page. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Burden not met
Excerpt from the BLP warning from administrator Balloonman above: . . .The burden for including potentially BLP incendiary information falls upon those parties who wish to add it and the bar for such accusations HAS to be set high. . . .
A want to insert incendiary or potentially slanderous content, in reference to the Shieffer editorial, in this BLP is unwarranted and unreasonable. Giving undue weight to incindiary and potentially slanderous editorials would disrupt a Neutral Point of View. It would be inappropriate and disruptive to insert unilateral political attacks like the Shieffer editorial making potentially slanderous accusations against Trump. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - there are volumes of news stories. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for "scandal mongering." Wikipedia is not supposed to be written like a "tabloid." The potentially slanderous media editorials attacking Mr. Trump approaches or is WP:Fringe, and Trump has stated they do not represent his views. Further, Obama has not responded regarding his college grades and that has severely diminished the potential for notability, significance of the issue. Obama is not shy, let him respond (Obama responded to the birth certificate issue). Commentators are not candidates. This should not be a forum for unilateral political attacks. Other commentators have dismissed these incendiary editorials attacking Trump and candidates have disregarded it. There is no warrant for inclusion. Other candidates such as George W. Bush and John Kerry have had their college grades brought into question.[13] without such potentially slanderous editorials. A cohort of several editors has already contributed to writing this highly visible article and have done a fine job. Its unwarranted in BLP to insist on inserting incindiary or potentially slanderous content. Inserting adhominens against Trump would be inappropriate or attempting to passively insert adhominens through WP:Weasel Words found in incendiary media editorials. We should have a high standard for inclusion in a BLP. Obama hasn't responded which severely dimishes potential for notability and we should not be a forum for unilateral political attacks, media baiting, incindiary or potentially slanderous content. If candidates respond to each other we can take a look. Its very early for campaign related issues, let's be patient. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Time to remove NPOV tag. Those seeking to insert the insendiary or potentially slanderous editorial accusation, like the Shieffer editorial, attacking Trump have asked for mediation and have not met the high bar for burden of proof as specified in the BLP warning from above. Some have resorted to placing an NPOV tag when what is being sought to insert would be dispruptive to a neutral point of view. Candidates have disregarded it and commentators have dismissed it, it is or approaches WP:Fringe and should be avoided. Trump has stated it doesn't represent his views. Some are claiming they would seek to delete the article, a work of a cohort of several editors, yet the claimants have not met the high bar to insert insendiary or potentially slanderous content for a BLP. Amazing. Its time to remove the NPOV tag which has been misapplied in this case. Let's wait for the campaign to include campaign related content to develop and have a high standard for inclusion. Thanks Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
An active discussion is, in fact, on going. It would not be appropriate for us to remove the tag while Bearian, Ihardly, Susan, and the many others (including us) are still actively debating these issues. The NPOV dispute box just tells people about the discussion and points them to the Talk page so they can comment. Readers still have absolutely full and complete access to the article. --Tangledorange (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
No. The bar to include incendiary content was explained by Balloonman. So what "POV debate" are you talking about? I agree w/ ThomasPaine. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
To touch on a point Bearian raised before, I think Wikipedia would be better off without an article than with one that is as 'whitewashed' as this. The article lavishes space on the details 0his wealth and glaringly omits the fact that everyone in the nation accuses the man of racism against our president? No mention of his many lies, no mention of his drop in the PPP poll or his plummeted ratings?
I think it's time to delete it. If, as others suggest, a neutral article is something we'll have to wait for, then perhaps we should accept this fact and delete the article until it has time and consensus to be rewritten by non-SPA. Bearian, Susan, et al-- thoughts? Perhaps the deletion process would itself bring the needed eyes. --Tangledorange (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Tangle, as far as Trump's "many lies" which you keep bringing up, I went to that political fact check site you named, and found Trump = "4 false statements", and Obama = "48 false statements". (This discussion doesn't belong here of course, but your argument is also made irrelevant, as you can see. So please stop.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
What's all the fuss?
I'm new to this page, having been notified here. I'm not sure whether a notice like this or any influx of fresh eyes is going to help... but anyway, from an outsider perspective I'm wondering where the problem lies. Of course there are going to be editing disputes and troubles on any hot button major figure that's a matter of current news. Obviously there's some question about how to treat Trump's recent birther comments about Obama. Trump's inflammatory comments aligned him with the Tea Party and initially raised his stature among some conservatives, though that seems to have worn off as a plurality of analysts, commentators, journalists and the public decided variously that they were wrong, misguided, disingenuous, and/or racist. It's always a BLP and POV concern to note that someone has been called racist or any other invective, and there is a question about how noteworthy it is because in politics people are always getting called things. To be clean about it, we would have to go beyond directly sourcing the name-calling, and get to an article that analyzes the phenomenon of Trump being called names. Anyway, a few sentences about his foray into the conspiracy theories seems enough. It might or might not deserve a subheading. This is a brand new issue. If nothing else happens and he doesn't run for office it might not even be worth that much coverage at the end of the day. If he presses on and it remains an issue for months to come, it may deserve expansion. Wikipedia has no deadline, as they say - we can afford to wait. As far as quality, I don't know how good the article was before but it seems okay now, more of a B class article than GA. It's rather comprehensive and a very useful summary for anyone who wants to know about Trump, particularly his history in real estate and business. But the tone is off in two ways IMO. First, it describes Trump's business achievements in the active voice as if Trump did them personally by himself. Trump built this, Trump accomplished that. Obviously he wasn't holding the shovel. He's leading a company that pays money and finds partners to get something done. Phrasing the achievements of an organization as those of its leader sounds a bit like promotional business-speak, not a factual account. Second, some of Trump's many missteps and misfortunes seem to be explained in a self-consciously apologetic way - trump was forced to, or the recession caused a downturn, and so on. I wouldn't call it a whitewash (and that kind of term is not helpful for working with other editors), but these kinds of unsourced or semi-sourced editorial asides about the cause and level of blame or credit aren't quite right for an article. That doesn't hurt the information content, it just reads a little funny. Anyway, I hope people can keep things calm and productive here. It's best to move towards collaboration rather than getting confrontational. It's not going to be deleted, that would be a WP:SNOW issue. The article isn't so bad, and even if it were the remedy for articles with problems is to improve them. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikidemon, I see on your profile pg you got barnstars for successfully "protecting the Obama page from attacks". I never read the Obama Talk page but want to/will now; in meantime are there pointers how your experience there could perhaps translate here? Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi WD, thanks for lending your eyes.
On the issue of deletion, I also don't know if that's the right tool for the job. Others may disagree, but for the moment I'm undecided. Moving on.
One specific dispute is whether to include the Schiefer quote. This quote is very notable, it has been covered in many other multiple independent reliable sources, not just by Schiefer-affiliated news organizations. I think that fact meets the threshold for inclusion-- especially in light of the plummet in Trump's poll number and viewership numbers. But setting the race-related charges aside:
Reliable journalists say Trump has made very extreme lies during his political campaign-- "the birth certificate doesn't exist" is one, there are others listed above. No reliable source disputes that these statements were false. The lies have been cover by reliable sources, but they aren't covered here?
We also omit the occidental transcripts request, the 'basketball court' jab, the White House Press Corp dinner, the 20,000+ racing fans who got trump out of Indy500. His months-long campaign of 'birther'ism and other proven lies to a national audience, and the huge backlash it's generated-- our article covers the entirety of it in the span of a very few words. How lovely for Trump, but how unfortunate for readers trying to come to Wikipedia to learn the whole story. --Tangledorange (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see TNT as a serious proposal. There are 135 citations and a lot of hours of work already in this article. It does needs copy editing for prose and style and some re-organization and here are POV issues, but nothing that rises to the level of a TNT proposal.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The fuss (which is a serious proposal) is about a terrible article, which needs drastic improvement, and every effort to improve it is washed away. BLPs needs lots of eyes and hands to fix, and especially well-known BLPs need more. It used to be a GA; I tried to fix it, I posted on the usual boards, but I see it getting worse as the days go by. I've given up editing it and won't waste my time any more. Please, folks, this needs fixing soon, or we need to blow it up and start over again. As a last resort, I can unprotect it; that would allow uninvolved IPs to work on it. If IP vandalism strikes again, an uninvolved sysop can semi-protect it again immediately. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Bearian, maybe a reason you're frustrated in not being able to have accomplished anything you wanted here, is because you seem to criticise using broad generalizations only, which aren't helpful. (E.g., I asked for several clarifications and specifics on your criticisms along the way, and received zero responses.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Bearian, take a look at the IP edits you let in by your change. If I'm not mistaken, you'll find *one* minor contribution, all the many others, pure vandalism. How about reversing now? (Or is that unreasonable? What?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Tangle, your statement, "On the issue of deletion, I also don't know if that's the right tool for the job", implied Wikidemon is in doubt re deletion. He's not. Here's what he wrote: "I don't know how good the article was before but it seems okay now", and "It's not going to be deleted, that would be a WP:SNOW issue." If you could please stop the twisted characterizations. Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Folks, all I want is this to be fixed, somehow. With more users editing this, and assurances from disinterested admins that they will patrol this page, I am now fine with this situation. I hereby withdraw my proposal. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Refs to Seth Meyers
The addition of Seth Meyers's jokes, and photo, was a point attempting to be made. (Any mention of Meyers in the Trump BLP article has no place and is totally, and completely non-notable.)
Meyers's purpose at the Dinner was to draw laughs from the crowd, nothing more, regardless who wrote his script. Half his jokes were about Trump's hairstyle (gosh! how clever). How can anyone w/ a straight face call those jokes "remarks", as though the fact of them carries some kind of weight for inclusion in the Trump BLP article.
Tangledorange has reverted and re-reverted removals of references to Seth Meyers, and will undoubtedly continue to do so.
(Will someone with some authority please remove? And please put a stop to Tangledorange? I don't care to interface w/ Tangled any longer ... too tacky. And to assume "good faith" for anything but a continued campaign of Trump-bashing from him ... I think one has to be smoking something.) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The inclusion of photo of Seth Meyers ("The Joker") was by me, and admittedly as a joke. (Seth Meyers was a hired comedian for the Dinner, he is not a political commentator, and anything he says or even thinks of saying, can have no value elevating to the point of entering the Trump BLP article. That is prima facie obvious. Because Seth Meyers decides to pull laughs any way possible from the crowd about Donald Trump, this merits entry into the Trump BLP article? Yeah right. Seth Meyers is completely non-notable, and even the *fact* he was hired as comedian for the Correspondents Dinner, isn't significant or meaningful in any way to merit finding its way into the Trump BLP article. So then, what significance remains re Seth Meyers and Donald Trump's life? Nothing. If someone wants to argue what Seth Meyers is motivated say or even *think* of saying, has bearing whatsoever on Trump and Trump's biography which should find its way into the Trump BLP article ... I gotta hear that argument. But please give me a kerchief first, to cover my mouth from either laughing or vomiting. Thank you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Example from Tangledorange, 10:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC): "Trump was openly anti-gay. Is that even in dispute? I thought that was part of his platform and a part of his political appeal. (If you're looking for something more senational, he once called Leonard Bernstein a 'faggot jew', reportedly., but you're only scratching the surface)." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Reply to 2nd remark: Please remember though, you asked on a user-talk page about that-- I never suggested including any of my comments in this article, nor did I even think those things needed mentioning on the article talk page. I don't suggest we include every factual criticism ever made against Trump-- but the race-related reactions to Trump's politics is now being covered world-wide and THAT is really something that has risen to the level that it merits discussion. --Tangledorange (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Seth Meyers isn't that important to the story-- since Comedy Central Roast listed the host and some of its participants, seemed logical to name the host of the WHCAD.
I don't think I've ever suggested including the text of Meyer's jokes. If we ever did include any of them, I imagine it would tend be a quote notably relevant to the political events-- I certainly wouldn't want the article to ever include any of the hair jokes (and certainly none of the raunchy comedy central jokes!).
Is there something I'm missing about Seth Meyers? Is he a controversial figure in some way I'm not aware of? Why is mentioning Seth Meyers any different than mentioning Seth MacFarlane?
The word 'remarks' was used just to try to be as ultra-neutral as possible. I agree the 'remarks' about trump were jokes, so I for one am fine with changing the word 'remarks' to jokes in the sentence. I just used remarks to err on the side of being pro-trump, because "being mentioned in the remarks" highlights only the honor and positivity of being mentioned.
Sorry you found my mention of Seth Meyer so controversial. I know we're on opposite sides when it comes to including the voices of notable civil rights leaders, journalists, and the black community in discussing the effects and reaction to Trump's various 'potentially racist' comments. But that's a different section, a different question, and a different subject entirely.
Try to explain to us why Seth Macfarlane is so controversial to you, compared to the other people at the earlier roast? I'm not that familiar with his career, I'm not that attached to him, it just felt odd not to mention him given all the comedians mentioned from the previous roast. --Tangledorange (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Oysh! Apparently no reporter bothered to check in with Mr. Trump to ask him what was up. Per a YouTube "From the Desk of Donald Trump," he says he avoids the crust and only eats the topping to avoid putting on unnecessary pounds (that is, apparently avoids carbs).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's very intelligent and significant; I do think it's sort of interesting, though. That's why I'm reading Mr. Donald Trump's talkpage: the man who runs a vaunted executive training institute (see Trump University) and whose job it is to decide whether or not to "fire" 70s-icon Meatloaf for being too quickly and deeply emotive to function within the real estate developer's organization within a "celebrity" apprenticeship. Yes, oblivious to the inherent dangers to his physical person, Mr. Trump stepped into a professional wrestler's ring to taunt the impressario of entertainment and sports, Mr. Vince MacMahon. And speaking of public disputations of not insubstantial merit, this biography of the business executive and TV personality already gives encyclopedic coverage to the important historical event of how "In December 2006, talk show host Rosie O'Donnell criticized Trump's lenience toward Miss USA, Tara Conner," etc. As the section in Gov. Palin's public image article devoted to pop cultural parody of this politician illustrates, it is imperative that such material be compiled within any complete repository of knowledge.
One of the questions here would eventually turn not so much on whether Stewart's low brow (pretended?) rant of "Prove you were born in New York City!" (mirroring "the Donald's" "birther," er, presumably serious questions) is sufficiently intellectual but rather on whether Mr. Stewart's antics have become sufficiently notable--and, for what it's worth, the Time magazine mention of this same is but one of scores of such instances within fairly prestigious of sources. Trump lately (unlike formerly, vis-a-vis Ms. O'Donnell) is rolling with the punches and taking them as easily as he throws them. Come to think of it, Mr. Trump's studied, fairly dead pan expression--befitting any straight man in a professional comedy duo (the part Mr. Trump quite masterfully performs, day by day)--during Mr. Obama's funny man turn at the annual Beltway Correspondent's Dinner had me in absolute stitches.
The subject of this blp is a TV personality, and so characteristics of his personality, such as his low-carb diet, may (or may not) become grist for the mill, so to speak, of his public persona. End of point. ---- Which is to say that this particular incident of the usage of a plastic fork within a fast food establishment to eat the top off of a pizzapie piece may or may not merit inclusion. It might, within a modest portion (pun intended), given as but an example of the kind of minutia bandied about concerning the subject's public image, but its inclusion probably isn't absolutely imperative, either, IMHO.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
June 2011
He said June 2 he is still considering running as an independent in 2012 if he does not like the economy or the republican candidate. He is unwilling to turn down the NBC money he makes in order to concentrate on a nearly 2 year campaign. He wants his cake and eat it too.
Has anyone else noticed that one of his favorite words is fabulous?
Wasn't sure blather was a word but I googled it and it checked out beautifully but I hardly think I blather. You're fired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.176.48 (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hair photo
Ihardlythinkso and I disagree about the caption for one of the photos in the article. A chronology of events:
I read the Vanity Fair post and on 3 April edited the article from this to this, moving the photo to the Personal life section and using the "possibly unprecedented" and "lattice-like" descriptions from the magazine to describe the hair in both the section and the photo caption. In other words, the photo's purpose now was to illustrate Trump's hairstyle.
As the article currently stands, the caption is 1) meaningless in regards to the reason the photo is in that location, and 2) misleading in that it implies that the photo came from Vanity Fair when the opposite is the case. I will thus revert the revert. Ylee (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed both the information in the article about his hair and changed the caption on the photo. The information about his hair is just trivia and not encyclopedic. One vanity fair article does not make it something he is known for. Without the information in the article, the caption doesn't make sense. GB fan (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you really denying that Trump's hair style isn't one of his best-know characteristics? If we were to survey 100 Americans on what they know about Trump they'd say the following:
Rich real estate tycoon who has a TV show
Considered running for president/Criticized Obama about his alleged birthplace
Has a very, very unusual hairstyle
Something that the survey would almost certainly not turn up is his alleged aversion to shaking hands, yet that is discussed in the same section. Dismissing as "trivia" a WP:RS—that is written with the assumption that awareness of his eccentric hairstyle is common knowledge, no less—is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ylee (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong about me not liking it. This only has to do with my opinion that it appears to me as trivia and I do not believe it belongs. If others disagree with me then it goes back in and stays, I don't care. If you had a reliably sourced survey that says that his hairstyle is one of the things he is notable for then I would agree with you. Just because something appears in a reliable source does not mean it is not trivia. Just because information is available and is reliably source does not mean it belongs in the article. I haven't had a chance to look at the information about him and his alleged aversion to shaking hands, but it is better to work one issue at a time and this was the one being discussed. I assume that the edits you are making are in good faith, please extend me the same assumption. GB fan (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Although Trump's quasi-combover is patently a part of his public image, Wikipedia itself should not in any way characterize his characteristic coiffure as particularly unique (say, a la Moe Howard's bowl cut?) but only mention that commentators make various kinds of references to it.
I wasn't citing any instances or non-instances as an argument for or against inclusion but only as a hint at a responsible way to neutrally reference this type of material, should it otherwise be determined to be noteable.Hmm, is Sarah's back-of-the-head hair bump and feathered, long bangs mentioned? and, if so (and more importantly!), how?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
No one would call O'Brien or Romney's hair unusual-looking. One might say that they are both considered handsome men (if properly sourced, of course) as part of a more general discussion of their public images, but this is really not WP:NOTABLE. William Shatner is widely believed to wear a toupee, but his article does not mention this as wearing a toupee is also not normally notable for a man of his age. A combover is also not normally notable.
Trump's hairpiece is notable, however, because its appearance and design are so unusual that articles (such as the one I cite above) have been written discussing it. As you say, his hair forms an important part of his public image; late-night comedians usually mention it during their Trump jokes. My edit in question used, with quote marks, the "possibly unprecedented 'double comb over'" and "lattice-like" descriptions from the cite.
WP:NOTABLE operates on a scale, of course, based on the subject's overall notability and the length of the article; were this a WP:STUB we would not mention Trump's hair. Given the article's current length, however, it would be nonencyclopedic if we did not. Ylee (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
In a biography in an encyclopedia, if you write a caption which makes the specific topic and purpose of a photo of Jimmy Durante about his *big nose*, I have no problem with that. Ditto Don King, and his *sticky-up hair*. But if in the same encylopedia you write a caption which makes the specific topic and purpose of a photo of Hitler about his *moustache*, I have a problem with that. Ditto Gandhi, and his *wire-rim glasses*. All four are characteristic, and even "trademark" looks of a person. But there is a difference. What you seem to be trying to justify is sneeking Trump into the former group, when it's common sense he belongs in the latter. (To put him in the first group is not only incorrect, it's inappropriate, ridiculous, and, in a BLP, in bad taste and even insulting.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The style was introduced in Germany in the late 19th century by visiting Americans. Prior to the toothbrush the most popular style was called the Kaiser moustache, perfumed and turned up at the ends.... By 1907 enough Germans were wearing the new trimmed down and simple toothbrush moustache to elicit notice by the New York Times under the headline "TOOTHBRUSH" MUSTACHE; German Women Resent Its Usurpation of the "Kaiserbart". The toothbrush was taken up by German folk hero Hans Koeppen in the famous 1908 New York to Paris Race, cementing its popularity among young gentry. By the end of WWI even some of the German royals were sporting the toothbrush, William Hohenzollern (son of the Kaiser) can be seen with a toothbrush moustache in an 1918 photograph that shows him about to be sent into exile.
Hitler originally wore the Kaiser moustache, as evidenced by photographs of him as a soldier during World War I. There is no agreement what year Hitler first adopted the toothbrush. Some believe it was after WWI, Ron Rosenbaum, a cultural historian, said "Hitler didn't adopt his until late 1919". Ron Rosenbaum. The secret parts of fortune: three decades of intense investigations and edgy enthusiasms. Others say it was during WWI, Alexander Moritz Frey, who served with Hitler during WWI, said Hitler wore the toothbrush in the trenches after he was ordered to trim his moustache to facilitate the wearing of a gas mask.
"No skinny little man in diapers will decide the fate of the British Empire!" — (SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL) . . . .
You have probably seen pictures of the man from India known as "Gandhi:" a skinny, bald-headed man with wire-rimmed glasses, a white cloth wrapped around him. ... Mohandas Gandhi was not always that man dressed simply in white cloth. As a law student in London and as a lawyer with a successful practice in South Africa, he dressed up in European clothes because he thought it would improve his status, and the status of all Indians. He encouraged Indians to fight for Britain in World War I for the same reason. ... So, who was the true Gandhi? The man in the suit and tie, who promoted military service or the avatar of nonviolence who wore hand-woven cloth and sandals—even when meeting with high officials in foreign lands?
OK, fair enough. In short, change the caption to picture number one to say "Hitler" and that to picture number two to say "Gandhi" and both would be perfectly encyclopedic. Ditto an illustration of Mr. Trump and his combover forward-then-back and thatched at the sides hairstyle.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Secret Garden, still don't follow you. The Hitler photo exists in a WP article about moustaches, not in his bio article. I have no idea if you're countering my point (which was clear) or just adding comments. (Please re-read my point. It is about pics in bio articles.) Plus when you say "change the caption to say "Hitler", and also say "Ditto an illustration of Mr. Trump", then you are suggesting to change the caption of the Trump photo to "Trump"! (Is that what you mean? I don't think so. I don't know what you mean.) [User:Ihardlythinkso|Ihardlythinkso]] (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You argue that according to your editorial judgement a discussion of Hitler's iconic toothbrush moustache and of Gandhi's wire-rim glasses and of Trump's combover-front'n'back'n'thatched-at-the-sides iteration of big hair wouldn't merit mention in their biographies. I counter that this would depend on how the information was presented and on the length of the biographies--that the famous stache of Herr Hitler's, Sri Gandhi's famous look, the Donald's famous "do," etc., would not be out of place in fairly lengthy biographies, depending on how due-weight concerns would be addressed, with notability and verifiability being the determining factor of whether info should be treated at all, anywhere in the encylclopedia.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Secret Garden, no, you don't understand, that wasn't my point. (Re-read my point.) As far as I'm concerned, Hitler's toothbrush moustache, Gandhi's wire-rim glasses, and Trump's comb-over hairstyle might all very well merit discussion in their respective encyclopedic biographies. (What I'm against is, making a photo of the person in their biography all about the moustache, the glasses, or [what was attempted to be done in the Trump BLP] the hairstyle via a caption directing sole attention to those things. Again, I think there is another category of person, which includes both Jimmy Durante and Don King, where a photo of them in their biographies could be made entirely about the nose, or the sticky-up hair, via caption directing sole attention to those things, without being either inappropriate, wrong, ridiculous, in bad taste, or insulting.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Donald trump attended Fordham University. Even though he did not graduate, according to the definition of "alma mater" in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary [14]...
"a school, college, or university which one has attended or from which one has graduated",
Fordham would still be counted as an alma mater of Trump's on the basis of his attendance. Trump did attend both colleges/universities, according to Gale Encyclopedia of Biography:
"He entered Fordham University and then transferred to the Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania from which he graduated in 1968 with a degree in economics."
