Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Edit semi-protected request for Politics section

{{Edit semi-protected}} Please replace the current version of Donald Trump#Politics with the following, which includes minor copy-editing, introduces a new reference for existing and new details, and switches to the use of Help:Footnotes as used elsewhere in the article:

Politics

In the 2000 election, Trump considered running for president as a member of the Reform Party.[citation needed] In 2004 and 2008, he speculated about running for President in the Republican party.

In 2011, Trump has made a much more active bid for the presidency, including a February speech to a CPAC gathering.[1], that is considered a key early Presidential cattle call, and participation in its straw poll for the office. His political stances include the following[2]

Trump contributed to Rahm Emanuel's candidacy[5] and has refused to take a stance on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[6]

Thanks. 72.244.206.253 (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but "Pro second amendment" is nonsense. Anyone who wants to be President (POTUS) has to respect and adhere to the Constitution and all its amendments. Unless you mean to imply he is a second amendment absolutist. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I meant the latter, but agree that my rewording was poor. The cited source I propose introducing says "not in favor of gun control", so I just revised the request in response to your comment. 72.244.206.253 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Done Also, removed the youtube reference. -Atmoz (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Obamacare" and "Communist China" and pretty loaded terms. It's in the best interest of neutrality to call them by their proper names instead of by political slang. 24.210.104.196 (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg DoneI made those changes in the article.-- KeithbobTalk 17:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Views on homosexuality

Shouldn't the article reference Trump's role in the Prejean/Hilton scandal, his recent denouncement of gay marriage rights, and the allegations of illicit bathhouse sex from the 1970s? There should be a whole entry on his inconsistencies on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.52.202 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

IP, do you have a reference? (Btw, that someone later to become a casino owner would have once owned (before passing it on to Merv Griffin--or was it the other way around?) resort properties that featured, um, bathhouses back in the '70s would not be surprising.... but, that said, the speculation that Merv held the Donald's towel in such a venue would be. For one thing, Trump is a renown germaphobe.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The Certificate Issue Was Not a "Conspiracy Theory"

The issue was just whether Obama met one technical criterion for the presidency (i.e., birth in the U.S.). With Obama's release of his long-form birth certificate, that issue, which had dragged on for years as a low-level controversy, has been resolved. But Trump could arguably claim credit for persuading Obama to finally release the information and end the controversy. But no "conspiracy" was ever involved.

   See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/76880c16-70dc-11e0-9b1d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1KpEmufpu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.125.82 (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC) 

Donald Trump Association with American Communications Network (ACN)

Donald trump has recently become associated with the alleged pyramid scheme American Communications Network. This organization charges a fee of $500 to new sales people, Donald Trump appears in their initial marketing video. http://www.acninc.com/acn/us/trump.html Jaquesjack (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Need citation that Donald Trump is Catholic

According to a number of biographies, Donald Trump's parents were both longtime members of Marble Collegiate Church. Trump married Ivana Winklmayr at Marble Collegiate (New York magazine 10/15/1990). Dr. Arthur Caliandro, minister of Marble Collegiate, performed his wedding to Marla Maples in 1993 (New York Times 12/21/1993). Maples said she met him at Marble Collegiate. His most recent wedding was at an Episcopal church. Trump's father's funeral was at Marble Collegiate (NY Daily News 6/16/1999) as was his mother's (NY Daily News 6/26/1999). He clearly was raised Protestant. What is the source for identifying him as Catholic? Thanks. Bebill (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation is provided properly, according to Wikipedia standards. It is all there, on Trump Wiki page.-- Eversman (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
That's nonsense, Eversman. Donald Trump has never self-identified as Catholic. In attending and marrying in another church he would be a former Catholic, anyway, even if it were true. Fred Trump's article makes no reference to being religious. If Trump's parents weren't Catholic and he didn't convert, how did he become Catholic? NOTE that Cindy Adams is not a reliable source and I suspect the UK Telegraph is mistaken. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
See "Reformed Church in America?" above, which is well-researched. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
See this Trump genealogy site, which shows he is of German, not Austrian descent. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Today I made some edits to the sentence on Trump as Catholic. I formalized the URL links into refs and removed the "see also" wording as neither of these things conforms to the manual of style. I also added a few words to clearly attribute each of the sources. I believe that the current text is in line with the consensus at the post on the BLP noticeboard [1] but if some editors disagree I'm open to discussion and other opinions. Let's work together on this. Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 19:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Politics Daily says he's apparently Dutch Reformed. (Impertinent factoid: "For my part," Irving has Knickerbocker say, "I look upon our old Dutch families as the only local nobility, and the real lords of the soil....") IAC, here is a link for his being married in the Dutch Reformed Church to Ivana. Then, an entirely different Telegraph article (than the one that said he was Catholic) mentions he sometimes attends the just-mentioned congregation. Trump attended Fordham, a Roman Catholic university, but on page 240 of The Trumps: Three Generations That Built an Empire it says, "At Fordham...he would stick out in many ways. ... He was not Catholic, and with his little red sports car and well-tailored clothes, he was obviously wealthier than most of his classmates."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Trump's father joined Collegiate Church--and according to the NYT Trump met his second wife there.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • In a 2011 interview, Trump specifically identifies himself as a Presbyterian. [2] I've added this to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe The Telegraph was quoting Wikipedia about Trump's being Roman Catholic--?! As it is, Gwenda Blair, the biographer, may well be correct that the Protestant-raised Trump was not Catholic while attending Fordham University.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Father

{{edit protected}}

it said that Donald Trump joined his father's company, The Trump Organization. which is incurrect; his father's company name was "Elizabeth Trump & Son;" the Trump Organization was founded by Donald Trump in 1971.

also add to Fred Trump, Self Made Millionaire (not just "wealthy")

Done--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.133.207.45, 27 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Donald might be somewhat surprised to read that he was apparently born in 1912 - please insert the correct year. 86.133.207.45 (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was Already done or Fixed or Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg Reverted. Baseball Watcher 23:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This sentence uses the word "evoke" when "invoke" is correct: "Arguing that the crisis is an Act of God, he evoked a clause in the contract to not pay the loan and initiated a countersuit asserting his image has been damaged.[34]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.201.122 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JordenLGD, 2 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The Trump Hollywood building in Hollywood, Florida that is licensed under Donald Trump's name can be linked to http://www.trumphollywood.com.

JordenLGD (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia guideline WP:EL do not allow URL's to be placed in the body of the article. URL's are only permitted as part of a source citation or part of the External Links list. Also, the guideline WP:EL does not permit excessive numbers of links in the External Links list. This article is about a person no about the real estate holdings of a corporation of which he is an officer or shareholder. There is already an Ext Link to the Trump organization which lists Trump Hollywood as one if its holdings and provides links for more info. Therefore I would like to deny this request. What do others think?-- KeithbobTalk 21:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Not done: Per above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate bit about Swifton

Concerning Trump's first major venture, the 'Swifton Village,' I've found an article from the Cincinnati Enquirer suggesting that Trump may have lied in his memoir about his involvement in the dea, and also cites a VERY different figure for the property's sale. Check the article here. Considering the current info is unsouced, I'm gunna go ahead and make a few changes; If my source is bad or you've got better info, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.196.111 (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about the wiki-etiquette concerning protected articles, but I made some of the changes I discussed. I left out any mention of Gwenda Blair's claims, as I haven't read the book myself. If anyone reviews the above article and feels that I'm leaving something important out, I'd be eager to hear about it.

Lopside (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Philanthropy?

I noticed (or did I miss it) that there is no section on philanthropy or any charitable activities. Ok, I didn't read about the golf courses, but that isn't philanthropy in my opinion.Mylittlezach (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Philanthropic activities can be included in the Personal section if they are significant and comes from reliable sources. -- KeithbobTalk 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In the media

Comedy Central aired the Roast of Donald Trump on March 15, 2011. This belongs in the "In the Media" section.

We have to remember that this is an encyclopedia not the entertainment section of a newspaper. -- KeithbobTalk 21:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Party Affiliation

The cited source listed that he has been an independent in the past, and is currently a Republican, besides stating just below it that he is affiliated with the Republican Party. Edited accordingly. Homo Logica (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks!-- KeithbobTalk 21:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Family, wife Melania Knauss

The parenthetical "who is 24 years Trump's junior" does not add value to the article. Opinions? Xburrows (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


Why is there nothing about ACN ?

some ACN personnel I have talked to talk about him as if he was a founder of the company so I find that odd that it is not even mentioned on his wikipedia page

67.204.12.212 (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Books

Trump wrote a book called Think like a Champion. It came out about two years ago. It's also his most recent book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.158.224.232 (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Circularity?

(wp:CIRCULARity)--with regard to Trump's religion--that is, in its reference to the The Telegraph's misstatement? Which of course would be the case if, due to some Wikipedia editor's having added long ago that Trump was Catholic into his infobox, the Telegraph reporter saw this and repeated the error. Trump has been a subject of a number of biographies, including Gwenda Blair's Trump: Master Apprentice (2000, 2005) which said about Trump's Calvinistly straight-laced American (Reformed Protestant) dad and Scots-born (likely Presbyterian: The Church of Scotland) mom: "Fred and Mary made sure their children had a good grounding in life. Sundays meant the First Presbyterian Church...."

[Correct self. My guess was wrong. Here's the evidence]:

Military Draft Status for Vietnam Era Military Service

Does anyone know why he didn't serve in the military or what his draft classification was during the Vietnam war era? Since he has indicated a interest for political office I'm sure that would be a valid topic for his Wikipedia page. Kilowattradio (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

From a footnote in Gwenda Blair's Donald Trump: Master Apprentice: "Donald's military career ended with NYMA [New York Military Academy] graduation; despite his athletic prowess, in 1968 he received a medical deferment from the military draft."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Birth Certificate

In response to complaints about his Hospital Birth Certificate, Trump released his City of New York Birth Certificate to ABC News on Tuesday, March 29, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.28.1 (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This information was added to the article by User:Thebert99.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Trump is now becoming best known for his birtherism. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

2012 presidential polls

According to the article: "A Newsweek poll conducted February 2011 showed that Donald Trump garnered sufficient support to prevail in the November 2012 general election for President of the United States against Barack Obama."

If one reads the source cited, it's actually CNN (themselves citing a Newsweek/Daily Beast poll) commenting that the poll "suggests" that Trump "could just beat President Obama", based on 43-41 poll numbers that actually have Obama ahead. CNN's statement that Trump "could" beat Obama appears to be based on the fact that that 2 point difference is within the 3.5% margin of error. (This may not be why they think that, but it's the only reason listed that possibly backs up that claim; that the article is confusing on this point makes it a poor source in my opinion.) CNN links to the actual poll at the Daily Beast, which makes no conclusions about Trump's numbers vs Obama's.

Please either delete this incorrect assertion, or replace it with the actual facts, e.g. "A Newsweek/Daily Beast poll conducted in February 2011 showed Donald Trump within two percentage points of Barack Obama, with 41% of respondents preferring Trump and 43% preferring Obama." (In this case, the reference should probably go to the Daily Beast article CNN links to.) The fact is that nobody (certainly not Newsweek) has stated that Trump has "garnered sufficient support to prevail." This wording implies a much stronger position than being behind by 2 points with only 84% of respondents decided.

This is not to mention that there are a bunch of other polls out there, practically all showing Obama ahead of any Republican potential...but also showing very high numbers of undecided voters, just like this poll. And plenty of commentators on both sides stating that both candidates could win. So it seems like a pretty POV inclusion to report it in the fashion that it currently is. (Ideally, the statement should be more generalized to state that some early polls show Trump within a few points of Obama, with many voters undecided. Referencing a single poll from almost two months ago isn't a great idea in any case...) 99.55.199.47 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current text does not accurately reflect the sources cited and needs to be revised or removed entirely.-- KeithbobTalk 16:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
DoneBility (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected Donald Trump's forthcoming book

Under Donald Trump#Bibliography please note that Donald Trump's forthcoming book Trump Tower (Vanguard Press, October 11, 2011) is described as "the most indiscreet novel of the decade." acrylicrevolution (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

DoneBility (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) That section is for already published books. It is also a simple listing of the book titles without any extra description. Simply, the description "the most indiscreet novel of the decade" is not an encyclopedic description, particularly in the context of this list. Please gain a consensus on this talkpage for the inclusion of this text. Thanks, Woody (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I thought you wanted "the most..." added to the article. Woody (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Woody. It is not encyclopedic to note that the publisher, not us, is marketing the book "the most indiscreet novel of the decade"? We are not making that judgment. acrylicrevolution (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Iraq/Afghanistan inaccurate writing

The current article states "Believes the U.S. should disengage in Iraq and Afghanistan[82]" as one of Trump's views, but the reference [82] shows this to be extremely inaccurate. In the interview, Trump calls for the US to take over Iraq's oilfields by force, something that Trump also said to George Stephanopoulos in his recent interview; this appears to be the polar opposite of "disengagement". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.35.229 (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a neutral article if there's an opinion

The last line in the Family section "The thrice-married Trump is against gay marriage." needs to be removed. It has no place in this section as it has nothing to do with Trump's family. It is meant to express the author's opinion rather than inform the reader. It screws up the neutrality of the article so could someone please edit it out? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahdoner (talkcontribs) 12:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree; while both facts are true, tying them together with this wording implies something like "Trump is against non-traditional marriage from his religious viewpoint, despite the fact that his own marriage from that viewpoint is also non-traditional since he's been divorced and remarried." While that's very likely correct, it's not our place to make such an assertion. Both pieces of info are already presented elsewhere for the reader to draw conclusions like that independently. I don't think his views on gay marriage belong in the "Family" section in any case, unless he has a gay family member that we're commenting on, so that sentence should probably just be removed. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree the gay marriage point is taken out of context.-- KeithbobTalk 17:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, User:2001:db8 is correct on all points. If the consensus is against including it, without further citations, I can abide by that. Again, if I can find citations to back up the claims, I will come to the talk page first before inserting in such claims and ciations. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ham?

The paragraph about his financial problems says he believes it was caused by ham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnieU (talkcontribs) 02:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism has been removed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Dutch Reformed Church"

I think the link from the text "Dutch Reformed Church" is incorrect.

The Dutch settled New York City (New Amsterdam, at the time) and brought the Reformed Church with them. There are many individual churches in the area that are referred to by the name of "Dutch Reformed Church" but they are actually affiliated with the Reformed Church in America--which was the North American branch of the Dutch Reformed Church and originally called "Reformed Protestant Dutch Church".

Reformed denominations are Calvinist, and the RCA uses a Presbyterian polity form of governance, so it's very similar to Presbyterian and maintains full communion with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Some members of the Reformed Church describe themselves as Presbyterians.

This is original research, but it might help those who are confused by the "Dutch Reformed Church" line in the source cited. The source doesn't make it clear whether he's referring to a local church or the denomination, but I strongly suspect the former. --68.80.222.156 (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. And thanks for the pertinent info wrt Reformed Churches/Presbyterianism, IP. In any case, there are, indeed, a number of old news sources that reference the fact that Trump attended(/attends?) one or another Dutch Reformed churches in NYC. However, be that as it may, it's silly to simply repeat in the blp the statements by reporters that Trump is "apparently Dutch Reformed"--especially after Trump has now come out and explained that he is in fact Presbyterian (which collaborates what his biographer Gwenda Blair wrote about Trump's upbringing). In other words, solid reporting should trump (no pun intended) every time what was stated as no more than an informed guess, by a couple of sources, that Trump was "Dutch Reformed."

Such ambiguity happens all the time. The Pew survey of what religions people describe themselves as holding consistently shows that something like twice as many people (or more) describe themselves as Unitarian Univeralist than that actually are actually members of U/U congregations. Last election cycle, it was pointed out that Senator McCain calls himself Baptist and attends a Baptist church each Sunday but in fact has never joined the Baptist church and remains a baptized Episcopalian. So what is McCain? Baptist? or Episcopalian? In a way even he himself doesn't know for sure. (No disrespect. I was just kidding there. But, what I meant in all seriousness is that by McCain's self-description he's of one denomination but by the official criteria of the two denominations in question, he is the other. Phew, confusing. )--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did he go two days ago on Easter Sunday? (He told David Brody of CBN that he attends church "As much as I can. Always on Christmas. Always on Easter." link.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
USA Today is trying to track this info down.

In that interview with David Brody, the only church he named was First Presbyterian Church of Jamaica.

[... ...]

[...H]is most frequently mentioned church is the famed Marble Collegiate Church -- scene not only of his wedding to Ivana in 1977 but also the place where Trump wed Marla[...]in 1993.

[... ...]

By the time of his 2005[...]wedding[...]the church of choice, near his Palm Beach manse, was Episcopal Church of Bethesda-by-the-Sea.

[... ...]

[...B]uzz us[...]if you shared a pew with The Donald on Easter -- or any Sunday since Christmas.---link

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Financial Problems plagiarism

Everything from Chase Bank to the end of the third paragraph of the Financial Problems paragraph is lifted verbatim from the referenced NYTimes article. Seems like it should be reworded or quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uolmir (talkcontribs) 14:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump Makes A Comment Questioning Whether Obama Was Qualified For Ivy League Schools. What A Joke

Trump: Obama wasn't qualified for Ivy League By BETH FOUHY Associated Press NEW YORK (AP) — Real estate mogul Donald Trump suggested in an interview Monday that President Barack Obama had been a poor student who did not deserve to be admitted to the Ivy League universities he attended. Trump, who is mulling a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, offered no proof for his claim but said he would continue to press the matter as he has the legitimacy of the president's birth certificate.

"I heard he was a terrible student, terrible. How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?" Trump said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm thinking about it, I'm certainly looking into it. Let him show his records."

Obama graduated from Columbia University in New York in 1983 with a degree in political science after transferring from Occidental College in California. He went on to Harvard Law School, where he graduated magna cum laude 1991 and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

Obama's 2008 campaign did not release his college transcripts, and in his best-selling memoir, "Dreams From My Father," Obama indicated he hadn't always been an academic star. Trump told the AP that Obama's refusal to release his college grades were part of a pattern of concealing information about himself.

"I have friends who have smart sons with great marks, great boards, great everything and they can't get into Harvard," Trump said. "We don't know a thing about this guy. There are a lot of questions that are unanswered about our president."

Katie Hogan, a spokeswoman for Obama's re-election campaign, declined to comment.

My Opinions are stated below, I don't care if you disagree, Because that's the best thing about the USA freedom to speak your mind and that's what I've done in this Statement: I recently read this article and it has made me so angry I wish i had the power to call him myself and yell and scream about his total stupidity. I ask this question of Donald Trump, How can you question whether he had good grades when we just got rid of a president who was so stupid he choked on a pretzel and had a vice president who got away with shooting his friend in the face? As well as the fact that he was a REPUBLICAN like himself now who is the retard Mr. Trump. You go around making accusations and remarks about stupid issues that really don't matter but who are you to think that we would vote you into power? The only way you will win is if California is the only vote that will count, but I think everyone has learned from that mistake. Name recognition only works so long. Just because you have money and hotels what makes you so qualified to be the president because you can put on a suit and dress real fancy for TV, they put monkeys in suits all the time and in my opinion the monkey could run the country better than the republican party has ever done. Your biggest issues are whether a person has a birth certificate or not and why should anyone have to prove themselves to YOU? Glory Hound! Mud slinging is no way to win a campaign for presidency as far as I am concerned all I want to know is what is going to be done for us the working class people whose hands you step on and break to do the real work behind your business, well you and the republicans get rich we break our backs to provide for our families, and what's more important to you whether someone who is already president had good enough marks and who has a birth certificate that says they were born here. Where were you when Bush made a fool out of himself with all his idiotic statements and when the levees broke where were you, I've read your profile it says nothing about you helping with disaster relief. (Jerrys1kitten (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)).

Jerrys1kitten, Scott Adams explains what's going on, for the uninitiated, here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed

Independent verification is needed that Mr. Trump has a degree from U. of Pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.125.82 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, Trump has an economics Bachelor of Science degree with concentration in finance from Penn; Obama, a Harvard Law JD. (Which means Obama is entitled to wear a gown in all black; Trump, one with gold velvet: maybe its lining, I dunno.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please add the discussions of calls for Trump's firing

After trump's comments on 27 Apr, people in the media and politics have called for NBC to fire him. Most notably, Lawrence O'Donnell of sister-company MSNBC, [3] and US Rep Weiner [4]. --Tangledorange (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE EDIT HIS WIKI PROFILE TO INCLUDE HIS LATEST PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS??CARNIVAL BARKING...  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.205.113 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind that WP is an encyclopedia not a news paper. If and when, Trump is fired it may be appropriate to make a minor, one sentence mention of this. But at present it is not appropriate for the article at this time in my opinion.-- KeithbobTalk 17:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM

This article is starting to suffer from acute WP:RECENTISM. Trump has been in the public eye for many years, but the article is starting to get dominated by the ins-and-outside of his current political campaign and comments about Obama's birth. Please try to keep the article encyclopediac, that is, historical. Ashmoo (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Always something to watch out for-- but the events that are unfolding now are undoubtedly the most notable of Trump's life. He was polling as the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. The publicity generated by Trump led to a sitting president releasing a birth certificate for the first time ever. Now, whole swaths of the media are calling Trump-- the supposed GOP frontrunner-- a racist, and not mincing words about it. Sometimes "Most Recent Events" and "Most Notable Events" are the same events. --Tangledorange (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you are both correct. The recent events are very notable but depending on the outcome ie. if he becomes an official candidate etc. In the meantime his activities border on a publicity campaign and he has a 30 year history of notability as a real estate mogul and a 7 yr history as a TV show host. So do need to be very careful re: WP:RECENT. With that said, its always better to discuss specifics, so if anyone has a particular concern, let's talk and work it out together. :-) -- KeithbobTalk 15:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism in the Cat Template below?

There are some categories below about wrestling and Billionaires with TV shows etc. Which may need to be removed.-- KeithbobTalk 16:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. link--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks but is there a reason it is also categorized as a Pro Wrestling article in 2-3 places?-- KeithbobTalk 19:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's vids of the Donald in the ring giving Vince McMahon trash talk. (I/e this article is apparently a part of the WikiProject Professional wrestling.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Cartoon Spamming

Politicians and people in the public eye in general are often the subject of political cartoons. However, that is no reason to source a ton of these cartoons in this article in the way that they were. Not only is this undue weight, and potentially a BLP violation in order to denegrate the article subject, I have never seen this done on any other political figure. Furthermore, it is borderline OR in that there are no actual articles making the argument, only WP editorializing that he is been criticized and then linking the cartoons to which WP editors feel meet the section. Arzel (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What Arzel removed was

"Political cartoonists have made reference to the issue.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]"

It's probably over the line into spam but I will point out that it is possible for political parody to be notable. For example, another wp:WELLKNOWN media personality, Sarah Palin (who also is a former governor) has this article subsection on WP: Public image of Sarah Palin#Parodies.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Political Parody is one thing, but this is simply linking all the cartoons that a few editors were able to find. I don't see this being done for other political figures, and there is no RS that are talking about how this particular cartooning is unique or unusuall. As such the inclusion in the way it was done is OR. There is no evidence that any one particular cartoon is notable in any way. And the solution that TVOZ presented is not acceptable as it only masks the problem. BLP, Undue Weight, and Spamming are still evident. For those that would like to include, find an RS that talks about the cartoons specifically or leave it out. Arzel (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Arzeil that in its current format (as seen above) it is OR and not appropriate content for a BLP.-- KeithbobTalk 18:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
But just for the record, it was not in the format shown here - I had consolidated all of the notes into one like this:
Political cartoonists have made reference to the issue.[7]
which certainly reduces its footprint on the article text. Please note that I am not the originator of the addition of the cartoons, just the editor who tried to make it less unwieldy. I do think, however, that satire and parody of Trump is a reasonable thing to be covered, either here in his bio or in an offshoot article if there is too much for here, as Hodgson-Burnett points out is done for Sarah Palin. Yes, if RS third party sources discussing the phenomenon can be found that would be best, but removing all of this may be going too far in the other direction of sanitizing the bio, which of course we don't want to do. I don't think BLP comes into play if we correctly identify this material as published satire, nor do I see how WP:UNDUE is at all relevant, unless your point is that we aren't including pro-Trump cartoons - by all means, replace some of these with those if they exist. As for WP:SPAM, I'm not seeing how this is a violation of that, but would be interested in knowing why that's being alleged. Again - these cartoons were not my research or addition, and I don't think that we necessarily need to include all of them, but I also think completely removing them may not be a neutral edit. Tvoz/talk 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Changing the format does not address the other primary problems. Inclusion in that new format indicates that there is a source that points to this being specifically notable. It would be all but impossible to include just one or another and make the same statement since you would not be specifically breaching OR issues. Now if there is a RS that talks about how Trump has been the subject of political cartoons related to this issue, then you could make the statement and use that RS. Otherwise what is to stop anyone from sourcing all the political cartoons they find onto the articles of political figures? This is a slipery slope to go down, and can be easily addressed by existing policies to not include political cartoons, unless the cartoon itself has been the subject of discussion in RS's Arzel (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fsir enough - I said above that I agree that third party RS would be best - so how about this one just quickly located. Likely there are others. (By the way, I would be interested in your reply to my comments about BLP, UNDUE and SPAM, as I would like to know why you think they apply.) Tvoz/talk 23:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP - Appears to denegrate the subject of the article. UNDUE - No context for their insertion. No sign of their individual notability. SPAM - overlinking of sources to make a point. Your new source is no better than this one regarding Obama. Political cartoons are a dime a dozen that don't add anything meaningful to the article other than to make a political point or denegrate the subject with abject criticism. Occasionally a specific cartoon will develop it's own story and become especially notable. Linking to a bunch of cartoons in this manner is nothing more than trying to subtley present a specific point of view. Picking any specific cartoon requires personal POV since their is no outside commentary or discussion which puts that cartoon into historical notability. The most appropriate place for such group linking would be WP:EL and per EL I don't think such a link would be viewed positively on BLP articles. Ask yourself if you think such information should be included on articles like Obama. There are ton's of cartoons that make fun of Obama should we have similar links for all people? I say no, and I think a similar link on Obama would be met with substantial resistance. Arzel (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I took your point about the group linking and am suggesting replacing it for now with the single source MSNBC piece. The source you pointed to about Obama is just a group of cartoons - the Trump source that I posted here without doing much of a search has at least a paragraph identifying Trump as the target of cartoonists. And perhaps better 3rd party sources will be found.
I disagree with your interpretation of WP:BLP - satire is satire, well understood as exaggeration to make a point, not unsourced material known to be false which is what our BLP policies are about. And pointing to the fact that Trump is a target of cartoonists is no different, say, than having an article Barack the Magic Negro - I don't like it, but there it is. I believe you are completely misinterpreting WP:SPAM, which talks about "three types of wikispam. These are advertisements masquerading as articles, external link spamming and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced". This link is in no way an advertisement of anything, it appears only once, and promotes nothing. So maybe you have some other policy in mind, but it's not WP:SPAM. And that's also not what WP:UNDUE means: it is not about notability, it is specifically about giving a minority view more weight in an article than is justified by its significance to the subject. This is one line in an article, now with one source, and it is not a minority view.
So if you want to object to the newly cast single sentence with one source that identifies Trump as a target of cartoonists, you're free to do so, but please don;t muddy the waters with references to policies that really don't apply. However, as I've said a few times, this was not my addition to the article, so I don't care that much about it`which you seem to. I think you are wrong - it is just as reasonable to mention Trump's appeal to cartoonists as it is to say so about Richard Nixon, and the material about Sarah Palin that Hodgson-Burnett cited above - and this article should include it - his appearance, style and image are well-known to be satirized, particularly so in regards to the birther issue - and perhaps someone will find more sourcing to make the point (I'll post it if I come across any). So although I don't disagree about the string of cartoons not being the best form - as I said above - I disagree very much with your conclusion, especially in light of the third-party source provided. Tvoz/talk 06:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Information does not have to be false to violate BLP, thus I disagree with your interpretation. Changing the citation Spam into one link, doesn't change that it is citation spam. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Undue and Notability are interlinked. I do not understand the continued belief by many editors that they are unrelated, when simple logic dictates that they must be related for either to make any sense. Presentation of marginal non-notable inforamtion is clearly a violation of undue weight. By doing so you are giving prominance to minor issue outside of it's own notability. By essence you are promoting a personal point of view by saying that this particular piece of information is more important that external RS's would dictate. There is no evidence than any one of these specific cartoons is notable by itself. Grouping them together doesn't change that, but it does present a violation of undue weight by giving the perception that within RS's these cartoons have become notable in their own right. This is simply not the case. You need to find a RS that specifically talks about Trump in relation to political cartoons. Your example of BTMN is not even close to the same issue, and you can thank the Dems for that racist travistry. You said his appearance, style and image are well-known to be satirized, particularly so in regards to the birther issue. If this is the case than simply find a RS that makes this statement and use that RS for this particular statement. If it is true than it won't be hard to find. If it is not true than the statement would be undue weight and OR (my original problems). In either case you don't need to present the cartoons themselves since you have just stated that the issue is him being satirized. Arzel (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
How about this for parody?

As for Trump, the president said his decision to release his original, long-form birth certificate this week must have been a big relief for the New York real estate mogul. “He can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter. Like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?”--Politico

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
That is an attempt at a joke, but it is not parody. It would be a sarcastic wit if Trump was known for pushing conspiracy theories. As it is, it is not really that funny or clever, Obama should find some better writers. I do know the left is really lapping it up, they seem to love it when the president insults conservatives. Obama could be hilarious and less confrontational if he would use some self-deprecating humor, but...I don't think he has it in him. One of his few attempts only managed to insult disabled people. Arzel (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

religion

If he's openly calling himself a Presbyterian now then all the speculation about his religion should be removed. Quark1005 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

"take their oil" really needs to be in here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Category proposal

Add Trump to "Billionaires with TV shows" Category:Billionaires with TV shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.238.25 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarity between 'birther' criticism and 'racist' criticism

At the Apr 27 conference, Trump made a whole new set of statements-- and it is these statements that have been reported on by some reliable sources as explicitly racist. This is a subtle distinction, be we need to be careful not to automatically conflate the two streams of criticism, as one does not necessarily imply the other to all people.

So, for example, Schieffer's reporting was most directly in reference to the "bad student"/Afffirmative Action statements. I've added more context of the Schieffer quote to make to it clear what Schiefer was replying to. --Tangledorange (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems fine and sorry I removed part of it earlier today. Thank you for redoing it. I just used the source, which is excellent, twice. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
No prob. :) I remember the source I added had an overly opinionated headline and was from a partisan new source, and I chided myself at the time for not making the effort to find the CBS original. This is why I love Wikipedia. --Tangledorange (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is supposed to be about Donald Trump. Not what a news anchor wants to guess is underlying motivation, especially when it's a slander re racism. Whether or not you can source Shieffer's remarks has no bearing on the appropriateness for his remarks to be in the Trump bio article. Is WP an encyclopedia, or a sandbox you get to pee in? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
That's like saying Thomas Eagleton's bio shouldn't mention electroshock. When in our history did the head of a big-three network denounce a republican frontrunner as a racist? Historic. --Tangledorange (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Your arguement is absurd. The medical procedure was a fact. Shieffer's remarks are opinion, conjecture, and slander. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Opinion based remarks. Sheiffer's remarks are opinion and they have been dismissed by other commentators. Absurd editorials. Commenators are not candidates. Other candidate have disregarded the editorial. No warrant for inclusion. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed birther information

Removed

However, on April 22, 2011, Obama requested that the Hawaii Board of Health release a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate to him which they granted through special waivers.

On April 27, 2011, Obama provided the 'long form' birth certificate to the press. An image of the birth certificate, which confirmed details that were provided in 2008 on the short-form certification, was posted on the whitehouse.gov website.[123] At a press conference held shortly after the release, Trump credited the release to his efforts.

since that relates to the birther conspiracy, and doesn't really have anything to do with Donald Trump. Details of the birther conspiracy are on the birther conspiracy page.

Homo Logica (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama roast

Obama spent a great deal of his speech at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner mocking Trump in clear reaction to him and his whole birther conspiracy (1). I think this should be included in the "Statements about Barack Obama" section, somehow. --Rogington2 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. That isn't ultimately that important. That's more WP:RECENTISM
Homo Logica (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Clearly belongs in the article. How many people get roasted by the president of the united states? Plus, CSPAN clip of it is now most-viewed, breaking their earlier records. --Tangledorange (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Reflist

Only two of these are suggested to be used in the article.

  1. ^ a b c d e "Crowd Goes Wild Over Donald Trump Speech at CPAC". Townhall.com. February 10, 2011. Retrieved 2011-02-11. 
  2. ^ http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/yeas-nays/2011/02/trump-makes-case-oval-office-upsets-paul-supporters
  3. ^ http://rightwingnews.com/2011/01/the-case-for-donald-trump-for-president/
  4. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPSYOzr63L8
  5. ^ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47924.html
  6. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110111/ts_dailybeast/11777_donaldtrumpsplatformforpresidentin2012
  7. ^ For example:
added by others

Use of the word "racism"

Greetings. I object to the removal, repeatedly, of the word "racism" from this article. It is absolutely newsworthy and called for. I also object to the toilet humour of an editor who disagrees with me. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above as an absurd/slanderous editorial by select commentators who have been assailed by other commentators. There's no warrant for inclusion. (See above).Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Whatever it is you're waving at above, please copy the text to here. Also, I would like to add that Mr. Schieffer is the chief Washington correspondent for CBS News. He was hardly repeating absurdities or slander. If necessary I will have to get a third party to moderate this discussion, as we did once successfully on Tea Party movement. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
ThomasPaine1776, is this what you refer to as "see above"? Talk:Donald_Trump#Clarity_between_.27birther.27_criticism_and_.27racist.27_criticism. If so, you said there that other commentators have assailed Mr. Schieffer. I went looking for that and don't find it in a Google search for 'bob schieffer' racism (41 hits while 'donald trump' racism has 982 hits, among them Fareed Zakaria who says Trump's words are "coded racism"). Can you please point out what you are talking about? Thank you.
By the way, I found a great interview between David Letterman and Dr. Phil, where Mr. Letterman asked Dr. Phil if he thought Trump was racist. Dr. Phil said, clearly, "No." And I think this could be used to back up Mr. Trump. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that Schieffer's long-held position w/ CBS somehow entitles his accusation of racism to automatically be given merit over anyone else's opinion. An accusation of racism is a serious thing, and Schieffer offered only his personal feelings and conjecture to back it up. (That is not only slander but character defamation.) Many were dismayed at this lack of professionalism from him considering his long-respected tenure w/ CBS (me included). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
One example, Bernard Goldberg dismissed the editorials on May 3, 2011 on the O'Reilly Factor, you note and example. Commentators are not candidates. Commenators will make volumes of comments and editorials. Other candidates have disregarded the editorials in question and not reacted, there are no surveys, or polls or scientific data. Trump has a strong record there and pundits have dismissed the editorials. We simply cannot include every assertion, vague interpretation, editorial, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Trump reacting to candidates is most relevant. Politely, at this point its quite frivolous. There are many news items and editorials out there about Mr. Trump that have not reached a level for encyclopedic content. Candidate exchanges, polls, surveys, are issue based. This article isn't about Shieffer. Let's allow issues to be significant before includsion. Its been discussed above and removed by another editor. Inclusion is unwarranted. If the candidates comment about Sheiffer's editorial, then we can take a look at it. Thomas Paine1776 (talk)
I think, ThomasPaine1776, that this topic needs to be minimized. And the article has come a long way in that regard in the past couple of days, in large part thanks to you. I also think that people's actions and words have consequences. Mr. Trump is strong enough to stand up to his critics on this topic. So all I ask is that you guys quit removing the word. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Inclusion is not warranted based on an editorial. Glenn Beck made the same accusation about Barack Obama in an Editorial and Glenn Beck's ratings are much higher than Bob Shieffer's. If its not worthy of inclusion for the Obama aticle, its similarly not worthy of inclusion for Trump. Commentators are not candidates. The editorial has been basically disregarded by candidates and dismissed by other commentators, no candidate gives it any credence, if other candidates react to it, then we can take a look for significance. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I think we're being fair in wanting more than editorials and opinion based commentary. It was a big news item when Glenn Beck made the same accusation about Obama [16], the same deference should be given to Trump. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The list (which was correctly removed in my opinion) of people who criticized Trump included Jerry Seinfeld, David Letterman, Cher, Robert DeNiro, Tracy Morgan, Glenn Beck, Lawrence O'Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg, none of whom will appear in this article apparently. To this we add Bob Schieffer, who was chosen to moderate a debate between Obama and McCain, and Fareed Zakaria, who offered an opinion when he was asked what he thought. Just because you say it is "unwarranted" does not mean that Mr. Trump can say whatever he would like to say about the President and not have the reaction recorded here. The facts and the record of them weigh into Wikipedia policy for BLPs. -SusanLesch (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you guys a choice. Either we submit this argument to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or I ask User:Balloonman who is an administrator and an uninvolved editor to see if he has time to mediate. Your choice? -SusanLesch (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The "reaction" you speak of, which you insist must be included in the Trump BLP article, is essentially (please advise if I've got it wrong): "Racist!"
That is editorialist, personal bias, personal conjecture, slander, and probably also character defamation. The sole basis offered is personal feeling and conjecture. So that is your basis for demanding inclusion? Also you seem to have ignored the equal treatment comparison made to the Obama BLP article. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
p.s. Can we stick w/ Schieffer's remarks, please? (Cher, Tracy Morgan, Dr. Phil, Dave Letterman, Seinfeld, Whoopi Goldberg, etc., is making me a bit nauseous.) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Inclusion is unwarranted as noted. CBS and Shieffer have a pattern of biased editorial swiping. Its not really balanced to claim the CBS or Shieffer itself should be a reason for inclusion. Again Glenn Beck made a similar accusation of Obama, and Trump article should be given the same deference. We're being fair in wanting more than editorials or opinion based for significance. We'll take a look for significance if there are candidates reacting to each other, and no candidates have given credibility to it, and its basically dismissed by other commentators. CBS had to fire Dan Rather for attemtping to slander George W. Bush on his military service and CBS hired Katie Couric who had already had a history of having tensions in interviewing Republican Presidential Candidate Bob Dole, and more recently Katie Couric doing her criticized interview with Sarah Palin. Thus, using CBS or Shieffer, per se, as a claim for the reason of inclusion is not sufficient reason. Wikipedia has a policy for biographies of removing slanderous material. There is not sufficient reason or warrant for inclusion. Again we're being fair in asking for more than editorials and opinion based for significance. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please read the BLP policy on WP:WELLKNOWN. Then choose one of the two options or I will choose one. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we bring in a meditator as noticeboard threads are often inconclusive or disputed.-- KeithbobTalk 17:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, Keithbob. I have asked User:Balloonman and am waiting to find out if he has time. I hope so. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:WELLKNOWN requires that "notability," significance, be established. And that is an important point. No one yet has made a sound case for notability. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons must have a neutral point of view and not be written like a "tabloid." The desire of certain editors to insert an opinion based editorial with slanderous accusations that the candidates have basically disregarded and commentators have generally dismissed is not sufficent to establish notability. An editorial or opinion does not necessarily make it notable or relevant. There is no warrant to include every assertion, vague interpretation, or accusations found in editorials. That would not be encyclopedic content. What are the candidates reactions? Have any campaigns made it an issue? There are volumes of editorials, opinions, and news items about Trump and Obama. However, candidates for office have basically disregarded it and commentators have generally dismissed/disputed it which speaks against notability. The term "implied" does not rescue an otherwise vague assertion. Glenn Beck of Fox made the same allegation against Obama and the article makes no mention of it [17], the same deference should be given to Trump article. As we said, if candidates mention it we can take a look. Whether it should be described as a generally disregarded allegation by other candidates and generally dismissed/disputed by commentators would be being generous. Wikipedia is not a newspaper according to the policy also. And potentially slanderous material in biographies is supposed to be removed according to the policy. It still however has the question of notability. If its notable in this case, then that would establish the notability of Glenn Beck's similiar allegation for the Barack Obama article. Barack Obama has not responded to the questions. Since Obama has not responded, that also dimishes notability and relevance. Commentators are not candidates. Other Presidential candidates have had their college grades brought into question including Kerry and Bush without such unfounded accusations. [18], thus Shieffer's editorial has a notability problem, no candidate has taken it seriously, major commentators have generally dismissed it. We don't have a source yet of Obama's or other candidates to response, until then, the media allegation seriously lacks notability. Trump has a strong record which speaks against the media allegations as fringe anyhow, its evident that candidates don't take the it seriously, Obama apparently doesn't take the media allegations against Trump seriously, and that severely dimishes its notability. Trump also attended the White House Correspondent's dinner and received Obama's humorous criticisms. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
In case a minimized version of the story turns out to be possible, here's another source: "Donald Trump rejects allegations of racism" was a strong example because it records a conversation with Don Lemon of CNN. The article was reverted a couple of times to exclude Trump's comments on affirmative action. Maybe replacing those comments with a terse summary from a alternate source would make more sense. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I realize you seem to want to make a short summary about the issue and that Trump has denied the media allegations and that they are not representative of his views. However, a concern is over notability and giving undue weight to these type of editoral allegations, or undue weight to sensationalism. Candidates including Obama are constantly receiving, denying, and responding to high profile media based editorial allegations and name calling, but that doesn't make these things notable for inclusion in a biographical article.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
At a certain point, we reach a critical mass. While the allegation may or may not be true, the allegations reach a point where we have to address it---where the allegations themselves become notable. The difference between Obama and Trump is breadth of personalities making the allegations. We are not talking about one or two individuals with generic accusations, but rather a wide range of people with specific issues. At a certain point, we have to address the allegation in some form. Can we deny the allegations are out there? Are they wide spread? Have the allegations reached the point where people will expect to see them addressed in some manner in the article? Will people add the content to the article if it is not present?
If we have reached that critical mass then we have a few options. 1) Write the article that ignores the subject knowing that it will remain a bone of contention for the foreseeable future. Knowing that the subject will pop up on a daily/weekly basis. Knowing that some of those edits will be borderline if not blatant POV attacks/vandalism. Or 2) try to find a version that presents the facts in an objective manner that doesn't over accentuate the issue? A version that neither side might love, but that both sides can live with? At a certain point, the question has to be asked, "Have the allegations reached the point where not discussing them becomes an issue?" (I am not saying that they have, but asking the question.)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Balloonman, the world's news, every newspaper and television station with very few exceptions, was blown away by the news of Osama Bin Laden's death. I think it's unreasonable to expect Trump to remain a headline through something like that. But here we have today's news of a group trying to influence people with the show Celebrity Apprentice regarding the racism problem with Trump. Please, I would like to add only a very small statement along with Mr. Trump's reaction to the article. This discussion seems to be fractured and I'm not sure of replying to the right post, sorry. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
These incidiary, potentially slanderous media editorial accusations haven't been adopted by the candidates. The candidates have disregarded them and commentators have dismissed them which severely diminishes their potential for WP:Notability, significance. Giving WP:Undue weight to incindiary and potentially slanderous editorials disrupts a Neutral Point of View. There is no warrant for inclusion. There are potentially slanderous accustations, vague interpretations, that are dismissed by commentators and disregarded by candidates. The accusations are fringe. Trump has responded that the editorials don't represent his views. There is no substance to the accusation. Other candidates such as George W. Bush and John Kerry have had their college grades brought into question.[19] without such potentially slanderous editorials. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP Warning

Susan asked me to come in an mediate based upon previous mediation I did over at the Tea Pary Movement where I probably didn't satisfy anybody because I agreed with some of what both parties had to say. Other than minor contact during that mediation, I do not have any standing history with Susan. Right now, I do not have time to delve into the subject, but will try to look at it more closely this evening after the kiddos are in bed. That being said, I considered putting a full protection on the page based upon the dispute. The charge of Racism/racist is a serious charge and has to be treated seriously. 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. Right now, there is no consensus and heated debate centered on the subject. My advice right now is to back off on the edits related to racism/t or I will protect the page (in the version that does not include the charges/allegations as dictated by WP:BLP.) It may be several hours before I get back to this article and when I do so, it'll take me a while to review the discussion and edits being sought, so bear with me. BUT let me reiterate, let's leave the allegations out for now.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Now that I've weighed in on this subject in a substantive manner, *I* will not perform administrative functions in this regard. Other admins may use my above warning if they deem it necessary, but *I* won't---at least until my involvement terminates.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 05:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Charge of Racism

Ok, I was asked to come here and give my take on this issue of allegations that Trump is a racist. First let me tell you where I stand on the subject. I tend to be on the conservative side of most issues, but I think Trump is an idiot who has said things that sound questionable at best and that if he somehow wins the Republican nomination next year that it will guarantee a second term for Obama---that's my opinion. I can say that as a person---I have never liked Trump. I can believe those statements to be true. But what I believe/think and what we can include in an article on Wikipedia are two different things. The standard for including controversial material on a BLP rest upon the party wishing to add the material. The more controversial/charged the inclusion, the higher the barrier has to be. This isn't just Wikipedia policy, but it is what is proper. We can't let allegations and controversial statements remain in Wikipedia unless they meet the highest barriers. Having a person express an opinion does not make it a fact.

The charge of racism is one of the most inflamatory allegations that people to levy today. John Hartigan Jr., professor of anthropology at The University of Texas at Austin, talks about conversation stoppers. Charges of racism/playing the race card are conversation stoppers; "When public debates become muddled by charges of racism, people will focus more on racial tensions and less on the issues that matter.[20] Paul Watchell, CUNY Distinguished Professor in clinical psychology at City University of New York Graduate Center, writes, "One key problem is that the words “racism” and “racist” tend to be conversation stoppers.... the accusation of racism may sometimes be experienced as an intimidating conversation-stopper and sometimes as a tiresome harangue that has little real impact whatever formal obeisance may or may not be paid."[jonsenglishsite.info/Class%20Docs%205/6_TalkingAboutRacism.doc] But the charge gets bandied about because people want to silence their opponents.

So what we have are a few people who have made allegations that Trump is racist based upon a few recent comments he's made. The fact that people have levied them is undeniable. But the question becomes how much weight and credence should we give them? Is Trump a racist? I don't think Wikipedia can declare that as a fact. Is this a persistent accusation or a new found one? As far as I know, it surfaced only after he declared an interest in running for office (I am not a Trump follower, but you would think that it would have interfered with his show if it was an ongoing issue.) Trump has attacked Obama for several issues. Some of them bring images of race to the forefront. The whole birther controversy and now the implication that Obama only went to college because of Affirmative Action. Is he playing to those issues because he is a racist or an opportunist? Politics is a nasty business.

Personally, I would shy away from the statement that he is a racist. Those are, IMO, character issues and allegations made to devalue the target. We need to be very careful about repeating those allegations, even if we attribute the opinion to somebody else. Especially if these allegations are A) recent and B) based upon a few isolated sound bytes. I am not saying that we can white wash the whole issue, we probably need to say something, but we need to address it in a very careful manner. My OPINION is that we focus on how the words/issues are perceived (as potentially race driven/playing to racism) rather than personal attacks on Trump.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 04:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  1. The head of CBS news called the republican frontrunner of implied racism. This is unprecedented in modern american history. If you're not familiar with the individual, he isn't a pundit, he's one of the old hard-line-journalistic-neutrality types. That event is so notable that it will figure in Schieffer's bio too, the 2012 campaign articles, etc. This has never ever happened before.
  2. Lots and lots of other people have discussed this unprecedented event. Whether you agree or disagree with obama, the sources discussing this are innumerable.
  3. The racism criticism was much discussed by participants and coverage of the white house correspondents dinner.
  4. Trump has a long history of racist criticism-- as far back as the 1970s, he was being sued by the feds for not renting to non-whites.

So, not-just recent and highly notable in the campaign. oodles and oodles of reliable sources for all the facts, far more critics and new stories than you could ever want. --Tangledorange (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I just would like to thank User:Balloonman for participating in this debate. I abide by whatever you decide here. But please be careful. The issue is not "this issue of allegations that Trump is a racist" (to quote you). What I hoped to get help with was "the use of the word racist" in this article. And to balance that with Trump's denials. Both are well-documented. One or at most two sentences would cover the topic. I find your rewording of the question above ("Charge of Racism") to be rather offensive, really. It suggests that perhaps Balloonman misunderstood the mission and that's my fault for not explaining it better. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm here as amediator, not an arbitrator... it's my opinion, but it is not a binding opinion. Nor is it a final opinion---perhaps I did mis understand the request. If I misunderstood let me know.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a trump watcher, I've NEVER cared for the man. As for 1 and 2, be careful of what you attribute to Scheiffer. Scheiffer doesn't call Trump a racist, but rather calls the questioning of Obama's getting into ivy league schools "an ugly strain of racism." There is a nuianced difference between the two. I have no problem with our reporting that his questions/position have been seen as the Huffington post puts it "peddling 'racism'", they are. Whether an ignorant statement, crass comment, or ill thoughtout comment amount to actually being a racist is an opinion. Some of the people who are being attributed with calling Trump a racist (such as Scheiffer) have been careful not to cross that line. Cosby, never used the racism/racist word. In fact his words are more about Trump not running for office than about his being a racist.[21]. John Legend, who is oft quoted as being critical didn't call Trump a racist, but rather said, “He needs to stop saying that racist bullsh*t birther sh*t."(*'s in quoted source.) A lot of the people who have been attributed with calling Trump a racist, have been careful not do so. From what I've seen, most are careful in calling the words and actions racist, not Trump himself racist. They do so for a reason, and we need to be extra careful for the same reasons.
The correspondents dinner is often a time for political jokes/satire. While it plays on common themes and current issues, it tends to be quickly forgotten.
Point 4 is an interesting point. There does appear to be some evidence that the issue goes back further than just the past few weeks, but that is not the edit that I saw. If I missed edits/discussions about a history of racist charges, then my apologies. There might be something there. I'd give a lot more credence to a long standing history than I would recent events. And long standing history of issues would lend more credence to include crrent stuff, but I didn't see that as part of the previous discussion/edits.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The Huffington Post strikes me as a bit more derivative than a reliable source. Balloonman, would you be open to a carefully worded sentence from Mr. Schieffer plus carefully worded denial from Mr. Trump? The sources would be CBS News and CNN. I think probably we can and should leave The Hollywood Reporter's long list of critics completely out of this. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I have not looked at the historical stuff enough to comment on its merit. Although, if the allegations had legs, the question becomes why wasn't it raised previously in the article or in response to his show? In February, a WSJ poll wrote, "groups that had the most favorable opinion of Trump were Hispanics (33%-23%) and African Americans (27%-22%)."[22] and recent BlackAmerica.com indicated that he Trump's shows boast a solid African-American viewership His audience is (was?) the most liberal audience on primetime tv. If he has been viewed as a racist, then why were his main supporters hispanics/African Americans/liberals?
The flap about race has emerged because of his recent comments related to Obama. There is clearly a animosity there, but that may or may not be due to Obama's race. Trump has chosen to express his dislike for Obama in a manner that sounds racial. His actions/words, IMO, are definately playing on those issues. But is that because he's a racist himself? Or is he playing for a base that he thinks will respond well to these charges? Or is his dislike for Obama such that he is hitting an area where he thinks it'll hurt the most not realizing how it reflects on him?
I do think SOMETHING needs to be said, because if nothing is said, as Tangle puts it, people will constantly be adding it back in. The key is to figure out how/what to say. If we are dealing strictly with the Birther/college issues that have emerged over the past 2 months, then I think we need to focus on the words and whether or not the issues evoke some sort of racism. We need to be very hesitent to use or quote somebody who grabbed attention by calling Trump a racist---those are opinions.
But *MY* concern is to be very careful in what we say in this arena. WP:BLP puts a high threshold on inclusion of controversial material and allegations of racism/racist are IMO some of the more serious allegations---thus requiring a HIGH standard for presentation and inclusion.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. BLP's main thrust stems from libel. Trump is a public figure and now a political candidate. Criticism of a political candidate is part of the national discourse. We must always be factual, but this is a political article now, not a celeb bio and certainly not a private citizen. ANY notable criticism is part of the story. US Libel's threshold is legally non-existent, BLP's threshold is actually the LOWEST of any BLP threshold. (the highest threshold would be, for example, private details of a non-notable individual). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangledorange (talkcontribs) 07:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think Susan is striking some good middle ground here when she suggests a "carefully worded sentence from Mr. Schieffer plus carefully worded denial from Mr. Trump" .."the sources would be CBS News and CNN". I also agree we should leave out Huff Post and The Hollywood Reporter as sources on this kind of an issue in a BLP need to meet a threshold of high quality. I also appreciate Balloonman's role as mediator and would remind him/her and us, that the role of a mediator is not to give their own opinions but rather to coordinate, clarify and moderate the existing discussion.And lastly, I thank everyone for their contributions to the discussion. Peace!-- KeithbobTalk
"I do think SOMETHING needs to be said, because if nothing is said, as Tangle puts it, people will constantly be adding it back in." Ever since that statement, Balloonman, I can't keep the image out my head from those old Westerns ... the townsmen gathering as angry mob carrying torches, showing up at night at the jailhouse, and find they have to confront the Sheriff, the sole protector under law of an accused criminal awaiting fair trial. (The mob wants an immediate hanging from the highest tree, but good always prevailed; the Sheriff always held the mob back!)
I saw "burden of proof" rests on those wishing to include incendiary content. I also saw "and the bar is (must) be high" both for BLP and due to the seriousness of such a thing as accusation of racism. But what I have not seen are those arguments proposed or offered, which propel over that bar. (In fact, I've seen no arguments at all.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
To go with your western analogy-- I do NOT want Wikipedia to join the mob and takes sides. I want us to be the town paper that reports to its citizens that a mob did, in fact, exist. --Tangledorange (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Especially if the mob was after a presidential candidate! --Tangledorange (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Tangled, you misunderstand the analogy. "Angry mob" represented editors advocating inclusion of racism-related content into the Trump BLP article, by circumventing "the law" (i.e., WP policy re where burden of proof lies, and existence of a high bar). So your wanting WP to "report the mob exists" translates in the analogy to adding article content about your & Susan's efforts to add incendiary content. (Which makes no sense, and you didn't mean, of course.) (In the analogy, "Sheriff" = Balloonman if he were arbiter or mediator; "the law" = WP BLP policy; "man awaiting fair trial" = the integrity of the Trump BLP article. Hope that clarifies.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
p.s. Even though you misunderstood the analogy (thinking "angry mob" represented sources naming Trump a racist), did you notice in your followup analogy, when you said you want WP to be like the town's newspaper (reporting to the citizens the fact that a mob showed up at the jailhouse), you're effectively suggesting that WP should be like a newspaper too (i.e. reporting incidents in the news, contrary to Wikepedia is not a newspaper)? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Balloonman, "I have no problem with our reporting that his questions/position have been seen as the Huffington post puts it "peddling 'racism' ", they are." Don't know if I understand you. (By "they are", did you mean "they have been seen ...", or did you mean to say the charges of peddling racism are correct in your opinion)? Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
These type of assusations should require a higher standard for inclusion. These editorial remarks in question by commentators do not meet Wikipedia requiremnents for Notabiltiy and no candidates have taken them seriously. Further Wikipedia is not a newspaper as emphasized above, we should not include potentially slanderous accusations by commentators. There are volumes of editorials and they do not belong in biography aritilces per se, Glenn Beck made similar accusations against Obama and they are not included in the biography. Giving WP:Undue weight to these type of editorials would violate wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View. If candidates raise the issues, then we can take a look. Wikipedia should not be written like "tabloid." Slanderous remarks by such and such a commentator on such and such a network says about candidates should not become encyclopedia content in biographies. There should be a higher standard than commentator opinion for an encyclopedic content.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)