Talk:Donald Trump

Net Worth

I'm sorry but placing his net worth at 4-8 billion is so unbelievably vague, wide ranging and inaccurate as to be false. It doesn't matter if his net worth is 4 billion, or 8 billion, having a net worth on Wikipedia listed as "X dollars plus or minus about 4 billion" is just absurd. This is not a few dollars, a few thousand, or even a few hundred thousand... this is a billion we are talking about... and the imprecision is in the range of 4? 50% deviation of the max possible net worth is considered an accurate approximation? You cannot be serious. I suggest not having an income figure listed that is so laughably enormous in its range that it could be overshooting by 4 billion dollars. It could also potentially be wrong at 4 billion as that is the total worth estimated by forbes and even admitted by them to be guesswork at best that gives enormous leniency to Trump. I recall other estimates saying his actual net worth (Trump likes to include things that he doesn't actually own in his net worth and tends to assign absurd valuation to them [ex: Miss America ~$400 million] to inflate his... worth) as being conservatively estimated at 700 million. And even that is giving Trump credit that's undeserved by going on and on about how he's such a successful self-made man when 400 million came from his father. I'm going to change it to the less ridiculous # as cited by Forbes, not the # cited by Trump himself to "prove" he was rich that was "done by super impressive accountants.. trust me" during his campaign announcement. ..I mean, even for Wikipedia a deviation of 4 BILLION DOLLARS, c'mon guys. 68.180.28.140 (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to weigh in here, but I'm just posting to ping Professor JR, who reverted the above IP editor and refused to discuss the matter on his talk page, citing a nonsensical "personal policy" of not responding to IP editors. If you revert someone's edit, and they take the time to explain their actions, you should have the decency to respond and explain your stance. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the support. I figured no one would even see the response professor Jr gave me regarding the edit and his policy of no-discussion. Thank you for taking the time to look into the matter, even though it wasn't asked of you and you did so of your own volition. 68.180.28.140 (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC) -edit: It would seem professor JR has, subsequent to your above post, deleted the conversation on his talk page between myself and him in its entirety, citing the following comment as explanation in his revision history - "deleting the pointless rants of an anon".

Forbes magazine is provably biased against Trump and should not be used as a source for his net worth. Example, their billionaire beat reporter Clare O'Connor calls him a racist here in a recent article. Find an unbiased source. 5Q5 (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The article now shows Trump's net worth at $10 billion in four locations, citing the FEC filing. But, I don't think the FEC filing reports on net worth and this isn't supported by the cited articles. The $10 billion number is something that he claimed on the day he made the FEC filing. And, he has stated other numbers. Shouldn't we use an RS like the Forbes article that was used prior to this? Objective3000 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bloomberg today estimates Trump's net worth at $2.9 billion. Objective3000 (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

They estimate it at least $2.9 billion.--Iady391 (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, they estimate it at $2.9 billon. Please re-read the article. Objective3000 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were right. I got it mixed up with another article.--Iady391 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Return it to the Forbes estimate, that is the project-wide source for estimates of net-worth. Avaya1 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Forbes is the best source for net worth barring some truly spectacular coverage. Trump claiming the $10 billion figure does not make it so. ~ Rob^Talk 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iady391: Is there a reason you added back the $10 billion figure to the infobox? Without heavily qualifying that, we're putting that on equal footing with the Forbes estimate, which I believe is clearly against the consensus here. I'm not against including more information about it in the article somewhere, but putting it in the infobox is misleading when it appears clear that Trump is not telling the truth about his net worth. ~ Rob^Talk 15:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved to net worth section. Iady391 | Talk to me here 15:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ Rob^Talk 17:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have twice reversed another editor who removed the Forbes $4.1 billion figure from the infobox and replaced it with Trump's $10 billion self-estimate (more than a billion since his campaign was first announced). Trump's net worth, including his own self-assessments, is discussed in more detail within the article. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Forbes has lowered its estimate of Trump's wealth to $4 billion, citing damage done to his brand by his campaign. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected this in the article, since the sources already existing there back up the $4 billion figure. ~ Rob^Talk 04:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Early life and education

I have read reports that Trump is disliked by some Republicans (ie the Bush family etc) because he is not WASP. But as his mother was British (born in Scotland means British..Scotland despite all the noise is not a separate country) he has a WASP connection. What I find strange and interesting however is that NOWHERE are there ANY details of his mothers upbringing or education which I believe took place entirely in England. Does anyone have any details about this? The Britishness of his mother seems ro be completely obscured. The paragraph about his grandfather's wedding, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Early_life_and_education, is not entirely correct. In 1902 the city was part of an enclave belonging to the Kingdom of Bavaria. It hasn't been part of its mainland, respectively isn't part of modern day Bavaria at all.

One of the following two choices would be a better fit

• Kallstadt, Kingdom of Bavaria
• Kallstadt, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.10.236 (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need to know so much information about his grandparents, etc??? Couldn't we just say Kallstadt, Germany? Readers can go to the Kallstadt article if they want to know its history.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it has been  Done Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The article states that his sister is a former federal circuit court judge, whereas the Wiki on his sister and everything else I've read lists her as a current federal appellate court judge. It might be rather important because as an active appellate court judge she's in theory eligible to be appointed to SCOTUS, putting her in play as a presidential issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.112.97.111 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm responsible for the "former" adjective, having drawn that interpretation from her Wikipedia entry which states that "on June 30, 2011, Barry assumed senior status and was ultimately succeeded by Judge Patty Shwartz." Perhaps we could state that she has "assumed senior status", i.e., that she is effectively retired from day-to-day responsibilities (as she's 78 years old) though is still regarded as a judge, but that is rather wordy. Easier just to remove the word "former", so I'll do that. Regardless of her status, BTW, she could still be appointed to the Supreme Court. She wouldn't even have to be a lawyer. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Article mentioned in the news

There was an article on The Verge and The Washington Post about this page being blanked for like a picosecond earlier today. I really don't know what to say. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Well it's the fifth Google result for Wikipedia right now...Maltice (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It was blanked for two non-consecutive minutes on one day. Not worth one news article, much less multiple. Rmhermen (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

But that's the thing it was worth (at least) two news articles.--88.104.131.229 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mentioned that this article was mentioned in the media. Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Politician

Trump is running for President, and leading in the polls. He is a politician all right. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. Trump meets definitions of a politician, and this article should reflect that, whatever the thoughts regarding his candidacy are.

"a person actively engaged in politics, esp. party politics, professionally or otherwise; often, a person holding or seeking political office: frequently used in a derogatory sense, with implications of seeking personal or partisan gain, scheming, opportunism, etc." - Webster's New World College Dictionary

"One who is actively involved or skilled in politics, especially one who holds a political office." - The American Heritage Dictionary ~ Rob^Talk 02:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's ask: does Trump walk, talk, & act like the other 16 GOP politicians running for president?. I think so. he's about the most famous candidate in the US these days--he hires campaign staff in key states; he organizes election rallies where he gives campaign speeches & asks for your vote; he stumps the early primary states; he criticizes the incumbent Obama he's trying to replace; he attacks his party rivals like Walker & Bush; he makes promises that "if elected I will do this and that"; he debates the other candidates (this Thursday in Cleveland); most important: he officially registered as a candidate with the federal election commission. Note the Wall Street Journal headline when he lost some business deals because of his political remarks: "Donald Trump the Politician Burns Trump the Businessman". Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The word 'politician' has been removed from the lead; our article on politician states "A politician is a person holding or seeking an office within a government" which Mr. Trump is doing(running for President); thus he is a politician. I'm not sure why this is being removed. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think some people think that 'politician' means someone who holds political office, not someone who is running for it. They are wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if Pat Paulsen is a politician then so is anyone who files papers to be on the ballot for public office. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

notes

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015

Please add, under External links, the following template link:

• Template:DMOZ

This will allow some trimming of the existing links, and also discourage further additions. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC) 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done - I BOLDLY added it. Since there is no consensus, someone may remove it. - MrX 17:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for someone to add material

{request edit: I'm not editing at the moment, but I have to say that I really think someone should add the following rather notable quotation from Trump's notable presidential announcement. I do think it's fair to say that Trump's inflammatory comments have been extremely notable, and even more notably, led to many companies severing their ties with Trump. I think the full quote is worthy of inclusion, in all its naked, glorious notability: “When "Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

–Real estate mogul Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech, June 16, 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/ http://gawker.com/a-comprehensive-list-of-everyone-trying-to-sever-ties-w-1715314213 http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/29/nbc-to-donald-trump-youre-fired/?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/25/univision-severs-ties-with-donald-trump-and-beauty-pageants/ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/01/his-remarks-are-taking-a-financial-toll-on-donald-trump/

I think that someone should add the quote and Trump's firings to the article.Kingshowman (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman}

There's an extensive discussion above on this topic. Note that it is included at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Kuru (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Kingshowman (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I read the aforementioned discussion, and I personally unequivocally side with those who argued for inclusion. I don't understand what the force of the arguments against including it were at all. The comments themselves caused a great deal of news coverage, were part of an extremely newsworthy event (his presidential announcement) and resulted in the termination of a number of notable business partnerships. I don't see how the notability of the quote is at all questioned by those who opposed, other than some specious overfocus on the present argument. Wikipedia articles include far, far more trivial events all the time. But I don't think the issue matters very much at all and I'm fine with your decision. I'm not going to lose sleep over it or press it further, just registering my agreement with those who argued for adding Trump's words to the article.Kingshowman (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Image proposal

I propose that either File:Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 4.jpg or File:Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore.jpg be used for the infobox. The current image has a microphone obscuring the subject's face and looks like it was captured during mid-speech. The two I proposed are more representative of Trump's natural expressions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The first image is extremely unflattering, and I oppose its use. The second image is better, and I'm indifferent between that image and the one we're presently using in the infobox. ~ Rob^Talk 10:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bu Rob13: I disagree the first image is mildly unflattering at most. Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree I'll be BOLD and do it myself. Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)  Done Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, now that I'm seeing it in the infobox, does that lighting give anyone else a "villainous" impression? The shadows set an odd tone. ~ Rob^Talk 19:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The shadows do set an odd tone, but I want consensus before a reversion please. Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Why use a "smug" and 4 year old image of Trump when a new HQ one is available?, anyone with good photoshop skills can easily remove the microphone from the new image ....the 4 year old image portrays him as smug and wikipedia is supposed to be NEUTRAL regardless of what an utter ass the person whose article is..--Stemoc 06:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think using photoshop would be manipulative and deceptive. Current picture stays unless we get a better one. Iady391 | Talk to me here 11:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

After thinking about this quite a while, I believe this picture is non-neutral due to the tone created by the shadows. Considering we have the earlier picture that has no neutrality issues, I've reverted back to the original picture per WP:BRD. For reference, here are the pictures. ~ Rob^Talk 11:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Iady391 that we absolutely cannot photoshop an image of a living person, though. ~ Rob^Talk 11:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Not an actual photoshop, just request that the microphone be removed at the Graphics lab ..that easy..no one is saying to photoshop Trumps image to make him look different...I could do it myself but my internet speed does not like uploading large images--Stemoc 13:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I sent a request at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop#Donald_Trump Graphics Lab will see how it goes. Iady391 | Talk to me here 14:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Update They've been done. Iady391 | Talk to me here 15:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I now prefer the proposed image, with the better lighting. I'm still iffy on using a photo that's been altered in any way if it contains a living person. MOS:IMAGELOCATION says we shouldn't even flip an image of a person, because that's misleading. I would assume actual digital alteration, even with the intent of keeping things realistic, is more severe than a flip. Even without my thoughts on that, I would still prefer the proposed with the new lighting. ~ Rob^Talk 15:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree the "newly proposed" image is better - lighting, the skin color in the "original" image is yellowish as though Trump has jaundice. And I don't see "smug" I see "pleased". IHTS (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Pictures being compared

Original image (March 2015)

compare candidate Trump image skin tones to skin tone from this image form article Jaundice

Newly proposed image (February 2011)

• • Note - now that the mic has been removed, I have been able to fix the lighting, saturation and levels of the recent image..the image was taken in a brightly lit room thus why he looked 'yellowish'..I prefer the recent image because he doesn't look 'smug' in that and IHT, being smug means to look 'overly' pleased ...--Stemoc 11:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes that's better. But about "pleased", IMO it's not "overly" - he looks relaxed & contented/pleasantly satisfied. People look more attractive when they smile, as well (don't you think so?). So the "proposed" image still puts him in a better light (no pun intended). ;) IHTS (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• I have uploaded an adjusted version of the first image. The yellowish look is not caused by lights being too bright; it's caused by the camera's white balance been wrong. There was also some slight levels issue. Here is the version before Stemoc's adjustment for comparison. - MrX 12:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • thanks for the added fix, now the image looks perfect in the infobox...yes image quality was sacrificed but it indeed looks pretty good now..I personally do not like the smuggy 4 year old image..thanks MrX--Stemoc 12:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Glad to help Stemoc. I have no opinion otherwise about the quality of the two images (are we allowed to select the middle one?). That said, I would favor a more recent image.- MrX 13:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • It's good now (thx). Current is a plus (granted). And I trust Mr. Yellow had some good days after. IHTS (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
        • To be fair, there are many references to Trump's orange skin in online searches, as well as to his unusual hairstyle. I don't mind the photographic corrections but I'm not sure I'd attribute the issue entirely to the room's lighting (he does seem to experiment with tanning and/or foundation, and while I don't mind the remnant 'L' on the right side of his face, does it bother anyone else?) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I don't see why a NPOV demands a flattering photo of Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Including an unflattering/odd photo when a flattering/normal photo exists is clearly not in the best interests of maximizing the image's encyclopedic value. ~ Rob^Talk 10:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
              • So flattering=normal??? How strange!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
            • I don't see that anyone said that. (I know I didn't.) IHTS (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- The "newly proposed" image is creepy: I can't see Trump's sclera.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  Demons don't have those ...--Stemoc 15:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just uploaded more pictures of Trump to my Flickr account and to Wikimedia. Feel free to take a look. Simply Google my name Michael Vadon Flickr and you will find it. Yours truly, Michael Vadon MichaelVadon (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• * Switch back to 2011 photo: * All the other top-polling candidates have smiling photos. Now Trump has a slightly scowling one, which seems like political mischief. The original smiling photo from 2011 above right is entirely appropriate because the other candidates use photos from before their announced candidacy, including Hillary Clinton, whose youthful profile photo is from 2009! Available photos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Donald_Trump. I vote the photo should be switched back. 5Q5 (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, look at Carly Fiorina or Jeb Bush. Hillary has an official portrait photo because she was office holder. I don't know why we would change it. -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, like Trump, Fiorina has never held political office. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I know I was talking about Hillary and I understand I wrote it badly. -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support switch back to 2011 photo, which serviced the article for a long time. (Arguments against are it doesn't show whites of his eyes, more current photos are available, and he looks smug. I don't see smug rather pleased/contented. Each photo option has its own plusses & drawbacks.) IHTS (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the middle picture above is best.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Beauty Pageant (picture needed)

The beauty pageants have been so important to Trump, that there should be an action picture of contestants on stage. Wikipedia readers would appreciate it; it would enhance the article. It would tell and show better the image of Donald Trump. -- AstroU (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would be. I think we need to get some consensus. Iady391 | Talk to me here 20:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We definitely don't need a shot of contestants on stage unless Trump is with them, and I doubt such a shot exists as a free image. Trump's brand extends through so many products that we can't possibly show an image of all of them. The images we do choose to show should be particularly relevant, and preferable include Trump in them. ~ Rob^Talk 20:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree, agreeing, and agreed. The picture can be of Trump with some of his beauty pageant contentants and/or winners with him. It will be good for him, for them, for readers, the article, and the Trump Campaign. Can someone do this? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, make him beautiful.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Orangutan

It is hard to summarise this incident in a comprehensible way, because the incident is rather strange. It appears Trump sued Bill Maher for breach of contract, not defamation. Hence the claim for $5 million. Therefore, quoting Trump saying, "It was venom", confuses this issue. It probably should also be made clear that Maher was making fun of Trump's attack on Obama.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The original text was incomprehensible as well as misleading, in ways unrelated to the legal basis of Trump's suit (which the sources used don't specify). IHTS (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it's probably still incomprehensible. I was mystified when I read the previous text, and edited it for clarification, and now it's been edited again. Reuters does say it's a contract issue, which is why he would be claiming $5m from Maher. If you don't know what the legal issue is, why are you claiming it is misleading? Are you worried that someone might think Trump was half-ape???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The text is a lot less incomprehensible after my copyedit. I don't know how the text got in the state it was before my copyedit (nor do I care). If Reuters says it was a contract issue, that makes sense, and that's great. At no time did I say the legal basis of the suit was misleading in the summary - I was referring to other things about the original text that were misleading (I didn't name those elements, I simply corrected them). I have no issue with adding mention about contract breach being legal basis of the suit - that probably would be a good improvement, as you earlier suggested. IHTS (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I added some context, the best I could do short of quoting Maher's joke at length (readers can get it from the story link). Better now? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I copyedited. But am wondering if Maher's add'l comments (the ones after his "what a joke is and what a contract is" comment) are superfluous to the story, increase length unnecessarily, and/or are even inappropriate for Trump's BLP. IHTS (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I think it's hard to summarise. I think Maher's comments provide some context for the lawsuit. As the defendant, his perspective is very relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Just how is calling Trump's attorneys morons, based on conjecturing they "don't know that apes & humans can't mate", providing "context for the lawsuit"? Maher's "perspective" was comedic. How much more (comedic insult) is needed from him in Trump's BLP? Where do you cut it off? (I suggested an appropriate cutoff above.) IHTS (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Maher is saying that his offer wasn't seriously intended (apes and humans can't mate) and hence Trump's lawsuit is baseless. This is a valid legal argument, not just a comedic insult. It counterbalances Trump's comment about venom, which implies the lawsuit is about defamation.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Trump on the Border

FoxNews just asked their frequent guest, Karl Rove, if the aggressive stance of Donald Trump will hurt or help the Republican image. Rove says he has a concern, "But first, let's go over some basics of his plan [crafted with Senator from Alabama, Jeff Sessions.] Rove then uses his familiar chalkboard, saying it is what other Republican candidates want also:

• Increase ICE
• Local law enforcement
• Deport Criminal Aliens
• E-Verify
• End Catch+Release
• Defund Sanctuary Cities
• Increase penalties w/visa-overstays.

I'll put this over to his WP "Trump Campaign" page. -- AstroU (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment (born in the USA) was discussed. Trump wants to keep families together by sending anchor babies back with their illegal-entry parents. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC) (US vs Wong is a tested constitutional right.)

See Birthright citizenship in the United States for more information on the concept. Please keep in mind that the term "Anchor baby" is considered to be a pejorative term for infant US citizens. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Main profile picture

I think the main profile picture should be changed.

If you look at all the other candidates, they have professional favorable pictures. This picture is slightly ugly and needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.224.215 (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

See above discussion. Iady391 | Talk to me here 22:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

As time goes on, perhaps the Trump Campaign can supply a good picture, like the cover of "Hollywood Reporter" appearing today on the DrudgeReport.com -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of good pictures, a simple google search bring them up:

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danschawbel/files/2011/10/donald-trump.jpg http://www.fixthisnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/trump.jpg

I don't understand what's taking so long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.224.215 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free for all people to read and use as they please, and that includes images. Which is why we can't just upload to Wikipedia any picture we like from media sources or the web. Copyright is a real thing, so every image here is donated by its owner (i.e. the photographer) and appropriately licensed for free and open use, with the understanding that it's no longer subject to copyright claims. Professional photographers are generally loathe to give away their work for nothing, which is why so many relatively prominent celebrities and media figures have (relatively) unflattering photos here, since they were snapped by fans with the wherewithal to upload them. The debate (above) is between the best donated images we currently have; if you click on any image, you can get more information on who took it and what license was agreed to. If YOU'VE taken a good picture of Trump, by all means, sign up for Wikipedia and upload it, or contact the photographer of an image you prefer and encourage them to do the same. Mr. Trump and his organization is free, of course, to improve the article by donating better images; we'd love to have images of a younger Trump, images of him with Miss USA contestants, etc. But they have to agree to donate them, with the understanding that Wikipedia's fair use license in turn allows anyone in the world to use the image (sourced to Wikipedia) as they please. Contrary to popular belief, there's no prohibition against someone improving his or her own article. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Vesuvius: that makes sense, I'll see what I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.224.215 (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Vesuvius Dogg (talk): If the Trump family, his friends, representatives, contractors, or employees want to edit any Trump-related article, then WP conflict of interest applies. "COI editing is strongly discouraged.". . .If a conflicted person elects to proceed, then: "The Wikipedia Foundation's terms of use require editors to disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any contribution for which they receive, or expect to receive, compensation.". . .and "Editors with a COI who are not being paid are advised to declare their interest too if they involve themselves with affected articles." They are encouraged to donate media files for articles as a non-controversial way to participate. The WP:COI article gives all the details in dealing with this situation as well as info on the public relations code of ethics. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Mea culpa, you are absolutely right, I was thinking narrowly in the sense of photography but obviously expressed myself quite poorly in that last sentence. I should have said, as you did, that editors with a connection to their subject have a self-disclosure obligation. THANK YOU for re-directing the thread to the specific WP policy. (On a related note, I do think Wikipedia needs to encourage more photographers who are currently unaware of our needs and the various copyright license hurdles. I recently helped bring American Pharoah to FA status, thinking the whole time there are probably thousands of fan images out there with the potential to improve the article further. How to get them?) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If I were Mr Trump, I would be ashamed of the current picture, where he by the way looks like a zombie preparing to eat some brains. The Donald will be hosting more events so try to take another one and contribute it to Wikipedia. Also I suggest to check Flickr (search under All creative commons but check if the license is right anyway) there are many pictures of Donald Trump. Edit: Picture was changed. — Itsyoungrapper (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

A bad pic choice in more than one way. IHTS (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No one would like any picture that gets used, some want him looking smuggy, some want him looking younger some want him looking less yellow..we can't please everyone..I preferred the previous pic, it was the best image we had of him where he wasn't making a stupid face, the current picture is fine, don't expect those "professional" pics, they are only for actual politicians running in the elections..generally people who starts threads with "Picture should be changed " are always anons who have NO IDEA how wikimedia and image licensing work..its best to ignore them because ALL of them think we can just pic a good picture off the internet and use it..its not that easy..--Stemoc 02:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think people want a picture that doesn't look like Trump. A good hair day.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Donald Trump is interviewed by HollywoodReporter and is asked about his wife.

Headline-1: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine"

• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/donald-trump-murdoch-ailes-nbc-816131

QUOTE: When will you get Melania out there talking about you? "Pretty soon. She wants to do it. She is a very confident person. You've seen her on The View, and you've seen her on different shows. Larry King. You've seen her being interviewed. She's got a great style, and she would be an amazing first lady with heart." -- AstroU (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine

• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/donald-trump-murdoch-ailes-nbc-816131

QUOTE: "What would Melania care about as first lady?" She would care very much about women's issues. We're talking about mostly medical issues but women's issues. She was very strong on that with me the other day. Ivanka and Melania said, "You're not getting fairly treated on your feeling toward women." My mother was this incredible woman. I have known incredible women. I have many women executives, frankly, that are better than my men executives. I pay them the same or more." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

The article in Hollywood Reporter[1] is amazing!
FYI, here are a few (from the many) issues he answered:

• The FCC and net neutrality
• Do you regret the Rosie O'Donnell "pig" answer?
• Is Ronald Reagan your model? [No.]
• Your remarks on Mexicans and illegal immigration.
• Your comments about women have been called sexist.
• On abortion,
• On gay marriage. Have you been to a gay wedding?
• This is a dead issue for the GOP at this point?
• What media do you consume?
• Do you believe in legislating equal pay?
• How do you view Hillary right now? [Answer: Hillary has problems far greater than the nomination]
• Anyone in the GOP primary race you'd consider as your vice president?
• Whose side are you on in Deflategate — Tom Brady or Roger Goodell?

On Tom Brady: Tom is an unbelievable guy. He's a very good friend of mine. I have his number right here someplace. Whatever. Here, look, he just called me. (He holds up a Post-it that says "Tom Brady's New Cell #.")
-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- The many, many issues in the interview will be great for editing this article.

Who is Mayer?

Under the Legal affairs sections, paragraph twelve, in the discussion of his filing against Bill Maher, it says: "I don't think he was joking", Trump said. "He said it with venom."[196] Mayer replied that Trump needed to learn the difference between "what a joke is and what a contract is". My question is who is this person, "Mayer"? Not even a gender is implied. This is the only place in the article the name appears. Do the authors mean "Maher" or has something been deleted that would have provided context for the identity of this person? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wordreader: It was intended to be Maher; I've corrected the typo. Thanks for pointing it out. ~ Rob^Talk 08:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Too many orangutans typing.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The typo was mine. (Should I be laughing?) IHTS (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Vaccination

In the section on politics there is a sourced statement that seems to have little to do with politics: "Statements of Trump's hinting that vaccination would cause autism were subject to criticism in various media by the scientific community." Belief in fringe theories is not political in nature. Should this be in another section? Dimadick (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

They are in the context of general science-denying. That generally does fit into politics and is relevant to that section. In this particular case, government agencies regulate medicines and vaccines, and his stance to ignore scientific proof against vaccines causing autism is relevant as he's seeking office as the chief executive overseeing them. Did you have a better place for this information in mind? ~ Rob^Talk 13:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2015

Trump and Melania divorced early August 2015. They decide it was best for both of them, because Melania couldnt take the stress of the presidential campaign.

75.89.161.114 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done - Please provide a source. - MrX 16:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal of a new picture

Hi, this is my proposal for new picture of Donald Trump for the header. I would like to start a discussion about this topic.

So the question is: Shall this be a new picture for the header of Donald Trump?

Thank you and I'm excited for your opinions! — Itsyoungrapper (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't look presidential enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm adding a cropped version above, which I think works quite well. Bluntly, it doesn't have to look presidential. He's not president. Either way, this is better than the image we currently have in the infobox. Support using this image over the current one. ~ Rob^Talk 11:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep current image or the one before it..whatever we do, he will always look like an over cooked potato..I'm seriously against using images of him making odd faces or smugs..--Stemoc 12:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you not see the faces you linked as odd? The first one has mouth open and eyes cast away from the camera. The second one has him looking sideways (emphasizing a double chin that he usually doesn't appear to have) and again, mouth open. I would classify those both as odd, whereas the currently suggested pic has a fairly neutral expression directed more-or-less at the camera. ~ Rob^Talk 13:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rob, This is Donald Trump looking straight, little bit angry and resolutely. In both previous pictures he's in mid-speech and has big bags under eyes. All Candidates for president in 2016 have good pictures.

Support, that's my decision we should change the picture. -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose proposed and present pictures with blue background, not because the background is blue but because the following new pic is much more suitable. It seems that the following newly available image is an improvement, as the subject is facing forward and looking forward in June 2015. Moreover, this is a deliberate posed photograph rather than a live-action shot, and so the subject is not in mid-speech or reacting to anything in particular.

Trump posing for photo in June 2015

Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• You do realise this image is "grainy" right? its possible to fix many things and flaws with images but its actually impossible to fix a grainy image...--Stemoc 16:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  I do realize that the technical quality is less than the pics having the blue background, but on balance it's preferable for the reasons I described.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  He looks particularly constipated in this picture. ~ Rob^Talk 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  I am presently checking to see about getting a higher-quality image from the same event. He looks kind of ill in the pictures with the blue background, though, and I prefer constipation to illness.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  I have consulted an expert who has now smoothed out the graininess of the picture above (with bow tie). Honestly, I think this pic is now vastly superior to the ones with the blue background.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  I think that dark background on white Wikipedia will be weird. I think the best proposal is the first one. -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  "He looks particularly constipated in this picture"< lol true, more reason to use it then :p.. anyhow, i have created a few crops myself cause if we are going to use a shitty image in the end, i'll try to make sure its the best shitty image we could use (lol)..people should accept the fact that the Donald is now fat thus the fat bag of ..well fats under his chin..he pays people to come to his conventions lol and photographers to take good pics of him (photoshopped ofcourse) ..Wikipedia doesn't have to do that, we can use his real images without worrying about it ..I created alternate for 2 of the images above.....if someone can shoop out the shield from this pic without compromising the quality of the image, I think this is better that the one where he looks constipated....I have also added a Higher quality and fixed version of the currently proposed image incase people want to compare ...I still prefer the currently used image though, or the one from March..--Stemoc 08:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Stemoc: I fear that guys like you are the reason Wikipedia continues to held in such low regard in many quarters as a reputable encyclopedic source, despite the efforts of so many other sincere and good-faith Wikipedia editors. Your sophomoric drivel above --- filled with terminology describing photo-images of this article's subject as: "constipated", "shitty image", "over cooked potato" and "fat bag", and your remarks like: "i'll (sic) try to make sure its the best shitty image we could use (lol)" --- should tell you something about the quality and level of your work, and really tells the rest of us more about you yourself, and your intentions here, than it does about the photos of Donald Trump --- and there are those of us that don't just think of Wikipedia as a good place for indulging in a bunch of "lol" fun-and-games. . . . You might also want to take a just a quick peek at Wikipedia:BLP and POV. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry Mr Professor of bullshit that I'm the ONLY ONE HERE making sure that we do not use a POOR IMAGE of Donald Trump on his article..If you want what the other s above are offering, then go TAKE it.. I'm NOT the blind one here, I have added thousands of great images for people on this wiki, even begged fora few god images only for idiots like you to appear and attack me and show no respect..You want them to use an image that makes him look "constipated" or a "shitty image" or one that makes him look like an "over cooked potato" or a "fat bag" theh go for it, Support whatever crappy images those guys's above are proposing cause they are the one here who do not care what image gets used on that article. .I DO.oh and i'm deleting your shit off my page oh and another lesson for you, WP:TEMPLAR ..--Stemoc 10:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you to not participate on any article related to Donald Trump because you do NOT fullfil criteria for editing it. Please read WP:NPOV. Best regards, -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a revised image. This is a slightly different pose:

Revised

Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm tardy to this party, but I don't see what's wrong with the image being used right now. There's more important things to worry about than an image that might or might not be "better" than the one currently in use. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking off to the side, facing away from article text, appears tired and half-asleep, mouth open but appears to have no teeth and left dentures at home, poor lighting of neck and collar, bags under eyes, shoulders askew, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Good points. File:Donald August 19 (cropped).jpg looks good to me, but I've already proven I have zero knowledge on the art of photography. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the proposed picture. -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I know, I'm supporting it. It might be silly reasoning, but I feel the suit and tie is a more appropriate look than the tux, because it's a more common wardrobe choice. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Break

• Guys, I just took it upon myself to touch up the proposed picture from the top of this section. I lightened the bags under his eyes, removed the microphone and fixed the over-saturation. Anythingyouwant has been working with me at the Photography Workshop to come up with a substitution, but it's been difficult fix the graininess of the other photos. If anyone has specific requests for further modification that might get you to vote for the proposed image, just post them here and I'll see what I can do. This argument seems to be getting a bit out of hand, and as a fellow Wikipedian, I just want to see this get resolved. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Thanks again, and please note that your work on the bowtie pic has not been entirely in vain; it's just below the infobox in this article (for now).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's good to see. As I said, if there are any requests for it, you can leave them here or leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get to it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Good job and thanks! I think this is the best picture we have! Should we put it to the infobox? -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the cropped original is the best option we have right now. This is a matter of personal taste, but the tuxedo picture looks stiff and somewhat smug to me. The parted lips are also odd. I prefer the original suggestion. ~ Rob^Talk 20:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If the bowtie pic (currently in the "series" box below the infobox) is left where it is, then I will not object to the second image in this section as the new top image, for now. Better pics will very likely become available, but that one is a big improvement over the one that's there now. I think the bowtie pic is the best, but at least it will be used in the "series" box.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The color saturation seems to be a bit intense in the current profile pic. IHTS (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's because someone went here and reverted the image that we all agreed to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I see. (Thanks.) IHTS (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not think the microphone s/ have been removed from this photo. (It's unnecessary doctoring, and puts the shot out of context - e.g. the tilt of his head etc. could be directly related to.) There are at least two other presidential candidate articles with microphone in their lead pic (Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore). IHTS (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

My experience has been that such microphones are removed from lead images unless they actually are blocking part of the subject's face, as in the Carly Fiorina article. The Jim Gilmore microphone is barely noticeable, and so not comparable to the obtrusive one that's been removed here. But the Chris Christie microphone is similar. I would not object if both are removed, or both are not removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know from where you draw that experience, I still think it is a wrong idea. (Trump may be listening to a questioner in the current pic, in anticipation of responding into the mic. Removing the mic shoves such pic details out of context. The positives of that doctoring are outweighed by its negatives.) IHTS (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you've persuaded me. The microphone ought to be restored, but the desaturation should not be withdrawn. Unfortunately, an editor at the image page has restored the microphone plus the over-saturation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. (Restore mic, fix over-saturation.) IHTS (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Which pic do you think is most appropriate, IHTS? By the way, here's a new one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In 2013

Unsure. (I'd acclamated to the orig 2011 image. Bowtie image, no. March image with mic, OK.) But I know I don't like your crop, the composition before your crop was more natural (as is Stemoc's below). IHTS (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As i said in my previous post, I had already created a better crop for the proposed picture which is File:Donald Trump August 19 2015.jpg without compromising the quality and the value of the image, microphones are ok as long as its in front of the speaker and the picture isn't focused on it ....again, this is futile, a month from now, the image will be changed again for invalid reasons..My support still stands for the current image or the one from March.--Stemoc 01:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the current one to the March one. I like your crop except my crop omits more of the microphone. I think we both did a good job desaturating it, so I could live with either one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but then it adds more blue background which is unnecessary....you can literally now "photoshop" a Halo over his head and call him an angel ..lol...I prefer to make good high quality crops thus why it looks better even though the microphone is in view but as i mentioned above, microphones are fine just as long as they don't distort the person's face which was a flaw in the March image , the only flaw and it was fixed accordingly...--Stemoc 05:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes on crop, but saturation still seems a tad over-done. (His blue tie is virtually neon.) IHTS (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The tie he wore that day wasn't just blue, it was shiny, quite possibly intentional as he was standing in light which made it shine like neon..I actually own a similar tie ;) ..it kinda glows when light is focused on it ..--Stemoc 02:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't have mentioned the tie. It's all relative. The blue background is too brilliant (at least on my computer). The color intensity would be improved by toning down a notch. IHTS (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In this set of two pics, I just re-cropped the pic on the left.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

He is actually standing in front of a background which is dimly lit thus making him look a bit too dark, i had to 'light it up' but anyways, i have reduced the intensity a bit, should be ok now..--Stemoc 04:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone, Thanks for using my pictures! There is more on my Flickr page. I have a few Trump albums. Google Michael Vadon Flickr. Keep in mind, you an alter certain things such as the color balance, white balance, lighting, brighten, darken etc. However, it is not an accepted practice to alter the actual person in the shot. Up above I saw where someone had "Photoshopped" an image of Trump and had smoothed the wrinkles out on his face. Smoothing the wrinkles out is not an accepted practice in journalism or historical shots. We want to see the historical figures exactly as they were.

Thanks again everyone! Michael Vadon MichaelVadon (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this page being hacked or something?

So I look at this age now and I see "Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table. Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table. Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table. Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table." all over the place. Even in this discussion page. Is all OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrincodi (talk • contribs) 00:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw it someplace else also. It appears it is a problem with the software, not something to do with this page. -- GB fan 00:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:VPT#Script error?. -- GB fan 00:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Father's fake ancestry claim

A recent edit summary says: "restored quote about claiming Swedish ancestry, which seems important, as Trump continues to promote The Art of the Deal which claims Swedish ancestry; unflattering, but can we discuss this at Talk before deleting again?" But the edit does not discuss any claim by Donald Trump of Swedish ancestry, and instead discusses a claim by Trump's father. I have no objection to well-sourced material about The Art of the Deal and any claims made therein (or elsewhere) by Donald Trump. I do object to making this BLP a repository about the sins (or attributes) of his father.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your "sins of the father" argument. It's quite possible Trump (born in 1946) grew up believing his father's assertions that the family came from Sweden. As you point out, however, his 1987 claim to be Swedish in The Art of the Deal is independent of his father's biography. I took out the quote from a cousin and simply paraphrased from the Fred Trump obit, which provides what seems to me a necessary context (that his father said the family was Swedish). This seems like better NPOV, as there's nothing here about pretending not to be German or the family's apparent business rationale behind it. Better? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. I tweaked it a little.[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Much clearer. For what it's worth, Friedrich Drumpf is not mentioned by name in The Art of the Deal but is identified only as Fred's "father, who came here from Sweden as a child" (see ref). Does the article now imply that Trump mentioned Friedrich Drumpf by name? I can live with the copy as is, but tweak if you want. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If we were quoting The Art of the Deal then it would matter a great deal whether we say "Freidrich Drumpf" as opposed to "father's father" or "paternal grandfather", but since we're not quoting, and since they're all the same person, we should be okay. Since the paragraph in this Wikipedia article previously refers to "Friedrich Drumpf", it's seems clearest to keep referring to him as such later in the paragraph. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, just wanted you to know Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ages at marriage

Trumps and wife's ages at marriage was recently added. Is this really that noteworthy? This is covered in less than 1% of bios?? Was there any controversy over this? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:Malerooster Their 24 year age difference was considered noteworthy enough for TIME magazine, The Los Angeles Times, and similar media outlets to devote stories to it. Recent profiles of Melania, contemplating her role as First Lady, include the age of both spouse and wife. I think the current Wikipedia wording of "Trump, who was 58, and Knauss, then 34, were married in Palm Beach in .. [etc]" strikes a neutral rather than judgmental tone, is in keeping with contemporary coverage, and draws no specific attention to their age difference. Given that the issue has received significant mainstream press, how do you suggest we handle it? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"draws no specific attention to their age difference", of course it does, by mentioning it. I still don't see this as that noteworthy or controversial. What do others think? --Malerooster (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It was noteworthy enough for major media to report it. Like you, I'm not arguing that it's controversial. That's what I mean when I say I'm drawing no specific attention to their age difference, i.e. no wording of "he's 24 years older", just their ages. I'd like to hear others weigh in. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It's good. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

German

please change ((German)) fuhrer Adolf Hitler to ((Germany|German)) fuhrer Adolf Hitler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.154.175.89 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 1 September 2015‎

•  Done -- GB fan 16:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Why can everyone not read?

If one looks at the Trump quotation from the campaign announcement, there is no reference to "illegal immigrants". He simply says "Mexicans."

"When Mexico sends their people..." does not equal "When Mexico sends their illegal people"

Also, "illegals" is a highly offensive term to most. We wouldn't write "wetbacks" in a Wikipedia article to refer, let's not use other terms groups regard as slurs.

Do we even call murderers "illegals" because they have broken the law? No. Please stop spreading your hate on Wikipedia. We are merely neutrally trying to report what the man said. He did not say "illegals" in the quote. Please read the full quotation (carefully this time!): "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Close reading is a wonderful skill.

And as an aside, the remarks would still be offensive even if I granted you your false characterization, that Trump said "illegal Mexicans", which most clearly he did not. Do you think just because someone has broken a loosely enforced migration law they deserve to be compared to drug dealers and rapists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 September 2015‎

Please sign your posts (wp:sign). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC) PS: I disagee with your positions.

I also disagree with Kingshowman. (More like POV/OR ranting, however, than discussable "positions".) p.s. Yes, Kingshowman, I can read. Can you? IHTS (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What's it like being an illiterate neo-nazi? You've not given any indication you have read the original quote which does not anywhere contain the word "illegal". Reading will get much easier once you learn how. It's quite clear that you're a racist with little to no reading skills or ability to comprehend written prose, as idiot uneducated xenophobe nationalists like yourself tend to be. You'd think one holocaust would be enough for people not to run lovingly to the demagogue who promises to send the foreigns back where they came from by force, but apparently idiocy blooms eternal. Learn how to read, and stop being a racist who falls for the first demagogue to pander to your white nationalist frenzy. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.70.82 (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm illiterate, I don't understand those big words. (Could you append a translation please, preferably from your parental guardian, therapist, or warden?) IHTS (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. You're a pathetic racist who supports an openly xenophobic presidential candidate in 2015 and sadly edits his Wikipedia article to make sure that nothing bad is said about his hero who wants to forcibly deport 13 million Human beings from the country. You're a sad, sick human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B41F:96C3:1C3A:DF49:D9B6:971F (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place for the exchange of insults. It would be worthwhile to clarify the context of the comment. Trump does not say in the quote he is talking about illegal (or "undocumented") immigrants. It's unclear who he means. He talks about the people that Mexico sends. Well, Mexico doesn't send anyone (much). His comments (as quoted here) could equally apply to legal migrants.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jack!! This was my point precisely. Contra what the Ill-informed and non-neutral editor who edited trump's comments to suit their point of view would like to be the case, Trump's comments quite clearly do not say that he is specifically referring to "illegal" or "undocumented" workers, yet this editor has decided based on absolutely nothing that he must only by referring to "undocumented Mexican immigrants" when the original quotation has no such reference. "When Mexico sends their people..." Where precisely is the qualifier that is so insisted upon? Any reasonable interpretation of these remarks indicates he is speaking of all Mexican immigrants and not specifically singling out the undocumented ones for opprobrium. There is no qualifier. Read the quote and tell me where the qualifier is. Anyone who knows how to read can see this; ergo anyone who cannot see that there is no "qualifier" in Trump's comments is no more than an illiterate and should leave Wikipedia and return to the nearest elementary school at once. Such reference disgustingly slanders "documented" and "undocumented" Mexicans as "rapists" and "drug dealers" equally. (Redacted). This is why Trump lost hundreds of millions of dollars in business contracts over the comments. This was surely exactly why it was asked "why can everyone not read?" It is good to see that the ancient art of reading is not yet totally dead. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B41F:96C3:1C3A:DF49:D9B6:971F (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)