Talk:Donald Trump

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Rape lawsuit

Given the potentially contentious nature of these accusations, I'm not going to add this to the article myself, but I think there ought to be a discussion here on the talk page over whether and how the subject of this lawsuit should be covered in the article. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuit exists. But, it doesn't appear to have been picked up by reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

At least at this point, this is very fringe and poorly-sourced. It does not belong in this bio.- MrX 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing "fringe" about it. It's simply not notable at all so far and thus we keep it out per BLP.--TMCk (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It is fringe in that is only being covered by QUESTIONABLE sources, outside of the mainstream.- MrX 22:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No. There is indeed a lawsuit and the allegation is officially out there. It certainly isn't enough for inclusion tho.--TMCk (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

[ http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

We seem to all be coming to the same conclusion.:)Objective3000 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. :) Either that or we are really all sockpuppets of Randy in Boise... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuit has now been covered by Lisa Bloom of The Huffington Post [1]. The article is marked as a blog post, though the author is a noted columnist and civil rights attorney, so it probably meets our reliability and verifiability criteria per WP:NEWSBLOG. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

An opinion piece on a blog which makes no attempt to be unbiased does not satisfy WP:BLP. WP:REDFLAG specifically states that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". When multiple mainstream media (not blogs) give coverage and analysis, then it might be fit for inclusion (keeping WP:UNDUE in mind as well). Right now nobody is talking about it, so it would be a BLP violation to put it in the article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's going to get in, and there's no unbiased editorial oversight on this BLP subject. So much worse is on its way... Doc talk 07:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, admins who attempt to keep this subject "neutral" will themselves be further "subjugated". So get on board before it's too late. Doc talk 07:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Further, non-blog, non-opinion coverage is now available from Uproxx (What You Should Know About The Child Rape Case Against Donald Trump), Complex (How the Child Rape Lawsuit Against Trump Could Hurt His and Clinton’s Campaigns) and Democracy Now! (Trump Faces Lawsuit Accusing Him of Raping 13-Year-Old Girl). I'm not terribly familiar with the first two sources, but the third is definitely reliable. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we are anywhere near the level of coverage that would support including something like this. All we actually know is that a civil lawsuit has been filed, and that fact has not been picked up by mainstream sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Aren't lawsuits themselves notable?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Only if they get significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Lawsuits are very common, especially against Trump. At this moment there are many, many civil suits pending involving Trump. There have been 1,300 people suing him and 1,900 people being sued by him over the past 30 years, including 70 new cases in the past year, at least 50 of which are still active. [2] These are from his real estate, construction, and other business dealings. Subcontractors saying they weren't paid, this kind of thing. None of them rate a mention here. This (suspiciously timed) lawsuit is getting a little coverage, but not currently at the level or from the sources that would make it notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) is totally biased against Trump. Reliable? Funny. IHTS (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Tired rehash of "Remember when X raped and murdered a 13 year old girl?" Completely unreliable and unsuitable per WP:RS and WP:BLPCRIME. It would need significant coverage, on the order of Bill Cosby's allegations to be added. --DHeyward (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to this, by any chance? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I found two sources that seem to pass the test: the the International Business Times (which is generally regarded as mainstream and reliable), and Sputnik (owned by the Russian government, which is hardly biased against Trump; Putin and Trump are rather chummy, in fact). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as impressive enough for a BLP. If it hits a couple of major U.S. reliable news sources, it could be included with great care. It's very delicate material. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

U.S. sources? That seems really very biased. International sources should hold more weight when considering notability of something happening in the U.S., I would say, by indicating international attention is being paid to the matter. (this doesn't indicate my opinion on inclusion, just commenting on the U.S. vs. international coverage sub-thread) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

IBTimes does not agree that it "is generally regarded as mainstream", FiredanceThroughTheNight. See IBT Media, 2015 Media Kit: "Why do we exist? International Business Times aims to help the development of the global economy ... by closely following market trends and key events that are not necessarily covered by mainstream media..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, The Guardian is certainly mainstream and reliable, although whether it is biased or not is another question. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that comment about IBTimes is playing with words. They do not say they are not mainstream media. We also have News.com.au [3], the Independent [4], the Daily Mail UK [5], the Daily Mirror [6], the Daily Beast [7], AOL [8] etc. It just seems that the US media is largely ignoring the story. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I came here to see if there was any more information about the lawsuit and was really surprised that it wasn't included already. It is very relevant and there are multiple sources, so why isn't it in? Neosiber (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Unlike with criminal cases, there is no real bar to filing a civil suit. The subject of this suit is particularly sensational. And according to this source there are some valid concerns about whether the case is legitimate.CFredkin (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but why not mention it with caveats? Plenty of reputable news sources have.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I did already add a mention of Johnson's lawsuit to Jeffrey Epstein's article (he was also accused in the lawsuit). It doesn't seem to have stirred up any controversy, either. One would think that because Epstein is already a convicted sex offender, the barrier for inclusion of any further accusations should be much lower. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: Several hours ago, another woman (Jill Harth) also went public with sexual assault accusations against Trump. Unlike Johnson, Harth was not a minor at the time. See [9] and [10]. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously that's not as important as the size of his signature...--Jack Upland (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Do not include, unless it gets a lot more widespread coverage than it has now. Currently it is being reported by a few foreign sources, a few not-exactly-neutral domestic sources, and lawnewz.com which broke the story. This is not enough coverage to include something with BLP implications like this. Maybe it will get there, if Trump fights back strongly (a practice which tends to attract more coverage than the original accusation). But a civil suit, from more than 20 years ago, withdrawn a few weeks after it was filed? Not enough. (Even if the coverage does increase it will be hard to present this information neutrally. The incidents supposedly happened in 1993. She filed a lawsuit four years later, 1997, in the midst of a separate business-related lawsuit by her partner against Trump; and she dropped her suit a few weeks later, after the partner's suit was settled. This is according to the Guardian. I don't know about you, but I find this timing sufficiently questionable to affect her credibility.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to us to act as detective and assess the credibility of allegations. I also don't see the problem with "foreign" sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Another update: Robert Morrow (Texas politician), the chairman of the Travis County, TX Republican Party, has publicly expressed belief in the allegations and withdrawn his support of Trump as a result, instead switching to Gary Johnson. This is already mentioned in Morrow's article. Given that Morrow was actually compared to Trump in the media following his election, this is somewhat ironic. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable and big stuff : i'll include it myself. Jombagale (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Jombagale, your addition has been reverted and revdelled. Add anything like that again and you will be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but i may add that case, in a good manner and with sources. Ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jombagale (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Jombagale, you can add the allegation if consensus exists. You cannot treat the alleged rape as a fact (which is what you did). I strongly advise you to make sure any contentious info you add has consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see consensus here for adding a reference to this subject.CFredkin (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a coherent response to the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, NeilN, etc, could we do something about the personal attacks on this page please? It makes for a toxic environment. Cheers. _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I will try to avoid provocative comments since it is offending people.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The comment wasn't directed at you (although the PA was). I already gave the offender a warning.--TMCk (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I think I provoked the offending comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Housing discrimination case

@CFredkin: You removed this sentence from the article: According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." - because you said the source, a book by a former employee, was unreliable. Let me suggest the following sources instead: The Washington Post, The New York Times, The U.S. Justice Department. Those are enough to make a large section, but I think we can get by with a sentence or two. That is, unless you think it deserves a larger airing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The suit was settled without a finding of guilt on the part of the Trump Organization, and there is no evidence that Trump himself was personally involved. I believe this sort of content is usually covered as a footnote.CFredkin (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Objection, Your Honor! The term "colored" is found in the Post story but not in the Times story or the Justice Department press release (which relates to "emotional-support animals"). Also, a Justice Department press release generally isn't used as a reliable source. (For a major exception, see WP:SPS regarding data compilations.)

In this case, plaintiff Justice Department's position was never upheld by a court; and the Post mentions that it was never upheld by a court. So we'd have to include that clarification in our article.

In common-law countries like the U.S. (not France), one attorney's allegations are as authoritative as another attorney's -- including a government attorney's. Here, defendant Trump's attorney made allegations about the plaintiff, and the Post reported them. So we'd have no reason not to include at least one of them in our article too. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

As a short-term compromise, we could (and probably should!) cite the Times article as a source for the material about Trump's having received prominent media exposure for decades. (One of the captions says, "Readers of The Times have known him for 42 years.") --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason not to report what the Justice Department said. Certainly it is only an allegation but that is how we report it. TFD (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No offense, TFD, but the reason we never report allegations as being more than allegations has nothing to do with WP:V...

There seem to be three questions here. (1) Should we act as a 'conduit' for the claim that was alleged? (2) If so, should we act as a conduit for the counterclaim that was alleged? (3) And if so, should we mention that neither the claim nor the counterclaim was upheld by a court?

For the reasons given, I would say "no"; "(if so, yes)"; and "(if so, yes)". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We decide whether anything belongs in Wikipedia by WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Multiple WP:RSs have reported the Justice Department allegations, so it's a significant viewpoint and according to WP:WEIGHT should be fairly represented in the article.

So according to Wikipedia policies your answer to question (1) is "Yes."

Also according to WP:WEIGHT we are required to represent all sides.

So according to Wikipedia policies your answer to question (2) is "Yes."

I assume Trump's advocates have said in some WP:RS that the claim wasn't upheld in court.

So according to Wikipedia policies your answer to question (3) is "Yes."

(BTW, most lawsuits are settled without a judicial determination in the courts. WP:RSs regularly report the allegations made in court. Using court records is a complete defense against libel. I would like to know any Wikipedia policies that excludes them.)--Nbauman (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You brought up an important point, Nbauman: "Using court records is a complete defense against libel." True in some states -- but not in others.

"The media can be liable for the republication of a libelous statement made by another person or entity but quoted in a news article... Just because someone else said it does not mean that a news organization cannot be sued for republishing it..."

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The First Amendment Handbook.

Here's my personal read on Trump's viewpoint, based on the Post and Times stories:

"'What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black,' Trump wrote." Trump reportedly believed that renting to welfare cases would cause his mostly lower- and middle-income tenants (both white and black) to flee. But he was "satisfied that the agreement did not 'compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant'." --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, no offense taken, but I never mentioned V. Certainly we should not report anything unless it is sourced but whether we report it depends on weight. Mentioning an allegation is not the same thing as acting as a conduit for it, unless we state the allegation as fact. We have articles for example about conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, but that does not mean we endorse them. TFD (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

True, we're not endorsing them, TFD, just mentioning them. But that in itself can amount to republishing. From AP, Legal Principles of Publication:

"Liability for republication: the 'conduit' fallacy.- A common misconception is that one who directly quotes a statement containing libelous allegations is immune from suit so long as the quoted statement was actually made, accurately transcribed, and clearly attributed to the original speaker. This is not so."

When we were children, we understood this principle intuitively (as it applies to retelling slanderous allegations about other children). It takes a semester or two of expository writing to make us forget.

Happily, the principle does not apply here (as far as I know). No need to call Saul!!! --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I brought up libel, since it's turned into a distraction. But you have quoted selectively from the First Amendment Handbook:

Fair report

Libelous statements made by others in certain settings often are conditionally privileged if the reporter, in good faith, accurately reports information of public interest. This privilege usually applies to material from official meetings such as judicial proceedings, legislative hearings, city council meetings and grand jury deliberations. In most states, accurate reports of arrests, civil and criminal trials and official statements made to, by and about law enforcement officials are privileged....

Wikipedia rules and guidelines as I stated above say that anything that is reported by multiple WP:RSs belongs in the article, along with opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia rules and guidelines govern, not your personal opinion of fairness or whether "allegations" belong. Allegations belong in Wikipedia if they are repeated by multiple WP:RSs. You have not shown that the deletion is justified under Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

Roy Cohen in his press statements, by ignoring the significant Justice Department charges, deceptively made it look as if the issue was discrimination against welfare recipients, rather than discrimination against blacks. The way this entry is edited now, we also deceptively make it look as if the issue was welfare recipients, not blacks. To stop being deceptive, we must state the main charges against Trump: That he discriminated against blacks.

I think we have a consensus to restore it. Is there anyone other than User:Dervorguilla who wants to delete it? If so, explain how that decision is jusitfied by Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Otherwise I'm going to put it back. --13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nbauman, you said: "We ... deceptively make... To stop being deceptive, we must state ..." I for one categorically deny your accusation that I or the other editors here have been deceiving people.

"You have quoted selectively from the First Amendment Handbook". Good point. I should have expanded the quote to include related material from the "Fair Report" section:

Fair report. In most states, accurate reports of ... trials ... are privileged. Reports of this nature must be accurate and fair in order for the reporter to invoke the fair-report privilege...

Not just accurate. Accurate and fair.

And as you observed, the information must be reported "in good faith". Here the term "good-faith" excludes conduct that "violates community standards of ... fairness or reasonableness". Black's Law Dictionary. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The housing case is more fully covered at Legal affairs of Donald Trump. See WP:Summary style. Therefore, we don't need to list all the details here about things he was never found guilty of. So it appears that CFredkin and myself are two additional editors who think this is inappropriate for the main text of this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't have consensus yet. Here is what used to be in the article: Trump initially came to public attention in 1973 when the Trump Organization was accused by the Justice Department of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings. According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." The question is whether to include the second sentence; we still have the first sentence, which says the Justice Department sued the Trumps for fair housing violations. That may be enough; if we are going to go on to detail what Justice said, we would also have to detail what the Trumps said and the item would become overly long. After reading the extensive discussion here, I think we should keep just the first sentence, and replace the book source with one of the sources I listed at the beginning of this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree. But, of course, we can't say that he was accused without indicating that there was never any conviction (Trump settled the charges in 1975 without admitting guilt).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We could add "the case was settled out of court". I think (without taking the time to look) that the sources I proposed do say that much. If people want more detail than that, they can go the "legal cases" article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, reporting allegations made in official court records is not libellous. Newspapers routinely report criminal charges made against people before final judgment. As a general rule, we are fairly safe using mainstream media as sources, because they take great care to avoid libel. TFD (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

True, they report when charges are filed, before the case is closed. But AFTER the case is closed, they generally mention the outcome as well as the charges. The sources I listed above all say the case was settled. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In scientific articles, WP:NOTJOURNAL applies: "While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links"

I think the same rule applies in articles like this. You know that most readers will not follow the links, either to a footnote with expanded text or to a "Legal affairs of Donald Trump" article (which is a WP:POVFORK if you remove all the unfavorable information in the original article and move it to the forked article.)

It's not enough to say that "the Trump Organization was accused by the Justice Department of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings," without also giving the specific violations: "the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." That's a serious charge -- not offering apartments to black people. These specific violations are supported by multiple WP:RS, which is the criteria for including information in a Wikipedia article. The fact that the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks is important information. This was the underlying violation. If you don't know that you don't know what the case was about. It's misleading to talk about the welfare issue without revealing that the original charge was for refusing to rent to black people. If you're so worried about becoming overly long then take out the reference to welfare recipients. --Nbauman (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

" The fact that the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks is important information". The thing is, that is NOT a fact - it is an allegation. Denied by the Trumps, and never established as fact in a court of law. At the very least, if we include the disputed sentence, we should also add a sentence saying "The Trumps strongly denied the accusations, and the case was settled out of court." --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now I see the sentence you are referring to. I missed it earlier. It follows the others and says "Trump opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, and has set a goal of "destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting procedures can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.),[33] Trump settled the charges in 1975 without admitting guilt, saying he was satisfied that the agreement did not "compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant."[34]" With that already in the article, we certainly could include Justice's allegations. Both or neither. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, are you saying that we should not mention the allegations of not renting to blacks after the case is settled, even though the allegations were announced by the Justice Department, are in the public record, and were (and still are) widely reported in WP:RS?

What reason under Wikipedia rules and guidelines do you have for not including them?

For Wikipedia, the criteria for including a fact is that it has been widely reported in WP:RS. That's one of the Five Pillars WP:5P2 of Wikipedia. "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

What about the Bill Cosby case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby#Sexual_assault_allegations Most of that is allegations that were not resolved in court and settled. Should Wikipedia eliminate all the Bill Cosby allegations? --Nbauman (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I am saying that we can include the Justice allegation sentence, provided we also have the "Trump denial and out of court settlement" sentence. We currently do have that sentence, so I would support restoring the Justice allegations (with a better source). --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, here's the sentence at issue: "the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored.""

This has been reported by multiple WP:RSs.

I think that sentence belongs in the article, because of the multiple WP:RS. Do you object? --Nbauman (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually the sentence at issue is " According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."". I agree with including it as long as the bolded portion is also included. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I object to including it because the place for such stuff that was never proved and never admitted is (if anywhere at Wikipedia) at Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Lots of people have accused Trump of lots of things, but I think this main biography does not have room for the accusations that didn't pan out. Just like counterpart Democratic BLPs. The goal here has been made quite clear by omission of "according to the Justuce Department", but even inclusion of that phrase is misleading since the Justice Department later backed off (without even any allegation of extreme carelessness).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant, the criteria for including something in Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability and WP:RS, it is not whether something was proved by a court decision or some other level of evidence that you demand. What are the specific Wikipedia rules and guidelines that say that it should be removed?

The Bill Cosby entry contains "stuff that was never proved" in court and never will be because of the statute of limitations. I think that WP:Verifiability and WP:RS is enough to leave it in. Do you think Wikipedia rules require us to delete that stuff from the Bill Cosby article? --Nbauman (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll say yet again, I have no objection to including these particular details in Wikipedia. See Legal affairs of Donald Trump and see WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What specifically does WP:Summary style say that would require us to delete the sentence, "According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."" from this article and move it to Legal affairs of Donald Trump? --Nbauman (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This article "should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clearer in my opinion: if we do not re-add the "According to the Justice Department" sentence, then we should delete the sentence that follows it, the one that begins "After an unsuccessful countersuit..." We can't include a full rebuttal and quote from Trump, if we don't give the Justice Department's position as well. Both or neither. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with removing the sentence beginning "After an unsuccessful countersuit...".CFredkin (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with that too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I want to include in the main Donald Trump article the following sentence, based on multiple WP:RS: "According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."" Can anyone give a reason based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines why this sentence should not go back in to the main article? What is the specific text of the guidelines? --Nbauman (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are four relevant policy reasons, Nbauman.

WP:SS (reviewed by Anythingyouwant).

WP:BALASPS, applying WP:WEIGHT to isolated events of lesser overall significance to a topic. The Times story itself assigns 390 words to a 1978 decision about the NY convention center but only 343 words to the fair-housing suit. Accordingly the suit must be treated as being of lesser overall significance. (It was headlined in only 1 front-page story; the decision, in 2.)

NPOV. Nutshell: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias."

WP:CON, as it would apply to "editors' legitimate concerns" about fairness and reasonableness. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 11:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

So, Dervorguilla, if you don't want to include this sentence, are you OK with deleting the sentence that follows ("After an unsuccessful countersuit") that presents the Trump's position on the case? IMO we can't give Trump a platform without also giving Justice a platform, per Balance aspects. --MelanieN (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence that began "After an unsuccessful countersuit...." since I'm the one who inserted it, and no one has objected to removing it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing the verbiage about Trump's having marked applications provided by blacks with the letter "C" for "colored". (The applications provided by the Urban League were likewise marked, albeit with a more politically appropriate acronym.)

Please advise whether the passage below falls short of any WP:SS, WP:BALASPS, and NPOV requirements, and whether (in your personal opinion) it sounds less than fair and reasonable.

Trump first came to public attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that he and his father were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The Trumps denied the allegations, saying that they were discriminating only on the basis of welfare status. Two years later they signed an agreement binding them not to discriminate against any qualified applicant.

Trump drew greater attention in 1978 when the city awarded him the contract to design and build the Jacob Javits Convention Center, after finding that he was the only bidder who had a site ready for construction.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. As long as it says specifically, "refusing to rent to blacks."--Nbauman (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Text integrated into article after adding 49-word ref quote and correcting own error in graf 2.

... He came to public attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that he and his father were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The Trumps denied the allegations, saying that they were discriminating only on the basis of welfare status. Two years later they signed an agreement binding them not to discriminate against any qualified applicant. ...

Trump drew greater public attention in 1978 when the city chose his site as the location for its Jacob Javits Convention Center, after finding that he was the only bidder who had a site ready for the construction project.

I also removed 3 questionable sources: 1 juvenile literature and 2 nonmainstream newspapers (Daily Beast and Salon). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Responding to revision 731536028 by CFredkin ("Removing statement not supported by source"), I'm adding a source and clarifying the statement.

... He came to public attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that he and his father were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The Trumps denied the allegations, saying that they were legally discriminating based on welfare status, not race. Two years later they signed an agreement binding them not to discriminate against qualified applicants. The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later said that civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names".

I'm also adding material about the Trumps' getting targeted because they were "big names" in comparison to other real-estate companies of concern to civil-rights groups. (So says the former chair of thecity's Human Rights Commission.)

This passage actually might work better as the corresponding ref quote:

2. ^ "Civil rights groups in the city viewed the Trump company as just one example of a nationwide problem of housing discrimination. But targeting the Trumps provided a chance to have an impact, said Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was then chairwoman of the city’s human rights commission. ‘They were big names.’"

--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:04, 26

Trump doesn't appear to use the word "discriminated" in the sources I've seen. I also think it would be undue to devote more space to this incident in his bio.CFredkin (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Your're right on both counts, CFredkin!! Many thanks, and I've edited the text accordingly to address your concerns. (This new draft version is actually shorter than the current version.)

In 1971, Trump moved to Manhattan, where he took part in larger construction projects and used attractive architectural design to win public recognition. He drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that he and his father were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The allegations were never proven. The Trumps ultimately signed an agreement to ensure that they would not discriminate against qualified applicants. The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later said civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names". He received a broker's fee on the property sale.

189 words -> 174 words. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Your new proposal still makes it sounds like Trump agreed that he may have been discriminating against qualified applicants. The current language sounds fine to me. I'm not sure what your concern is in proposing changes.CFredkin (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I admit to your allegation, CFredkin, and I agree to revise accordingly. :)

This draft ("D") should take care of it.

In 1971, Trump moved to Manhattan, where he took part in larger construction projects and used attractive architectural design to win public recognition. He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings. Ultimately the parties signed an agreement under which the Trumps would make no admission of wrongdoing and the Urban League would present qualified minority applicants for vacancies in some buildings. The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later said civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names".

By 1973, Trump was president of the Trump Organization and oversaw the company's 14,000 apartments across Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. In 1978 the city selected his Midtown Manhattan site as the location for its Jacob Javits Convention Center, after finding that he was the only bidder who had a site ready for the project. He received a broker's fee on the property sale.

"I'm not sure what your concern is in proposing changes." My and four other editors' several concerns are given in the discussion above. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Your latest proposal looks fine to me, but I think the following sentence should be excluded as undue: The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later said civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names".CFredkin (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I have re-phased a little bit:

"He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they Justice Department (DOJ) argued they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out unqualified welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed. Ultimately the parties DOJ and the Trumps signed an agreement under which the Trumps would make made no admission of wrongdoing, and under which the Urban League would present qualified minority applicants for vacancies in some buildings would be presented by the Urban League."

The previous language was somewhat problematic for several reasons. First, saying that DOJ "alleged" that refusing to rent to blacks amounted to a violation of law could easily be misunderstood as taking for granted that such a racial refusal occurred as a factual matter, and as merely saying that the only thing "alleged" by DOJ was that this undisputed set of facts amounted to a violation of the law. Second, if we give DOJ's argument, we ought to include the Trumps' argument. Third, saying that the Trumps allegedly refused to rent to blacks is much too simplistic, and instead DOJ asserted discrimination which disfavored blacks, as opposed to a blanket racist ban. Fourth, saying that the "parties" signed is ambiguous about whether DOJ signed, which they did. The rest of the edits are mainly for conciseness and flow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In revision 731931463, Anythingyouwant substituted "...DOJ and the Trumps signed an agreement..." for "...the parties signed an agreement...", explaining "DOJ signed the agreement". But the source actually says, "the Trump Management Corporation reached an agreement with the Federal Government..." -- not, the Trumps and the DOJ. Per WP:OR, the source must make the statement explicitly.

Anythingyouwant made an additional six edits, explaining, "insert 'allegedly', rephrase a little for clarity, flow, conciseness"; "tweak pipe link"; "conciser"; "both sides ought to be given"; and "No one claims the Trumps refused to rent to black people. Rather, the issue was discrimination, and whether blacks were disproportionately unable to rent."

But the plaintiff alleged ("charged") in its pleading ("allegations"), not "argued" in its (oral or closing) argument. It charged the defendants with discriminating, not with "allegedly discriminating". And both sources (the Times and the Post) say the government claimed the defendants were refusing to rent to black people. "The government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals ‘because of race and color’".

The original text did give both sides -- as manifested in the final agreement (which both sides agreed was fair).

In the editor's comment above, he claims (1) that "saying that DOJ 'alleged' that refusing to rent to blacks amounted to a violation of law could easily be misunderstood as taking for granted that such a racial refusal occurred as a factual matter". But the terms 'alleged that' and 'argued that' appear to be Standard English terms easily understood in this context; moreover, both sources use the term "alleged". Neither source uses the term "argued". He claims (2) that "If we give DOJ's argument, we ought to include the Trumps' argument." But we give the plaintiff's allegations, not its argument. Trump's answer (not his argument) isn't given because the sources mention it only in passing. He claims (3) that "saying that the Trumps allegedly refused to rent to blacks is much too simplistic". Perhaps, but that's what the sources say. The editor claims (4) that "saying that the 'parties' signed is ambiguous about whether DOJ signed, which they did". But the sources actually say that the "government" signed, not the "DOJ". And the editor says, "The rest of the edits are mainly for conciseness and flow." But the text was more concise before the revision (62 words rather than 78). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I am glad to say "charged" instead of "argued" even though it doesn't make much difference to a lay reader and either way is accurate. And I'm glad to say that the Trumps' company and federal officials signed, instead of the Trumps and DOJ, but again it doesn't make much difference to a lay reader and either way is accurate. The material now reads as follows:

“ He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out unqualified welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed. Ultimately the Trumps' company and federal officials signed an agreement under which the Trumps made no admission of wrongdoing, and under which qualified minority applicants would be presented by the Urban League.[27][28] ”

If anyone thinks this is misleading in any way, by all means please say so. If anyone would like it shorter, I think we can remove "in 39 residential buildings" without removing anything very significant. Saying that the Trumps allegedly refused to rent to black people could easily be misunderstood to mean that they allegedly did not rent to any black people, which is far from accurate. The allegation was that they discriminated against black people, by making the application process more difficult but not impossible, steering black people into different apartments, etc. If we cannot agree on language, then the best thing might be to very briefly mention the matter here, and let readers get more details at Legal affairs of Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm substituting the consensus text for the current text per WP:CON.

A firm consensus was formed at 05:11. An editor began changing the consensus text in the article at 12:57. At 13:13, he proposed changing the consensus at Talk.

Proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. And an editor who ignores a discussion and consensus and continues editing or reverting disputed material may be engaging in disruptive editing. (See WP:CCC policy.)

"If anyone thinks this is misleading in any way, by all means please say so." The other interested editors have already participated in the consensus discussion, so they may not respond to this or further requests. (WP:TALKDONTREVERT.)

Just sayin'. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The changes I made were improvements to the version you have just restored. Those improvements were never rejected by other editors, nor have you given any intelligible reason for opposing them. Instead, you merely threaten sanctions if your preferred version is altered. I do not find your editing style constructive at all, and I doubt other editors will either. Please try cooperation and responsiveness instead of confrontation and edit-warring. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk)

After reading User:Anythingyouwant's points above, I have to say I agree with his concerns. I think his proposed edits are an improvement to the text.CFredkin (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"...I think his proposed edits are an improvement..." Thank you for contributing to the discussion, CFredkin. Anythingyouwant made a total of six changes to the consensus text over the full 7-hour editing span. Which edit do you think was the greatest improvement?

"Except in cases affected by content policies, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position." (EDITCONSENSUS.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

An "all-or-nothing position" such as reverting every single change I have proposed with minimal-to-no explanation except you liked it better before?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this phrase is an improvement: "...the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out unqualified welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed."CFredkin (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Now I understand your concern!! I support part of your proposed revision but see a problem with the other part -- the statement that "the Trumps claimed" they were "merely screening out unqualified welfare recipients". According to the Times, Trump maintained that he was "screening out welfare recipients" -- meaning, welfare recipients as a class. ("Trump accused the Justice Department of singling out his corporation ... because the government was trying to force it to rent to welfare recipients".)

Proposed compromise text:

"...the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against black applicants for housing, thereby violating the Fair Housing Act. Trump accused the DOJ of singling out his company because it was large. The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later acknowledged that the Trumps had been targeted because they "were big names".

I think the additional text is factual extrajudicial evidence that could be helpful to readers who may question Trump's truthfulness in this whole matter. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you raise a good point above. But instead of making a wholesale change to the language, I'd like to propose that we just remove "unqualified" from the previous proposal. So it would read as follows: "...the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed." Hopefully this works for you... Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the current 32-word text, as edited by Anythingyouwant:

He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings.

Here is the proposed 47-word revision by CFredkin:

He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed.

CFredkin had elsewhere raised a reasonable concern that a proposal "makes it sounds like Trump agreed that he may have been discriminating against qualified applicants." Happily, neither of these two texts does so. He had also raised a reasonable concern about an early 42-word proposal: "It would be undue to devote more space to this incident in his bio."

I accordingly support the current 32-word text and oppose the 47-word text. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP concerns

User:Dervorguilla, I have said that I support the 47-word text. I have given numerous reasons, none of which you have addressed. Your only stated reason for opposing it is that 47 words is too long. But yesterday you proposed a 64-word text:

“ He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against black applicants for housing, thereby violating the Fair Housing Act. Trump accused the DOJ of singling out his company because it was large. The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later acknowledged that the Trumps had been targeted because they "were big names". ”

I repeat that I strongly support the 47-word text, and I strongly believe that the 32-word text violates the Biographies of living persons policy. Since you have not addressed any of the specific reasons, I will briefly repeat the main ones now.

• (1) The 32-word text omits the Trumps' explanation of their actions (screening out welfare recipients) and instead only gives the government's accusation.
• (2) The 32-word text does not properly describe the government's position; the government did not suggest that the Trumps were "refusing to rent" to all black people, but rather that the Trumps discriminated in less blatant ways (e.g. by allegedly making application procedures more difficult but not impossible for black people, and by allegedly steering black people toward different properties owned by the Trumps).
• (3) The 32-word text says "by refusing to rent" without including the word "allegedly" in that phrase, which many of our readers will see as a statement in Wikipedia's voice that the government's statement of facts was correct.
  

Again, your only response has been that the 47-word text is too long, which completely disregards the many very serious flaws pointed out in the 32-word text, disregards your own recent advocacy of a 64-word text, and also disregards my statement above that I'd be happy to remove the unnecessary words "in 39 residential buildings" in the 47-word text. WP:BLP requires that "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." You have sought to overstate the accusations, and understate the defense against those accusations, which is irresponsible and incautious. Per WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Up to 25 July when you inserted material about racism into this section, the pertinent material in this BLP was as follows: "Trump initially came to public attention in 1973 when the Trump Organization was accused by the Justice Department (DOJ) of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings. Several years later the Trump Organization was again in court for violating terms of a settlement with DOJ; Trump denied the charges and there is no indication that he was found guilty." I intend to restore that pre-July 26 version until a consensus forms that the BLP concerns have been addressed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Below are my replies to the concerns you've helpfully listed, Anythingyouwant.

  (1) The 32-word text omits the Trumps' explanation of their actions (screening out welfare recipients) ...

That's the explanation they gave the press. Here's the explanation they gave the court:

"We wanted tenants who we could be sure would pay the rent ... and who met our requirement of having an income at least four times the rent."

Client's Communication to Attorney Cohn, 1973, in Trump, The Art of the Deal, at 98.

  (2) ...The government did not suggest that the Trumps were "refusing to rent..."

Actually, Dunlap says the government did suggest that the Trumps were "refusing to rent":

"The government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals ‘because of race and color’ ..."

So does Kranish:

"The Justice Department then issued a news release that said the Trumps violated the law ‘by refusing to rent and negotiate rentals with blacks’ ..."

  (3) The 32-word text says "by refusing to rent" without including the word "allegedly"...

The text does include the word "allegedly" -- in its verbal form, "allege". ("The Justice Department alleged...") --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, User:Dervorguilla. I'll respond. (1) You have opposed including both the explanation the Trumps gave the press, and also the explanation the Trumps gave the court, and instead have supported only giving the government's explanation. That is not neutral or fair. Moreover, in this instance, there is nothing inconsistent between what Trump told the press and what Trump told the court, given that screening out welfare recipients would be roughly equivalent to ensuring tenants could pay the rent and would have an income at least four times the rent. Surely, there must be a way to phrase the Trumps' position about this so that we could present it to readers, instead of only presenting the governments' unrebutted accusation. But, if too many words would be needed, then we could put it at the sub-article and maintain the status quo at this article. Regarding (2), when the government said "refusing to rent and negotiate rentals with blacks" do you think the government meant all blacks or some blacks? The way you want to phrase it will lead many of our readers to assume "all" blacks, whereas the way I've proposed will not cause some readers to make that assumption. It would be misleading for us to give some readers the idea that the government meant all blacks, if in fact there is no reason for us to think the government meant that. It would be better for us to avoid conveying as much potential misunderstanding as possible on such an inflammatory subject. Moving along to (3), suppose a Wikipedia article said this: "The prosecutor alleged that Melania violated a local ordinance when she stood on her head in the middle of Time Square...." This would be very poor wording because it suggests in Wikipedia's voice that Melania did in fact stand on her head, and that the prosecutor alleges doing so was prohibited by an ordinance; it would be much more clear and fair to say in a Wikipedia article "The prosecutor charged that Melania violated a local ordinance when she allegedly stood on her head in the middle of Time Square...." That way readers would not understand us to be saying that she did in fact stand on her head. Same thing with Trump and this 1973 incident.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree in part with your points 1 and 3, Anythingyouwant.

(1) You have opposed including both the explanation the Trumps gave the press, and also the explanation the Trumps gave the court...

Yes, I included only the allegations that the government gave the court, not the answers that Trump gave the court. Those are documented in The Art of the Deal -- and I'd be more than happy to add them (and the source) to the consensus text.

(2) ...When the government said "refusing to rent and negotiate rentals with blacks" do you think the government meant all blacks or some blacks?

Both. I think the government was asserting that Trump was refusing to rent to all blacks in some buildings -- but not to all blacks in all buildings. See Kranish ("There were no black tenants at Lincoln Shore Apartments").

I should point out that the sources say that at the time, most big landlords were discriminating against blacks. Trump was a very big landlord. According to one source, that's why the government targeted him in particular. (The data suggest he may have been discriminating less than the average big landlord.)

(3) ...It would be much more clear and fair to say ... "The prosecutor charged that [a defendant] violated a [regulation] when [the defendant] allegedly [did something]."

A prosecutor charges a defendant with doing something, not with "allegedly" doing something. Otherwise you're absolutely correct. I'd be more than happy to reword the consensus text accordingly. "...The Justice Department alleged that they were refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings, thereby violating the Fair Housing Act."

Would you support these two proposed changes to the consensus text? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In view of your comments, I'd support modifying the version proposed by CFredkin to read as follows:

“ He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments, thereby violating the Fair Housing Act, rather than merely screening out people based upon low income as the Trumps claimed. Ultimately the Trumps' company and federal officials signed an agreement under which the Trumps made no admission of wrongdoing, and under which qualified minority applicants would be presented by the Urban League. ”

The government was not alleging a blanket refusal to rent to black people, if 38 out of 39 Trump buildings had black tenants, so we should not lead some readers to assume that the Trumps refused to rent to all black people. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If the 38 had black tenants. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have seen no indication otherwise. Anyway, I will now go ahead and insert the blockquoted material since you haven't objected to it. If you don't think it's perfect, perhaps we can discuss how to improve it without an edit-war. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed further modifications

We're definitely getting somewhere, Anythingyouwant. How does this look?

“ He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were refusing to rent residential units in some buildings to some applicants because they were black, rather than because their adjusted incomes were too low, as the Trumps claimed. Ultimately the Trumps and the government signed an agreement under which the Urban League would present qualified minority applicants for some vacancies, while the Trumps made no admission of any wrongdoing. ”

May still need some work. Let me know your thoughts. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

We may be getting diminishing returns here from further edits. I don't see a problem with leaving the material as-is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Diminishing returns", indeed, but still greater than benchmark returns as calculated from the average 'return on discussion' elsewhere on this page. So I'm going to kick the question back to you, Anythingyouwant. What problems do you see -- or edits would you recommend -- with regard to the text I've just proposed? I'd be more than happy to review -- or propose edits to -- your text as well. No particular rush, at this point. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The very best thing here would be to just acknowledge that perfection is an elusive goal at Wikipedia, and we have come as close as we can. But if we must continue with this, I think it would be better if you would suggest specific edits, or at least show what your replacement sentences have changed. You also haven't given any reasons. From briefly looking at your proposed sentences, the repeated use of the word "some" looks awkward, and the use of the term "adjusted" (income) looks overly technical and of unclear significance. Honestly, I don't see why we need to go on and on about this, because I don't see any significant problem with the current language in the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I do need to fix that phrasing, Anythingyouwant. Thanks!

Now here are the two problems I see in the current text:

1. "... the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments ..."

It alleged that they were discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 of their buildings only. Not discriminating against blacks generally.

2. "... merely screening out people based upon low income as the Trumps claimed ..."

Kranish (§ A federal courtesy call) says: "At the time the suit was filed, Trump had been thinking about veering away from his father’s focus on providing housing for lower- and middle-income residents..." The Trumps had been trying to draw (comparatively) low-income residents in, not screen them out.

I'm OK with including the passage about "violating the Fair Housing Act". But it's two steps away from what the Trumps actually did.

Including the name of the statute would be important if the Trumps actually had engaged in discrimination on the basis of race. Otherwise it's like saying, "The Justice Department alleged that Trump shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, thereby violating the Crime in the Streets Act." :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing "thereby violating the Fair Housing Act" which will make things more concise, and no objection to saying "rather than merely screening out both black and white welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed". I don't see any problem with "... the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Indiscriminate removal of content

I added a bunch of content vital to his political positions (NATO, WTO, Russia) but it was indiscriminately removed for the reason that it was too long. This text was roughly 2,000 characters but 2/3 of it was citations. This content is of greater importance than much of the other content there. Other content can also be trimmed without any substantive harm, such as:

• The minimum wage section is way too long (you don't need a history of his positions - it's just enough to say that he's been inconsistent, favors letting states set the wages and that he's floated the idea of a $10 national minimum wage).
• The Iraq War section also has redundant info (isn't it enough to say he tentatively endorsed it in 2002, publically opposed it in 2004 and has been a vocal critic in the GOP debates? Is it necessary to count the instances since 2004 that he's opposed the war?).
• I think we can do without his position on Pakistan.
• Drop Trump's reference to global cooling in the 1920s. Is this a rationale that he brings up a lot for his climate change denial? If not, I think we can skip it.

By executing these trims (or just some of them), the other content can be easily included without lengthening the section. Here's the content that was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732278465&oldid=732277728. It's straight from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump. The content that I added can of course also be trimmed (e.g. it's enough to say that Trump wants to renegotiate the WTO or leave). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The Political Positions section here is already much, much longer than the corresponding sections of other national politicians (HClinton, Biden, Romney, McCain). I would be in favor of pruning content as suggested above, but not replacing it with other content.CFredkin (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Tim Kaine has a longer section strictly on political positions (note that I'm not including all the implicit positions that are from his tenure as mayor, governor and senator - if those were included, his political positions section would be vastly longer). The other individuals that you mentioned are all prominent politicians with long governing or legislative records. As a result, their 'political positions' are chiefly covered under campaigns and their tenures as governors/senators, which is not the case with Trump who has no political experience. If the 'positions' that are currently covered under Mike Pence's tenure as governor and congressman were turned into a 'political positions' section, he'd have one longer than Trump. The same with HRC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I agree with the four changes you propose here. Not because the section is too long - it isn't - but because those particular items can be omitted or summarized without harming the article. As for the things you want to add, let's talk about them; I haven't evaluated them. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

My proposed edits can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732278465&oldid=732277728. This is all unchallenged material taken directly from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump. All highly important issues that have gotten lots of attention and have global ramifications. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. That edit contains additions, removals, moves - I wasn't able to make out what you actually want to add. Can you untangle it here to show just what it is you want to add? --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The first is about his position on the WTO: Trump wants to renegotiate WTO or leave it (this was in response to a question to how he'd get the WTO to get along with his 15-35% tariffs. This goes against bipartisan consensus, and would have global ramifications. The second is about how Trump rejects that the US automatically extends NATO security guarantees, tying them to unspecified 'obligations' that NATO members must do in order to get the US to defend them. He has also suggested that he would leave NATO unless his unspecified changes are made to the alliance. Both of these steps go against post-WWII bipartisan consensus and would have global ramifications. The third is about Trump considering recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and removing sanctions on Russia related to its support for Russian separatists in the Ukraine. The fourth is about Trump's urging Russia to conduct cyberespionage against Hillary Clinton. All these edits have been sourced, have been up on the 'Political Positions of Donald Trump' for some time and without challenge. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The minimum wage section, which I expanded, needs to be longer than normal because of the manner of Trump's inconsistency on a very important topic. Examples are needed to actually demonstrate who inconsistent he has been (or, if you will, to let the reader decide what Trump's position really is). For example, to simply say that "he [now] favors letting states set the wages" isn't true - look at his latest statement, which says (among other things) that there should be a federal minimum wage of $10.

Having said that, I've trimmed the section a bit. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily supporting a trim. I frankly don't think that the section on Trump's political positions should be shortened (nor do I think it's consistent with how other politicians' pages look - see my response to CFredkin). I'm just saying that if length is the only thing keeping out Trump's positions on NATO, WTO and Russia, then other content should be removed to allow that content in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

User:CFredkin, User:John Broughton, User:MelanieN. Given that the stated reason for deleting the content is inaccurate (section too long compared to other politicians' pages) and that there are no accuracy and reliability problems with the proposed edits, do I have your permission to restore the content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I still believe the section is already much too long. I also don't agree with the notion that Hillary's career in politics justifies her having 360 words in the corresponding section in her bio compared to 2020 for Trump. Hillary has not held political office for 4 years, and did not address many of the issues of day as Secretary of State prior to that. Also, I don't believe the topics being proposed for addition are as notable as those already included.CFredkin (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want to add more to HRC's corresponding section, go ahead. Neither I nor probably anyone else would have problems with you adding her signature issues to her corresponding section, making it as long as Trump's. The reason why they're not there is presumably because much of it is already covered under her tenure as first lady (attitude towards healthcare), her voting in the Senate (a bunch of positions), her Senate and Presidential campaigning (lots of positions there) and her record as SoS. By no standard is Trump's section on political positions too long (compare to all the political positions covered under Tim Kaine's, Mike Pence's, Obama's and HRC's pages) and the notion that Trump's position on Pakistan, and the redundant text on the minimum wage and the Iraq War are more notable than Trump's statements on NATO, WTO and Russia is frankly incomprehensible (do you seriously believe that?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

My main point is that (unlike the articles on Kaine and Pence) full Political Positions articles already exist for both Trump and Clinton. The Political Positions section of Hillary's bio adheres to WP:Summary style, which explains its length. The Political Positions section for Trump's bio is already much longer than WP:Summary style would suggest. Once again, I would be in favor of pruning it, and agree that the reference to Pakistan should go.CFredkin (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a completely different rationale. It sounds like you need to create a talk for that specifically and obtain consensus rather than hold up content indiscriminately that no one else has expressed disagreement with while you flip through different reasons in inconsistent ways to exclude it. If Trump's 'political positions' section is meant to be a summary of his full Political Positions article, then there is no argument to be had that NATO, WTO and Russia earn mentions. They clearly do, given their salience. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I've stated repeatedly that this section is already too long. I've provided multiple reasons why I'm making that statement, but my core argument has remained the same.CFredkin (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I'm curious, did you ever state that the section was too long before I added those three bits of content? Adding a ping (User:CFredkin) in case you missed this. I'm genuinely curious. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging other regular editors to this page: User:Dervorguilla , User:Anythingyouwant, User: Neutrality, User:Nbauman, User:John_Broughton, User:Volunteer_Marek. Is there any way to move forward on this? Isn't the reasonable position here to allow my content in, and have a separate debate over whether to shorten the section? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Having looked through some of Snooganssnoogans' edits and suggestions, I agree with him here. Much of the content that he added should be here, and some of the existing stuff should be shortened or dropped (although it looks like some movement has already been done on this point).

As said above, it also cannot be reasonably disputed that Trump's positions on NATO, WTO and Russia belong here. These are core themes of high importance. Editors can quibble about how exactly this material should be included, but it certainly should be in here. Neutrality^talk 19:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Ihardlythinkso and User:Doc9871.CFredkin (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think most readers would be most interested in finding out what his established, time-independent positions are. Some may also be interested in finding out about his reactive, time-varying positions; but I can't help them. Writing up a timely and balanced compilation would be a Sisyphean task. Our consensus text would become outdated within days, not months.

Here are two authoritative compilations of Trump's established positions: Donald J Trump for President, Donald J Trump: Positions; Financial Times, Donald Trump promises security and prosperity as US president.

I believe our first task is to write up an authoritatively balanced summary of his established positions. Only then should we supplement it -- piecemeal, section by section. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, would you be fine with allowing my edits in until you have reached a consensus to go with your proposal to revamp the section (which seems more relevant for a separate discussion)? Because as it stands, my edits, which are all covered extensively and in-depth by reliable news sources around the world and stirring up reactions from politicians, national security experts and journalists, are being kept out in full from this article for reasons that don't apply to any other content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of resolving this, I would be ok with User:Snooganssnoogans edits, with the important exception of the reference to the comment about Russia finding Hillary's emails (which is being debated elsewhere in Talk), if the cuts that Snoogans suggested at the beginning of the section are also made.CFredkin (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I made some restore edits. Let me know (or fix in edits) if anything was added in or deleted badly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• There's nothing "indiscriminate" about the removal of content that had no consensus to be here. It was just simply put in the article. This article is under strict sanctions, and editors are therefore not allowed to dump a bunch of content here with no prior attempt to get consensus for their edits. It's pretty simple, isn't it? One would think... Doc talk 03:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Doc9871: I hope that you're not saying that editors should always post first to this talk page, then achieve consensus, and then, lastly, add information to the article. That would be contrary to WP:BB, which is an official Wikipedia guideline, and which does encourage people to "simply put" content into articles. As for the strict sanctions that you mention, I'll quote: " All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." (emphasis added). So yes, edit warring is rather sharply curtailed, but again, I can't see that as applying to the addition of new material that hasn't been controversial. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

John Broughton: I think everyone here is in accord with you on that point. User:Snooganssnoogans just needs to be acutely aware that the WP:BB guideline emphasizes, "Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted." Per WP:CON policy, anyone on this page can undo all of those bold edits in a single revert. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Allegedly refusing to rent to blacks

Since you asked me--

This is getting complicated. I'm limiting myself to the one issue of the DOJ charges of Trump's refusing to rent to blacks.

In this edit on 16:58, 30 July 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732277728&oldid=732276451 user:Anythingyouwant deleted "by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings" and replaced it by "in the operation of 39 buildings".

This changes the edit that user:Dervorguilla made and justified in Talk on 05:37, 29 July 2016.

Anythingyouwant used the sham argument that it violated WP:BLP. It's a sham because, first, if it violates BLP in the main article, then it also violates BLP in the sub-article. Second, it doesn't violate BLP because it's supported by multiple WP:RSs, including newspapers like the New York Times which are specifically given as examples of reliable sources in WP:RS.

Much of Anythingyouwant's arguments are based on his own interpretations of the words or his own opinion of what they mean or imply. I'm not going to respond to those arguments other than to say that Wikipedia doesn't follow the editors' opinions. It follows WP:RSs, and if WP:RSs use those words, Wikipedia uses those words.

The other sham argument against it was that the section and the article are "too long." He's replaced "by refusing to rent to blacks" with "the operation of", which is only 3 words shorter.

It violates consensus because we discussed the section many times in Talk, gave many versions of proposed wordings, and we none of those wordings eliminated the language about refusing to rent to blacks. So Anythingyouwant changed this wording in violation of consensus.

According to the Warning box above, this Donald Trump page is subject to active arbitration remedies. To repeat from above, the restrictions are:

• Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).

The deletion of references to blacks has been challenged. So Anythingyouwant violated that restriction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Anythingyouwant joined Wikipedia on 24 July 2016, and has made most of his edits to the Donald Trump article, where he is a partisan for Trump. It looks like a WP:Single-purpose account. He has regularly come up with dubious arguments, like the claim that any mention of renting to blacks violates WP:BLP, and he's ignoring consensus.

I would like to restore the reference to blacks in that section. I think we have consensus on inculding it, and if anyone disagrees, let me know here. Otherwise I assume we have consensus to keep it in. --Nbauman (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The matter is being discussed above at Talk:Donald_Trump#BLP concerns. I've made it very clear that I support including the allegation about discriminating against blacks. I oppose doing it in a misleading way, however. We have two competing proposals for how to do it. I support one and oppose one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Nbauman:

On 31 July 2016, you wrote-

Anythingyouwant joined Wikipedia on 24 July 2016, and has made most of his edits to the Donald Trump article, where he is a partisan for Trump. It looks like a WP:Single-purpose account.

Anythingyouwant actually joined Wikipedia on 29 April 2004, not "24 July 2016". He's made 65,000 edits; of his last 2,000, fewer than a fifth were made to the Trump article, not "most". He appears to have a broad-focus encyclopedia-building account, not a "single-purpose account".

I've posted a helpful warning about Harassment of other users at your Talk page.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Trade

From the "Political positions" section, I propose to remove this sentence: "Trump identifies as a "free trader", but says that trade must be "reasonably fair".[325] " The source documents one time (possibly the only time) he called himself a free trader, in passing, and immediately qualified it. In the next sentence we have multiple references documenting that he is often called "protectionist" - the opposite of free trade - and proposes various tariffs. I submit that this poorly-sourced sentence about being a "free trader" should be removed, as it only confuses what his actual positions are. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

He may have called himself a "free trader" only once, but he's said that he supports "free trade" many times, which is the same thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Has he? In a quick search, I couldn't find anyplace where he has said "free trade" without immediately qualifying it. The Washington Post and the National Review say his proposals are the opposite of free trade.The truth may be that Trump himself doesn't understand the difference, or a lot of the details about trade. In this compilation of his comments on trade, he rails against TPP because it was "designed for China to come in" and permits China's currency manipulation, until someone points out that TPP doesn't involve China. With that possibility in mind, I think we should describe what his policies actually are, not what he mistakenly calls them. --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if someone truly supports pure free trade, then the ideal trade agreement would be just one sentence long: "No government that is party to this agreement shall tax imports or exports, or in any way restrict or regulate imports or exports." But your typical "free trade" agreement is thousands of pages long, so perhaps almost no one is really for free trade. Trump says he supports free trade as long as it is fair, and probably we can't do any better than reporting that position of his, together with any information we can find about what he thinks would make a trade agreement fair.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump allegedly encouraging Russian cyberwarfare against the US

I think the widely discussed statement by him in which he encourages authoritarian Russia, a hostile country, to conduct cyberwarfare against the US government merits inclusion in the lead. For example, there seems to be a widespread opinion among legal experts that he has committed a federal crime, namely treason.[11][12] --Tataral (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I included that in one of my earlier edits (it was removed). See the discussion above on this talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump said that he hopes Russia could find emails that have already been deleted from the Hillary Clinton server, and which Hillary Clinton claims were deleted because they were not work-related; Trump then added that he was being somewhat sarcastic. Right? Some reliable sources have described the incident that way, whereas others have described it as encouraging cyberwarfare, committing treason, et cetera. Given the very different characterizations in reliable sources (some newspapers even started with the latter characterization and then switched over toward the former), I think this is better dealt with in the usual Wikipedia way: describe it in the sub-article about the campaign, and then summarize briefly in this article per WP:Summary style. While Trump committing treason would surely be appropriate for the lead of this main BLP, I don't think the weight of reliable sources suggests treason or serious advocacy of cyberwarfare.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see that the other editor wanted the inclusion of "treason". I don't think it's fair to add claims of treason to this article, particularly the lede. In my proposed edits, I just quoted what Trump said and quoted NYT's description of what this means. No mention of treason from me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not treason. The expert opinion I have read is that treason is so narrowly defined in the Constitution that there is no way this meets it.[13] [14] I think including it somewhere (maybe under the campaign section) is appropriate but not in the lede. It is only one of many outrageous/highly controversial statements he has made. And the various explanations afterward ("he meant give it to the FBI", "he was joking", "I was being sarcastic", etc.) are too extensive for the lede --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The comment itself seems pretty clearly to be sarcasm, rather than a serious call for Russia to hack the US government.Perhaps it should be mentioned at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, but I don't believe it's noteworthy here per WP:NOTNEWS.CFredkin (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If Trump merely meant that Russia ought to help us find the emails by turning them over if they have them, then it seems kind of non-outrageous to me even if he wasn't being sarcastic. Let's wait a while to see if this recent event has traction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been covered by every single news outlet in great detail and spurred a great deal of uproar from politicians, national security experts and journalists. That you two have your own interpretation of what Trump meant (unsurprisingly, you go along with Trump and don't find this issue noteworthy at all) is besides the point. It clearly fitsl the criteria for an exception to WP:NOTNEWS Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"seems pretty clearly to be sarcasm"? Really? It took him a long time to come up with that explanation. He invited Russia to find the "missing emails" and give them to the press, in a press conference on Wednesday.[15] Later the same day he repeated the invitation in a tweet, this time saying the material be given to the FBI (as had been suggested by one of his surrogates).[16] The next day, after 24 hours of uproar and outrage, he decided to claim he was being sarcastic.[17] If that's the case, he certainly concealed it well and for a long time. (And if it really was intended as sarcasm, that's almost scarier than if he meant it: As pointed out here, sarcasm about national security is a luxury that presidents can't afford.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I propose we write something along these lines just after the last line in the Russia paragraph on his foreign policy subsection:

• In the same interview, Trump stated that he hoped Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, saying: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." The New York Times reported that Trump was "essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyberespionage against a former secretary of state." The next day, Trump said that he was being sarcastic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

At this point, unless the story keeps going (and perhaps becomes a turning point in his candidacy - but that would be crystal ballin'), it does not belong in the lede, but it definitely belongs in the article itself. The idea that it was just "sarcasm" does not belong in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a fair wording and I support it, including the "sarcasm" defense. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Marek, I think it's always worthwhile to let the candidates explain what they meant. Readers will be free to interpret. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

First, have any well-known Republicans who aren't in Clinton's camp responded to Trump's comment in any way that it would suggest it was a serious request on his part? Second, it is absolutely inappropriate to include the NYT's interpretation of his statement here in his bio (any more than we would include statements from the WSJ calling Clinton's explanations regarding her email server "lies" in her bio).CFredkin (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@CFredkin: To answer your question, yes they have. Here is one such response, from the NYT article already cited here: Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican who led the House oversight committee that looked into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, was more critical. If Mr. Trump’s comments were meant literally, he said in an interview, “I think he was absolutely wrong and out of line. I would never have said it that way, and I think it was ill-advised.” If the remark was tongue-in-cheek, he added, it failed at political humor. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

NYT is a reliable secondary source by any standard. The conservative Chicago Tribune characterized it as "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton's emails". Without having read Clinton's page fully, I don't see why fact-checks or characterizations of states from reliable secondary sources shouldn't be allowed on her page. It would surprise me if her page and the e-mail controversy page don't include statements from Comey contradicting her. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a fair wording at all. Drop the NYT stuff, because balancing it out would result in undue weight for this recent news item. There's obviously no way that Russia could get the emails from hacking Clinton now given that they were deleted long ago. As proposed, we should say at most that Trump hoped Russia already hacked the emails, which is very different from Trump hoping that Russia would do so in future (as the NYT amusingly implies).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The conservative Chicago Tribune characterizes it in the same way. As does the centrist Washington Post. I think we should look to reliable secondary sources on this, not you or any other editor's interpretation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post corrected their original headline — "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton’s emails" — to "Trump invites Russia to meddle in the U.S. presidential race with Clinton’s emails." NPR also corrected its original headline — "Trump Calls On Russia To Hack Into Clinton’s Emails" — to "Clinton Campaign Says Trump Encouraged Espionage With Hacking Comment." If you really want to pursue this, I can find lots of further info from reliable sources about how maybe Trump didn't really urge Russia to hack anyone.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

How about we note the NYT characterized it that way, WaPo as an invitation to meddle in the US election and WSJ as inviting Russia to unearth some of Hillary Clinton’s missing emails? Every reliable news outlet covers it in one of those three ways, and most (including the conservative Tribune) see it as urging Russia to hack his opponent. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to just keep the first sentence which summarizes the matter, and leave further details to the main article about Trump's 2016 campaign. If reliable sources are still talking about those recent details months from now, then we can revisit it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, if I understand you correctly, we have agreement that the text should read like this: "In the same interview, Trump stated that he hoped Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, saying: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." The next day, Trump stated that his comment was sarcastic"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly a more concise version, which I appreciate. I think it would be more accurate to say "In the same interview, Trump stated that, if Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton's now-deleted emails, then Russia should make those emails public, saying...." Or just give Trump's statement without commentary. It's not clear to me that Trump was saying a Russian hack of Clinton's emails would have been a good thing, especially since he has often said it would have been a very bad thing that Clinton should have taken steps to prevent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with that statement. It adds a bunch of cautions and interpretations that were nowhere in his comment. How about we add a variation of the Wall Street Journal's description ("Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump invited Russia on Wednesday to unearth some of Hillary Clinton’s missing emails from her time as secretary of state") so that the text reads like this: "In the same interview, Trump stated that he hoped Russia would unearth Hillary Clinton’s missing emails from her time as Secretary of State, saying: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." The next day, Trump stated that his comment was sarcastic"? Is that OK? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't involve "interpretation". Anyone with non-dysfunctional listening comprehension can see Trump was referring to what was possibly hacked in the past, not what might be hacked in the future. If you stole some furniture and I told you to "Please, please give it to [the police, or the poor]", am I encouraging you to steal again?? The fact that major medias misinterpret to the level that gradeschool kids could identify, doesn't mean we s/ replicate their biases on WP. Jimbo said long ago that WP editors s/b "thougthful". He didn't mean being "kind". He meant to use our heads, to screen out crap like this. The fact these medias didn't and don't, s/ give you a clue as to their integrity and bias. IHTS (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Like most Trump supporters, it seems as if you just make up in your mind what his positions are and what he means, doesn't mean (see also on the talks above for a clear-cut example). In the real world, we go with what people actually say. If Trump wanted to clarify, he could have. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. And once again, you miss my point. (Trump didn't need to clarify. There was nothing unclear what he said re the 33,000 Emails. And your logic is corrupted: "In the real world, we go with what people actually say." So why not Trump too then, when nothing was unclear? Only in the minds of biased media which have agenda to cook him, wasn't it clear. Also according to your logic, nothing Trump can say can stand on its own, anything he says requires "interpretation". Even if he said he needed to use the restroom because he had to pee.) BTW, your "like most Trump supporters" slanderous dig, you can go fuck yourself. IHTS (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

hatting irrelevancy

Two of the candidate's three wives were born and raised Bolshevik. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC) And? This is looking like some OR stuff... Doc talk 05:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Hitler had a mother. He was a Nazi. Trump has a mother. Therefore Trump must be a Nazi same as Hitler. (The illogic isn't trivial. Remember this major media news story?: "Trump tweeted a quote by Mussolini. Mussolini was a fascist. Therefore Tump must be a fascist, or have fascist tendency.") IHTS (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Folks, let's try to avoid personal attacks and stick to discussing what wording to use here. Our job as encyclopedists is not to figure out what Trump "really" meant. It's not to judge whether the unanimous reporting by Reliable Sources was correct or not. Our job is to reflect what Trump actually said, and how Reliable Sources reported it, and what followed. What he said at the press conference was "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing". This is clearly a direct suggestion to Russia to search for and retrieve those emails - in other words, hacking - and that is how it was reported by literally every source. Later he modified it to "They probably have them. I’d like to have them released" - which is not a direct invitation to hack, rather an assumption that they already did hack.[18] Eventually he decided to take it all back by claiming "sarcasm". But when a president or presidential candidate says something which is massively reported and heavily reacted to, and they later modify it, that doesn't make the initial comment and the initial reaction and reporting go away. In this case, what we need to do (in the body of the text, not the lede) is to report what he said, what the reaction was, and how he later explained it. That's not being pro-Trump or anti-Trump; it's just being good Wikipedians. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

In the wording suggested above, using the actual quote from the NYT may be overkill. How about a paraphrase of the general reaction, something like this. Comments, anybody? --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC) @Snooganssnoogans, Ihardlythinkso, Anythingyouwant, CFredkin, Neutrality, Dervorguilla, and Volunteer Marek: Pinging regular contributors for comment. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• In the same interview, Trump referred to Hillary Clinton’s email, saying: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." The comment was widely denounced as an invitation to a foreign power to conduct cyberespionage for partisan political purposes. The next day, Trump said he was being sarcastic.

I agree with that statement. If someone has concerns with sources for "widespread denunciation", there are are a dozen or so reliable sources that we can add that includes comments from across the political spectrum, academia and journalism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually not clear on where in the text this should go - i.e., what the phrase "in the same interview" refers to. Can you show us the context? --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The only issue I have with that text, which is otherwise good, is the phrase "partisan purposes". I think this is misleading given that a good chunk of Trump's own party opposes him and "partisan" refers to party v. party. Perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be "for political purposes"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I've changed it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly object to the inclusion of interpretation of Trump's comment by third parties. As noted by Anythingyouwant above, a number of media sources are already backing off their initial assertions regarding Trump's message. There are indications that the initial media interpretations were influenced by Clinton's campaign (“This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent,” said Jake Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton’s chief foreign policy adviser, whose emails from when he was a State Department aide were among those that were hacked.). The "condemnation" was by no means bipartisan (Mr. Hoekstra said he was untroubled by Mr. Trump’s goading of a foreign power, particularly in light of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server while she was secretary of state.) or consistent in their interpretation (”Trump is bringing up a fairly valid point: Hillary Clinton, with her personal email at the State Department, has put the Russians in a very enviable position,” Mr. Hoekstra said. “Most likely the Russians already have all that info on Hillary.” - Hoekstra).CFredkin (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You're cherrypicking the statement of one former GOP congressman to make the argument that there wasn't bipartisan condemnation. In that same link, you have another congressman, Jason Chaffetz, condemning the statement. There are plenty more condemnations from the GOP side. PBS described it in terms of "Democrats — and some Republicans — quickly condemned the remarks by the Republican presidential standard-bearer." The idea that the media only reports on this due to the Clinton campaign's sinister influence is ridiculous. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Well you're cherry picking Chaffetz to support your assertion. The Republican establishment has shown no qualms with denouncing Trump's statements when they believe them to be inappropriate. I'm not seeing that here. And Trump has made a very valid assertion that this whole kerfluffle has been whipped up by the Clinton campaign and sympathetic media to distract from the real issue which is the content of the hacked DNC emails. The fact that you're so adamant that Trump's comment only be included with commentary suggests that you're concerned that the reader may not draw the conclusion you like without it.CFredkin (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't cherry-pick anything. I read the source that you provided as evidence that there wasn't bipartisan condemnation only to find that you excluded condemnation from the GOP side. Commentary needs to be added to explain what the context is for readers who are not aware. That you think this is a "kerfluffle... whipped up by the Clinton campaign" is amazing. Your feverish conspiracy theories and failure to comprehend the significance of statement does not mean that all reliable secondary sources can no longer be referred to on this matter, which is basically what your argument amounts to at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Legal Affairs of Donald Trump

I don't believe that the specific charge of refusing to rent to black tenants should be moved to the sub-page, "Legal Affairs of Donald Trump". I think it's a WP:POVFORK, that is, an attempt to move unflattering material from the main page to an obscure page.

Look at the Pageviews Analysis for 73/0/2016:

Donald Trump 115,937

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Donald_Trump

Legal Affairs of Donald Trump 825

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

In other words, the main page gets about 116,000 views a day, and the sub-page "Legal Affairs of Donald Trump gets about 825 views a day. If I were a paid or unpaid advocate or supporter of Trump, and I was trying to cover up unfavorable facts about Trump, the first thing I would do would be to set up a subpage with fewer than 1% of the page views of the main article.

In fact, the worse the subpage, the fewer the views, and the more effective it is at censoring the unfavorable facts. --Nbauman (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The matter is being discussed above at Talk:Donald_Trump#BLP_concerns.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not discussing WP:BLP here. I'm discussing the fact that moving text to a subpage is a way of censoring it, because of the discrepancy in page views, and violates WP:POVFORK.--Nbauman (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the charge of refusing to rent to black tenants should be mentioned on this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's well-sourced it should be mentioned on this page (albeit breifly). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think so too, as long as it says "alleged" or "allegedly". The charge was never proven, and Trump denies it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The matter is being discussed above at Talk:Donald_Trump#BLP concerns. I've made it very clear that I support including the allegation about discriminating against blacks. I oppose doing it in a misleading way, however. We have two competing proposals for how to do it. I support one and oppose one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Are these the two competing versions?

Here is the current 32-word text, as edited by Anythingyouwant:

He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings.

Here is the proposed 47-word revision by CFredkin:

He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed.

So why in your edit on 16:58, 30 July 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732277728&oldid=732276451 did you delete "by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings" and replace it by "in the operation of 39 buildings"?

Would you have any objection if I changed "violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings"

to

"violations of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings"?

Does anybody have an objection? I think there is a consensus for including "by refusing to rent to blacks". Does anybody disagree that there's a consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I object to including content on this issue without taking into consideration the discussion regarding the appropriate language in the section above.CFredkin (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That's cute! The reality, however, is that it is going to be included. Because Trump is a big ol' "doody-head", and it makes us feel important and truly encyclopedic and important to pile on with every negative garbage little article that comes out. Get with the program! Doc talk 05:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wharton professors

Is anyone able to find references about his professors when he was at Wharton? Some of them must be sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles. This would give us another insight into his intellectual worldview.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wharton seems to have no problem acknowledging that Trump attended.[19] Doc talk 07:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems he took their classes while at UPenn but was not enrolled at Wharton. See below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, take a look at this. It says:

"before transferring to the University of Pennsylvania and studied economics for two years, graduating in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree. He took undergraduate classes at Penn’s famed Wharton School of Business. Though he was not enrolled in Wharton’s prestigious MBA program, the Spring 2007 Wharton Alumni Magazine featured Trump, with this headline, “The Best Brand Name in Real Estate.”"

What this appears to be saying is that although he took classes from the Wharton School but was not enrolled or graduated from the Wharton School. If he graduated with a degree in economics, then that's not Wharton (it's the UPenn School of Arts & Sciences). However, it does seem Wharton is claiming him as one of their "alumni" based on the fact he took their courses.

Unless there's something which contradicts this source, the claim that "he graduated from Wharton" should be removed from the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The link I provided, just above, from Wharton, proudly lists him as a 1968 graduate. It doesn't get any more official than that. Doc talk 07:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If he graduated with a degree in economics then he could not have graduated from Wharton, because economics is not part of Wharton but part of UPenn's Arts and Sciences division [20].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Strike that, Wharton also gives BS in econ. So he could have.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

However, the matter still remains that "attended" is not the same as "graduated". The link you provided only shows the former, and the link I provided directly contradicts that he "graduated".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Just in case you or anyone else missed it: "THE BEST KNOWN BRAND NAME IN REAL ESTATE DONALD J. TRUMP, W’68". That "W'68" part? On the very official Wharton website? That means he was a Wharton graduate in the year 1968. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 07:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I'm confusing Wharton's MBA program, which is what usually people think of when they say "Wharton", with the undergrad degree Wharton offers to UPenn students.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hatting squabble. Let's stick to discussing content and not pick fights with other editors.

You don't check your facts. You are openly anti-Trump, which makes NPOV impossible. Why do you even edit this article? Doc talk 07:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC) What the hell are you talking about? And yes, I got it wrong initially but after ... checking the facts, I quickly corrected myself. And speaking of "checking the facts", it seems you haven't bothered to check that I've actually made no edits regarding this matter to the article. I'd appreciate it if you struck your personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Are you, or are you not, "openly anti-Trump"? Doc talk 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC) I don't know what that means and you really need to stick to discussing content not editors, else we're taking a trip to WP:AE. Again, please strike your personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC) There was no personal attack. You really have no business editing this article. We need a NPOV in encyclopedic articles. Doc talk 07:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC) I don't particularly appreciate you telling me what articles I "have business editing" or not. If you feel there's something wrong with my edits or comments on this article, please feel free to file an appropriate complaint either at AN/I or AE. You know how this works. But let me remind you: 1) discuss content not editors. 2) don't make unsupported aspersions. Those rules are there for a host of reasons, one of which is that failing to abide by them can quickly derail productive discussions, as you have done here. But hey, do what you want.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Don't challenge me to support my "aspersions" that you are quite openly anti-Trump. I won't have to dig very deep at all; and I can dig deep. You have no chance getting me on a "personal attack". I'll say it again: you are openly biased against the subject. I do think that you should not be allowed to influence the content accordingly, and I will call you on it if I choose to. Doc talk 08:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Again, you are free to file a report at AN/I or AE if you feel my edits violate any Wikipedia policy. In the meantime, it's not up to you to decide who or who should not be editing this article. Your blanket reverts of my edits - which appear to be made solely because it's myself who made them - are disruptive (never mind bad faithed).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

1 RR restriction and recent spurious reverts

It seems that User:Doc9871 after making his comment above that I "have no business editing this article" (because... not sure) has decided to arbitrarily revert any changes I make.

Here he reverts my edit with the edit summary Not in the source. However, the source clearly states (this is even mentioned right in the discussion above) Though he was not enrolled in Wharton’s prestigious MBA program

Here he reverts my edit where I replaced a non-reliable source with a reliable source (without changing article text) with a claim in the edit summary that "Can't swap a source that doesn't support the content with one that does". However, the source I "swapped in" [21] clearly states: "The Republican presidential candidate tells Scott Pelley the free trade agreement between Mexico, Canada and the U.S. is a "disaster." and "He says he will either break or renegotiate it " which is exactly the text that is being cited. Hence, the edit summary is false.

Here he also reverts an edit where I replaced a non-reliable source with a reliable source (without changing article text) with the edit summary "Blogs? Yeah, not a RS. Yeesh". Yes, this is a blog, but it is associated with a reputable news source by an expert in the field. That makes it helluva better than a non-reliable source that was there previously. Even if there is a valid objection to using Schooled as a source, the proper thing then is to remove the claim until reliable sources can be found rather than restoring shoddy sourcing.

I would appreciate it if Doc refrained from blanket reverting my edits just because he feels, for some reason, that I "have no business editing this article" (which isn't up to him to decide).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You can't just add stuff to this article and expect it to be safe per the 1RR restriction. It will be struck down by a higher authority. I listed specific reasons each time I reverted you for adding content that I guess you just assumed would be unchallenged. Doc talk 08:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What is this "higher authority" that you are referring to? You?

I addressed these "specific reasons" you gave above - they are false.

1RR restriction applies to the article whether you like it or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Shut. Up. (signed, Everybody) Doc talk 08:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is egregious.[22] Swapping a source and adding negative content without any sort of attempt at consensus from an unabashedly biased editor. Who is watching this? Doc talk 08:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If you disagree with the claim made, show it to be false or unsupported. The content that he added was perfectly accurate. More sources can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Gun_regulation, Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, I request that you stop making personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You simply do not know what a personal attack is. Is that a personal attack, to point that out? Doc talk 09:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the problems with your edits. Unless Trump is being interviewed by Breitbart, we should never cite that source. It seems as if there are editors camping this article who don't have any business editing and who seek to stop any edits for arbitrary reasons that might reflect poorly on Trump (such as him having opposed gun control, which is a valid inclusion). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans and Volunteer Marek that there is nothing wrong with with Volunteer Marek edits. Doc9871 has repeated violated the 1RR and used uncivil bullying to push a non-neutral POV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Also agree. Replacing a Newsmax cite with Newsweek certainly seems an improvement. Replacing Brietbart with Mad Magazine would be an improvement. Objective3000 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think, like it or not, we may be nearing the point of having to full-protect this article until the election's over. He's just too much a target for vandalism and content disputes. pbp 16:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans, Gouncbeatduke, and Objective3000 that the material added by Volunteer Marek was an improvement and should be included. I will re-add it as established by consensus (although I have my doubts about the phrase "supports the Second Amendment" - come on, is there anyone that DOESN'T support the Second Amendment?). Warning to User:Doc9871 and User:Volunteer Marek: please be aware of the Discretionary Sanctions in place on this article. You are not allowed to revert something more than once, even if you are sure you are right and the other person is wrong. Cases of disagreement should be brought to the talk page to seek consensus, as was eventually done here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you. Since there also appears to be consensus on the other issues, can I restore the source improvements I made in the other edits which were also reverted? Note that this does not change any of the text, just replaces non-reliable sources with reliable ones.

A separate issue is whether we should indicate that Donald's degree from Wharton is an undergraduate one in the infobox. Usually when people refer to the Wharton School they almost always are talking about its graduate MBA program. Hence having "Alumni: Wharton" can be misleading. The sources provided above (Slate and Fortune) are explicit about emphasizing that his degree was undergraduate one, and NOT from the MBA prog. This is adequately covered in the lede, but should also be in the infobox.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It can be misleading as people tend to think of "graduated from Wharton" as having achieved an MBA when it doesn't mean that. Last I heard, Wharton doesn't even allow their undergrads to enter their MBA program. It needs to be carefully phrased. Objective3000 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are Trump's political stances in the lead?

This seems quite strange to me. Since when is it appropriate to put political stances of a candidate in the LEAD. Shouldn't the lead be about summarizing their life. Look at the pages of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, any other candidate, they have NO political stances in the lead, because it's quite inappropriate. And with Trump's constantly changing, it's so misleading to put them in the lead. Question: Should we get rid of Trump's political stances in the lead? ApolloFirenze (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The Lead should cover the most important aspects of the topic, as its the first (and often, only) content a visitor reads. Trump is most well-known currently as the Republican candidate, and his political views are central to that feature of him. Also, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton do contain political stances in the lead. It's actually featured quite heavily in the Sander's lead, more so--I think--that in Trump's. It is light in Hillary's, where her political history is featured more heavily. I'd vote to leave it in. --FeldBum (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I support keepingTrump's stances in. Also, Hillary Clinton's lede should have her 2016 signature issues, it's bad that it doesn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The political stances of political figures is important. Usually though politicans are identified with specific sections of a party or ideology, for example progressive Democrat or moderate Republican, so a detailed description of positions is not required. Trump's harder to classify. I would say however that the lead is skewed too much to his political career. TFD (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Leave in lead: Look, mention Trump's political candidacy and the first thing people think of is "build a giant wall". Trump has more clarity of slogan-based positions than Hillary and probably even than Bernie. It seems reasonable to mention something like "build a giant wall" or Muslim ban because it's what he's been known for for the past year. pbp 16:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump v Khan feud

This story appears not to be going away and it looks like one of the biggest stories to come out of the DNC. Tons of sources. Working backwards: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] (note the source actually uses the word "feud"), [29], [30], [31]... tons more and that's just from the last few hours while I got some sleep. There's a huge amount of sources on this going back to convention day.

It doesn't appear we have anything on the controversy in the article, and although I generally favor a robust application of WP:NOTNEWS it very much looks like this has become a big enough issue to include in the article (I'd hold off on a separate article but if it keeps going like this...) Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Coverage of the story has become extensive and in-depth, with inputs from across the spectrum (Democratic politicians, Republican politicians, and veterans groups). The exceptions to WP:NOTNEWS seem to apply, and thus this content should be allowed in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree this has become a monster-big deal and needs to be covered. Even my own local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, which leans conservative, gave half of the Monday front page to this story, with a banner headline and several pictures. However, I would prefer to see it in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article, in the section called "people and groups". In a subsection titled "Khizr Khan" or "the Khan family", no "feud." (It takes two to make a feud, but Khan is trying to de-escalate while Trump keeps attacking.[32]) I'll move to that article's talk page and try to come up with a starter draft. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely belongs in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article, but I think it should also - briefly - be mentioned here. In particular the fact that Trump is being criticized by members of his own party is quite significant. It's more or less unprecedented that high ranking members of a political party would harshly criticize their own nominee for president (at least once the primaries are over).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW I see that the soldier son, Humayun Khan (soldier), already has an article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC) And so do the parents: Khizr and Ghazala Khan. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur with User:Volunteer Marek. At most, it deserves a single sentence in this article. Similar to Joe the Plumber in John McCain. NickCT (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good analogy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Me too! ;-)

After all, other stuff does exist. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is worthy of mention, even if only for a sentence or two. Neutrality^talk 19:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. It belongs on the Donald Trump presidential campaign 2016 article. How can anybody answer that question posed by George Stephanopoulos over the weekend, unless they had a child who died in the military? It's a Clinton talking point and belongs on the presidential campaign page. This is a BLP and the items that belong here are to man, not his presidential campaign. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• The man and his campaign overlap, of course. I'm not sure what BLP has to do with anything. Neutrality^talk 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I added a paragraph to the article Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Someone might want to abstract a sentence from it to go in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no consensus for that. This is political theater. It isn't something Trump initiated like the comments about the judge hearing the Trump University case. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Political theater" is what Donald Trump's campaign is all about, as he would be the first to say. And while he may not have initiated it (since he was responding to an interviewer's questions), he certainly has kept it up. More to the point, the national media of all stripes have kept it up. This is still front page news, several days later. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't make it appropriate here. And if you take his comments, the "firestorm" is simply being whipped up by the media which supports Hillary. It's way out of proportion to what was said and politicians who don't like him to begin with, are jumping on the bandwagon. That's not an excuse for Wikipedia to do the same. Simply stating what was said, without the drama is best, and it is best done on his presidential page. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: Which particular "exceptions to WP:NOTNEWS"? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not accustomed to citing rules in my editing so I may get this wrong but as far as I understand it, the exceptions to "WP:NOTNEWS" are "extended and in-depth news coverage", having "demonstrable effect or impact (such as political controversy, troop movements, economic changes, etc.)" and common sense ("Sometimes the exact long-lasting impact of a current event in the news will not be apparent, but common sense dictates that there will be an impact"). The inclusion of this fits those I think. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN: You were commenting, "Even my own local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune..." Well, here's what my local newspaper had to say!  ;)

Khizr Khan’s Speech, Ghazala Khan’s Comments and Donald Trump’s Replies - WSJ:

"Trump was noting that Ghazala Khan stood silent next to her husband for seven minutes Thursday night... Trump was asked about the speech... He said: ‘He was, you know, very emotional... If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.’ ... Her husband said later: ‘... I was strengthened by her presence... So her being there was the strength that I could hold my composure. I am much weaker than she is in such matters.’"

(Most relevant passages from WSJ compilation.) A fair paraphrase: When asked about Khizr Khan's speech, Trump said he appeared very emotional, whereas his wife, who was standing next to him, had nothing to say. He added that "maybe" someone hadn't allowed her to say anything. Khan replied that his wife was better at maintaining her composure than he was and that she was there to give him the strength to make his speech. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Mrs. Khan said she was too emotional and I believe her when she said she was afraid if she spoke she would lose her composure. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I normally don't visit this page, but as with other politicians / candidates, whether this is news of the day or just an event in the back and forth of politics, stuff like this only belongs in the main biographical article of a person if it is a crucial, pivotal, defining, etc., event in their career. WP:NOT#NEWS suggests the reason, in part. There are plenty of sources, but it is far too early to tell. I would keep it out for now, and if he were to lose the election look back later to see if this is attributed by the sources to be one of the relevant or defining issues. Otherwise, there are reasons why we have sub-articles about campaigns, political careers, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, sorry, but your analysis above is POV and wrong. That (coverage) doesn't make it appropriate here. Yes it does. The extent of our coverage is determined to a large extent by what Reliable Sources do; we don't decide on our own to puff up a minor story or ignore a major one. And if you take his comments, the "firestorm" is simply being whipped up by the media which supports Hillary. Dead wrong. The firestorm is coming from politicians and public figures of all sides,[33] including many who have endorsed him and have not withdrawn their support.[34] It is being reported by media of all slants, from liberal to conservative. (Are you going to claim that the Wall Street Journal supports Hillary?) "the media which supports Hillary" reflects your own bias; it's not how Wikipedia evaluates sources. It's way out of proportion to what was said and politicians who don't like him to begin with, are jumping on the bandwagon. Again, it's not just "politicians who don't like him"; the condemnation is almost universal and is coming from his supporters too. That's not an excuse for Wikipedia to do the same. Simply stating what was said, without the drama is best. The drama and the reaction is what makes it a story worth including here. and it is best done on his presidential page. Umm, he doesn't have a presidential page; he is not president yet. I assume you meant his campaign page? I agree, and that's where it is (although I see you have completely rewritten it, and I will deal with those changes at that article). --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It bears noting that a current GOP congressman has now decided to vote for Clinton, citing Trump's behavior towards the Khans specifically as his rationale for doing so. It would be hard to argue that the story doesn't have major political ramifications already. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It is just one of many controversial actions by Trump during his campaign. While it may be relevant to his campaign article, it is of little significance overall to the subject of this article. TFD (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

While I do think it deserves a sentence at this article, I don't see any place where it naturally fits. We need to be careful what we add here because there is still a lot of time til the election. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's actually not "just" one of many controversial actions. This one has had a lot of tractions and has been going on for some time now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

For helpful background material about Attorney Khan, see International Business, KM Khan Law Office (Aug. 1, 2016), http://web.archive.org/web/20160801212033/http://www.kmkhanlaw.com/International_Business.html (“E2 and EB5 Investor Immigration and International Business Transactions”) (site discontinued Aug. 2, 2016). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly relevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think it bears a small reference in the post-nomination section of the campaign article as something that caused his numbers to tank. pbp 19:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We would need to confirm that with polling though, which can be a bit hard. It's unclear why his poll numbers are slipping at the moment. It could be many of the numerous things he's said over the last few days or even just still be part of Clinton's convention bounce. Nate Silver says that this is a particularly hard time to judge polling, due to two convention bounces. That said, I think it's reasonable to guess that the Khan feud plays some role. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam draft status

This edit to the "childhood and education" section has the following edit summary: "False info. The 'both feet' claim came from an interview, it is not in the biography. Reference to lottery number is WP:UNDUE as student and medical deferments made him ineligible to be drafted."

First let's look at the "both feet" thing. The deleted language is in bold: "Trump has attributed his medical deferment to "heel spurs" in both feet according to a 2015 biography." The cited New York Times article says: "During an interview for the book, Mr. Trump removed a shoe to show the author the cause of his medical deferment. 'Heel spurs,' he said. 'On both feet.'" The NYT article also says this about the book: "Mr. Trump described his education, business life, marriages and childhood in extensive interviews with Michael D’Antonio, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter at Newsday. Mr. D’Antonio’s biography of Mr. Trump, 'Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success,' will be published Sept. 22." The NYT article is dated September 8, 2015. So, I will restore some modified language: "in both feet according to an interview for a 2015 biography".

Now let's look at the lottery issue. Did the student and medical deferments make him ineligible to be drafted throughout the period when he otherwise could have been drafted? According to an ABC News article, Selective Service records do not "categorically suggest it was deferments and not a high draft number that ultimately allowed him to avoid the draft." So I will modify this part of the Wikipedia article accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Student deferments applied only so long as the student was enrolled and maintaining a full course load. Medical deferments made them completely ineligible unless the condition was one that was expected to improve. In that case, the person would be called in for another physical to evaluate his status. Unless bone spurs are expected to improve, and there is evidence that Trump was reevaluated and deemed fit to serve, ABC's speculation makes no sense. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think what ABC was saying is that the medical deferment allowed him to avoid the draft, and at the same time the high lottery number allowed him to avoid the draft; they both had the same effect, so saying that one did help him and one didn't is not necessarily correct. Just like if I break a leg and also contract the flu; they both can explain why I took a sick day from work, and saying one explains the sick day while the other does not is incorrect. Anyway, a NY Times article today reports that Trump believed he was subject to medical reexamination because the condition was temporary (the NYT says it's treatable "through stretching, orthotics or sometimes surgery").[35]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are two pertinent quotes from news reports. ABC News:

“ Nor do the documents categorically suggest it was deferments and not a high draft number that ultimately allowed him to avoid the draft. ”

New York Times:

“ Because of his medical exemption, his lottery number would have been irrelevant, said Richard Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, who has worked for the agency for three decades....Still, Mr. Trump, in the interviews, said he believed he could have been subject to another physical exam to check on his bone spurs, had his draft number been called. “I would have had to go eventually because that was a minor medical....' But the publicly available draft records of Mr. Trump include the letters 'DISQ' next to his exam date, with no notation indicating that he would be re-examined. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears from your edit that you reverted, that bone spurs on the feet is not something the Selective Service reevaluated. I know that anything to do with orthopedic problems, especially involving the feet, do outright disqualify people from service, even for volunteers. So Trump's bone spurs appears to have disqualified him. A high lottery number, which millions of people had after the changes, would have exempted him anyway. You have to be careful that this isn't becoming WP:SYNTH. Trump is probably right that if he still had an active number and it had been called, he would still have been required to report. They could have reevaluated him and because he had an orthopedic issue, would probably have disqualified him again. Since there is no longer a draft, it seems moot. Are you trying to say he was a draft dodger? SW3 5DL (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Is that question for me? Of course I'm not suggesting he was a draft dodger. On the contrary, I'm saying that Trump was not relying solely upon a medical deferment after his student deferments ran out. He was also relying upon a high lottery number in case the medical deferment was overturned (e.g. due to a medical finding that he had healed or never had a serious problem to begin with). I don't think it's correct to say in Wikipedia's voice that the high lottery number was completely unhelpful to Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You're synthesizing here. You don't understand. The military doesn't want anybody with anything wrong wit the feet. They are soldiers. They do a lot of walking, carrying a 40 lb pack, a very heavy weapon, and very heavy ammo. People with ortho problems create problems in the field, like slowing the others down and getting people killed, not to mention they cost the DOD lots of money in hospital bills and long term disability. This edit you want to make: "But the publicly available draft records of Mr. Trump include the letters 'DISQ' next to his exam date, with no notation indicating that he would be re-examined." Is Synthetic. Where is there a RS that says, "If Trump were going to be reevaluated, there would have been a notation for a reevaluation." You don't have that, so adding in that line, is synthetic. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No. "But the publicly available draft records of Mr. Trump include the letters 'DISQ' next to his exam date, with no notation indicating that he would be re-examined." is a direct quote from the New York Times. I want to put that quote into a footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No. You can't. That's the New York Times synthesizing. In this instance, they are not reliable. They are just making an observation. Where is it written in DOD policy that the records must indicate if there is to be a reevaluation? Is there even a box or column for it to check it off? The NYTimes are not quoting the DOD or Selective Service policy. They are simply making an observation. Find the DOD policy on that and you can add that. I think, knowing what I know of that era, that Trump was right to believe he could be reevaluated. I say that, because to him it was a minor defect, and like most students of the day, he had a lot of misinformation about what could and could not happen next. But I can assure you, the military doesn't want anything to do with people who have any orthopedic problems. Those are major issues for them, although it seemed minor to Mr Trump. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If the New York Times is "just making an observation" then I fail to understand how they could be guilty of unreliable synthesis. Incidentally, please note that I'm not the one who inserted the NYT article into this BLP. Anyway, before we discuss whether the NYT is being unreliable, how about we consider whether my actual edit to the BLP text is okay or not? The BLP presently says this: "Trump has said, 'I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number', but because of his medical exemption, his lottery number was irrelevant." Here is my proposed edited version: "Trump has said, 'I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number', though the lottery number and the medical exemption were somewhat redundant." Do you object to that BLP edit, or do you merely object to using the New York Times as a reliable source? SW3, you said above "Trump is probably right that if he still had an active number and it had been called, he would still have been required to report. They could have reevaluated him and because he had an orthopedic issue, would probably have disqualified him again." But if they found that the orpthpedic issue had been resolved (or was never really serious), then the high lottery number would have been relevant, right? So maybe we shouldn't say in Wikipedia's voice that it was irrelevant, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it was relevant to him and believe him when he says he thought the high number kept him from getting drafted. Back then, it was like having a sword hanging over your head, and was a daily stressor for all military aged males at that time with or without deferments for any reason. People were paranoid about their grades and fought to get pass/fail courses to help relieve the stress of constantly fighting to get good grades. Many people were anxious to get into grad school for the continuing deferments they could get. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then I will go ahead with my BLP edit (described above) removing the word "irrelevant". I'm not sure if you want me to refrain from putting the NYT quote into the NYT footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I only object to the NYTimes making an observation and not showing actual DOD policy on that. btw, Trump received 4 student deferments because students had to reapply constantly to prove they were still enrolled full time and carrying a full course load and satisfactory GPA. He got 4 deferments, one for each year of undergrad. If he'd gone to grad school, he could get another deferment. The only exceptions were medical students who could be and were, drafted and trained to be medics. Here's a link to the Selective Service page on the rules for the Vietnam Era. [36]. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't disagreed with anything you just said about student deferments, and I don't disagree with it now either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't implying you had. It's just that the reader should know that 4 deferments was exactly what he had to do. It wasn't like he was getting some special privilege. On your question about getting reevaluated, bone spurs do not resolve on their own, and surgery at that time, during the 60s and 70s wasn't something that would be common. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, the NYT reports that Trump's condition was treatable "through stretching, orthotics or sometimes surgery". Trump himself agrees that it was not a permanent condition ("I would have had to go eventually because that was a minor medical — it was called 'minor medical'"). Even if you disagree with the NYT and Trump himself that Trump's condition was not permanent, still a reexamination might have revealed that the original diagnosis was not entirely correct, or that the condition was not so severe as to justify a deferment. Anyway, do you think it's proper for this BLP to say in Wikipedia's voice that the high lottery number was "irrelevant"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we should go with what he believes. Does he believe the high lottery number helped him? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

On the bone spurs resolving, I know DOD policy would not have taken him. It involved the feet. Two areas that were automatically disqualifying: feet and eyes. But I don't blame him for thinking he could still be drafted and believing it was the high number that kept him at home. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The DOD has never had any problem taking draftees who once had a foot condition that has since completely resolved, or that has sufficiently resolved, or that has been found to be not as severe as originally believed. As for going with what Trump believes, I'm not sure it would be useful for this BLP to say "Trump believes so-and-so" about this, especially because readers will wonder whether reliable sources agree with him or not. The main problem that I would like to fix is that this BLP should not opine that the high lottery number was irrelevant, given that the reliable sources don't say it was irrelevant (the NYT did quote a former Selective Service official saying it was irrelevant, but the NYT refrained from confirming that in its own voice, and ABC also indicated there is no proof it was irrelevant).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with that, but you have to ask why wouldn't the NYTimes confirm their own quote from the Selective Service guy. You, see that's where they're getting synthetic. Trump believes the high number was relevant and he could be right, because had they wanted to reevaluate his medical deferment, the high number would have kept him out. So it is relevant in that regard and that's probably exactly why he believed the high number benefitted his status. .SW3 5DL (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, we don't know what Trump (or anyone else) believes. We only know what he says and what he does. We have no way of really knowing what he thinks. Memories also tend to warp over time, and we're talking about something that happened almost 50 years ago. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps they wouldn't confirm the quote from the Selective Service guy for the same reason they wouldn't confirm the quote from Trump about it: neutrality, uncertainty, et cetera. Or perhaps the NYT knew the Selective Service guy was full of it but wanted to quote someone disagreeing with Trump. Anyway, I'll revert my revert later today. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Aye, sounds good. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

[Redacted PA] The NYT has confirmed that the draft number had no effect on Donald Trump getting drafted as the Donald's rich daddy had already bought him a 4F classification. See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

We've been discussing that NYT article at great length in this talk page section. Did you know that? You really should run for a seat on Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, GoUNC. You'd fit well. Cheers!Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact Anythingyouwant is topic banned on all abortion related articles for POV-pushing is not a personal attack, it is just a fact. The fact you are continuing your POV-pushing here for an anti-abortion candidate is also a fact. The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, praised Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees as "exceptionally strong," while the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America called the candidates on the list "a woman's worst nightmare." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

References

It's also a fact that Austin Rivers was a great basketball player for Duke against UNC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

TLDR. I did notice someone saying that something in the New York Times article was "synthesis" and therefore not reliable. Hogwash. When a Times news story states a fact, it's about as reliable as it gets. In any case, I'm reading a lot of hot air here. Any content needs to be supported by reliable sources. The article had a editorial-ish, unverified phrase about how "perhaps" Trump wasn't drafted because of a high lottery number. I changed it to reflect the New York Times story. If there are sources that conflict with the Times then we need to cite them and describe them. The key word being conflict. If they don't conflict then we don't need to cite them or describe them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman, to be clear, I never endorsed the idea that the NYT was synthesizing anything. But I do disagree with your edit that essentially denies that the high lottery number helped to keep Trump out of Vietnam. We don't have reliable sources that support that notion. On the contrary, at the end of the sentence in question we have this footnote:

“ Goldman, Russell (April 29, 2011). "Donald Trump's Own Secret: Vietnam Draft Records". ABC News. Retrieved August 1, 2016. "Nor do the documents categorically suggest it was deferments and not a high draft number that ultimately allowed him to avoid the draft." ”

The recent New York Times article does not deny that the high lottery number helped to keep Trump out of Vietnam, as discussed above in the TLDR material. Think about it: if Trump had a low draft number and had been called up for service, he would have been re-examined because heel spurs can heal or be cured per this New York Times article; the high draft number may have prevented all that from happening. In reality, there were two redundant reasons why he was not drafted after the student deferments ran out: (1) the medical deferment and (2) the high lottery number.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand that. So if we want that level of detail, let's say that, instead of the weird "perhaps" language that was there before. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, hopefully this edit will do the job.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump has said, "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number", though it is unclear whether the high draft number provided him with any protection that was not already provided by the medical deferment.

References

arbitrary page split to navigate section better

@Anythingyouwant: What exactly is the point you're trying to make with these edits and inserting the additional material into the footnote? The information on his draft status and his student deferments seems straight forward to me. I am particularly concerned about the last sentence in that paragragh. Forgive me, but what importance/significance do you ascribe to the last part of the sentence, " though it is unclear whether the high draft number provided him with any protection that was not already provided by the medical deferment." SW3 5DL (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make any particular point, just trying to present pertinent information from reliable sources. The statement "though it is unclear whether the high draft number provided him with any protection that was not already provided by the medical deferment" simply reflects that the cited articles from ABC News and the NY Times address the matter without concluding that the high draft number did (or did not) provide him with any protection that was not already provided by the medical deferment. Doesn't that accurately describe these sources?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes that important? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Two things. First, the NYT devoted substantial space to reporting about it. Second, if we were to just quote Trump saying he got a lucky high number that kept him out of the war, and ended the section that way, we would not be accurately conveying the uncertainty surrounding the matter (as evidenced by the footnoted quote from the Selective Service guy).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with SW3 5DL on this particular issue. I don't see the encyclopedic benefit of either the quote or the sentence about it being unclear. It appears to be undue emphasis and improper synthesis on a point that's already made clearly and concisely earlier in the paragraph. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed the whole sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, @DrFleischman:. I agree with the policy you've quoted. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I support whichever editor created the "Trump has said, "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number",[20] but because of his medical exemption, his lottery number was irrelevant." version of this paragraph that existed earlier today because it is very NPOV. The version later today that emphasized the high draft number was very pro-Trump POV-pushing and intellectually dishonest, so I revert to the older version. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've been looking into this. Trump's lottery number was not irrelevant, though it has been made to seem so in a New York Times article. After Trump graduated from UPenn, he was given a 1-A classification in July, 1968. In October, 1968 Trump was given another military medical exam because they were getting ready to draft him. Trump says he produced a letter from a doctor. During that exam, the military doctor classified him as 1-Y, a deferment for a minor medical aliment, which Trump says was bone spurs. This classification and it's meaning in terms of continuing draft eligibility seems to be misunderstood either deliberately or innocently by reporters. 1-Y still made Trump eligible for the draft but only in a national emergency. Well, turns out anything can qualify as a national emergency. The Selective Service need only declare an emergency in providing troops for combat, for example.

Then in December 1969, the draft lottery was created to address the needs for more troops in Vietnam. Because Trump was only a 1-Y, he was eligible to participate in this draft lottery. However, he received a high number, around 356, which is nearly at the top end of 'never going to get called up.' Had Trump's birthdate been given a lower number, say under 140, he would indeed have been drafted. So the high number was not irrelevant as a New York Times article has a Selective Service guy saying. On the contrary, it was the thing that exempted Trump and no doubt he was well aware of his status and sweated out that drawing like everybody else did.

This is likely why he says the lottery kept him out of the draft. It did. So to keep adding in the bit about the high draft number being irrelevant is not a good idea. I know we don't go by truth, necessarily, we go by reliable sources. But looking at bits from all the other sources puts the picture together. The problem article is the New York Times, and in reading that, it seems more like an opinion piece than an objective news article. On top of that, in December 1971, the Selective Service eliminated all 1-Y classifications and changed them to 4F. They changed Trumps classification in 1972, but by then he had already been eliminated from any future draft by his high lottery number. Once his birthdate had been chosen, it could not be chosen again. So you see, it is the 1-Y deferment that is irrelevant and not the lottery number. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There was a consensus here among three editors who have carefully discussed this matter. However, a fourth editor seems determined to continue revert-warring.[37]Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Olay, well in that case, I'm going to ping @Bishonen: to look this over. He commented earlier about civility issues. Maybe he can offer advice. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Incivility and assumptions of bad faith on this page may lead to topic bans

Several users have recently been topic banned from Donald Trump-related pages because of personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and generally lowering the tone on this page. (Please don't name them here if you happen to know who they are; naming and shaming is never what article talk is for.) I see some unnecessarily personalised comments by other people as well. You probably know who you are, but I'll give examples on request. Please remember, everybody, that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions per the warning at the top, and that this is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a venue for quarrels or attacks. Comment on content, not contributors. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC).

Obama's comments

Somebody added a paragraph to the Presidential Election campaign section, quoting at great length President Obama's recent denunciation of Trump. I have deleted it, subject of course to discussion here. It is already being discussed at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 whether to include anything about these comments. IMO if they are to be reported anywhere, it should be there at the campaign article, not here in Trump's biography. And if something is to be included, IMO it should be brief, not an extended quote. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The quote was way, way too long. If it is to be included here, it must be in the context of simply saying "Trump's statements regarding the Khan family have received widespread condemnation from McCain, Ryan, [insert other big shots] and President Obama" after we include a sentence or two on Trump's Khan feud (if that is to be included).Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Obama on Trump

I added this to the article (proofreading):

"At a White House news conference on August 2, 2016, Obama delivered an extraudionarly harsh denunciation of Trump, stating that "The Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. He keeps on proving it. The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that made such extraudionarly sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn't appear to have basic knowledge of critical issues in Europe, the Middle East, in Asia, means that he's woefully unprepared to do this job. There has to be a point at which you say, 'Enough.' What does this say about your party that this is your standard-bearer? This isn't a situation where you have an episodic gaffe. This is daily and weekly where they are distancing themselves from statements he's making. There has to be a point at which you say, 'This is not somebody I can support for president of the United States, even if he purports to be a member of my party."

References

Shortly after I made the edit, some content I added in it was removed. I'm bringing the content I added here so the community can establish via consensus whether it is worthy of inclusion on the article. Plankton55 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Statements from members of one party that attack those in another party should generally be included only in the campaign articles - that would be Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. And they need to be extraordinary (as this one is, admittedly) to be worth putting even there, I think.

This article does have a relatively short synopsis of the campaign article - the section titled "Presidential campaign, 2016". I can see a case for expanding that slightly, by saying something like:

At a White House news conference on August 2, 2016, President Obama delivered an extraordinarily harsh denunciation of Trump, stating that Trump was unfit to serve as president.

But that's the maximum that I think would be justifiable in this article. The proper place for any lengthy quotation or discussion is Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. I don't think this belongs on his bio. Obama's comments occurred within the context of Trump's presidential campaign. It is certainly appropriate on the campaign page, but not here. As to the section on this article regarding his presidential campaign, it should not be included there. That section need only be a paragraph mentioning his run for president, platform, etc, which it does now. The Trump presidential article then provides full information. . SW3 5DL (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It is extraordinary that a sitting president should comment on anybody in such terms. This goes to character, rather than the regular run of political chat. I support John Broughton's wording above. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I also support the wording recommended by John Broughton and Pete. It is an extraordinary piece of history and should be included here. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

An attack by a political opponent with a huge stake in seeing whoever is running against Hillary lose has absolutely no place in Trump's bio.CFredkin (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If you check, it's Hillary who is the political opponent with a huge stake. Obama, not so much. A character assessment by the President of the USA is a pretty big deal. --Pete (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any reason it belongs here, if anywhere. Objective3000 (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Political positions — Trump vs Clinton

The "Political positions" section si too detailed, and the subject is already covered elsewhere. We should take inspiration from Hillary Clinton#Political positions. What do you think about it? -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely essential to have a concise collection of his political positions on signature issues and highly salient matters in the main article. If you check other politicians' pages, their political positions will usually be implicitly covered under their tenure as congressmen/governors or their campaigns for office. Trump has never held public office or run any serious campaign before, so there is no opportunity to list his actions while in office. If you were to include all the 'political positions' that are covered on Clinton's and Pence's pages under their tenure in office, their list of political positions is significantly longer than Trump's. If you check Tim Kaine's page, his 'political positions' section is of similar length to Trump (even when you exclude many of Kaine's positions are implicitly covered under his tenure as Mayor, Governor and Senator). I think it would be malpractice of Wikipedia to not have content on the political positions of one of two individuals likely to hold the most important office in the world. Isn't that (i) one of the key reasons people check this article (the 2016 race) + (ii) vastly more salient (or at least equally important to) three months from election day than his entertainment and business career? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the total length of this article, that section is fine (and informative). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's way too long. Per WP:Summary style, it needs to be shortened just like for comparable BLPs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I just trimmed 2,500 characters that did not add much from the section. It's as concise as it could be I think. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Prior to that trimming there were about 13,000 characters (11,000 characters excluding spaces). The previous section (about the 2016 campaign) is about 5,000 characters including spaces. I'd like to see the positions section at 5,000 or less (including spaces).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with that. By the way, I'll trim some non-essential bits (which some may want to revert) for the next 15 mins. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I did some more trimming. I think this is as good as it gets with one exception (the minimum wage section doesn't necessarily have to outline each contradictory position he has taken - it's enough to just say he's been inconsistent and contradictory). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Good job. I went ahead and removed a paragraph from the Foreign policy section with explanation [38] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that explanation stands up. First, his take on Afghanistan is a current position (leave troops there). Second, Trump cites his wisdom on Iraq and Libya repeatedly on the campaign trail (often incorrectly), as such they are huge parts of the campaign. Third, candidates' positions on Iraq and Libya are hugely important for gauging where candidates actually stand on wars and interventions in practice. It's one thing to speak in hypotheticals and in hindsight and another to actually have to take a decision on the spot. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

User deletes accurate polling and replaces it with inaccurate polling. I can't revert.

This user deleted a bunch of content for the supposed reason that so-called "instant polls" are more reliable and that normal polls by CNN/ORC and Gallup are not: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=732999673&oldid=732996018

Could someone please restore? I probably don't have to say the obvious but "instant polls" are generally considered the worst kind of polls. See:

• NYT calls them "wildly unreliable" in their polling standards: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/pollingstandards.pdf
• This political science blog refers to them as unreliable: http://duckofminerva.com/2008/09/is-mccain-about-to-lose-post-debate.html
• This Independent piece refers to them as unreliable: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/laid-back-bush-keeps-gore-at-arms-length-635398.html

Need I go on?

The editor also replaces accurate descriptions of Trump's and Clinton's convention bounces (which are important in campaigns) with weasel words. Please restore. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A poll by CNN/ORC (very well-respected) conducted RIGHT AFTER Trump's speech said that 75% had a good reaction to it. Now, after the speech happened, the media went in an all-out attack on his speech, using the infamous word "dark". Just look at this: http://i.imgur.com/NBRt2c8.jpg And there were many many articles on how hard the media attacked Trump:

• http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2016/07/22/networks-trump-dark-speech-vengeful-demagogue
• http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trumps-speech-wasnt-dark-or-angry-the-media-out-touch-17099
• http://www.dailywire.com/news/7734/theres-one-word-entire-media-used-describe-trump-aaron-bandler

So after this, the Gallup poll (which by the way, if you look into it, are majorty democrat) is way worse than the instant poll, because people have been influenced by the media. I mean, it's not some kind of a secret. And by the way, even CNN tried to hide their instant poll, because it didn't fit their narrative. Many articles on that too:

• http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/22/75-percent-positive-response-to-donald-trump-speech-so-cnn-trashes-its-own-poll/
• http://newsonable.com/cnn-hides-its-own-poll-number-75-react-positively-to-trumps-speech/

The point is, polls conducted long after the speech are unreliable, as people have been influenced by the media. That's why the CNN/ORC instant poll should be used. This is not rocket science. Also, why is there a need to mention how many particular convention bounce points a candidate received in a MAIN page of the person. We need to trim this article, not expand on such nonsense.

Also, all these polls have such liberal bias. If we looked at independant polling sites like Longroom (who have correctly predicted the winner since 2004), we see Trump is LEADING, not losing to Clinton: https://www.longroom.com/polls/ ApolloFirenze (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources and you're doing original research. Please check the discretionary sanctions notice at the top of the page. You can't reinsert/change this material once it's been challenged.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No one, except you I guess, considers an instant poll more reliable than normal comprehensive polls. They don't even release methodology and full results for them. They are meant for instant coverage on the TV network that conducts it and not more than that (though it's unsurprising that Breitbart runs with it as the authoritative truth). Which is why this very same organization conducted a comprehensive poll over the next two days. Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Instant polls are not, as the NYT polling standards make clear. The CNN/ORC and Gallup surveys released two days are. As for your last point, Wikipedia does not rely on cooky "unskewered" polls from some random site no one has heard of.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Huh? First of all, how dare you say I'm the only one who thinkgs something. Are you serious? Stop living in a world of your own please. Second of all, you straight up ignored what I said about these polls being majority democrats giving their opinion. How is that fair? Also, polling averages are full of majority democratic voters. The media is liberal, is is that hard to understand for you? ApolloFirenze (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to see we have entered "How dare you" territory, ApolloFirenze. Please take a look at my warning above about how incivility on this page can lead to a topic ban from Donald Trump-related pages. I'm quite serious. Also, if you think people find your claims "hard to understand" (=nobody agrees with them), the thing to do is to give evidence (links to reliable sources) for your statements, not merely rehash them. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC).

Hm? So he/she can be rude to me, but I have to be respectful to everyone and get walked all over by people? Got it. ApolloFirenze (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: can you take a look at these diffs: Donald Trump here? Thanks SW3 5DL (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: See diff 6 in particular. "(...revert vandalism)". Here the user in question restores some material that's supported in part by an item on the New Yorker's "Daily Intelligencer" subsite. (Headline: "Hillary Clinton Is Running Not Just As the Democrat But As the Candidate of Democracy Itself". Apparently Johnson ahd Stein aren't, though.) An editor had appropriately removed the material per WP:BLPREMOVE.

Contributions by that same user at Hillary Clinton (per biographies of living persons, removing slander attempts.) and Hillary Clinton talk ("I removed all of your continuing edit-war edits because no consensus exists for you continuing edit-war edits."). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, your link doesn't work for me. Are you and Dervorguilla changing the subject to a different user in mid discussion? That's confusing, and in any case it is best to call attention to diffs you think are problematic at the admin's talk page, rather than here on the talk page; here we shouldn't be talking about other users, but rather page content. (If you agree with that approach, User:Bishonen?) --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, so sorry I added my comment to a section that I thought would get Bishonen's attention, as I thought perhaps she was keeping an eye on this page for ArbCom purposes. My edit has absolutely nothing to do with the other editor you mentioned. Not related at all. I did leave a note on your talk page, btw. As it turns out, Bishonen and I have sorted that bit. Sorry for the confusion. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I do, MelanieN. I've responded on my own page. The link works for me, but it's labs, they're down and up like a jumping frog in my experience. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC).

I have restored the original paragraph about Trump's speech and the reaction to it. ApolloFirenze makes it clear, above, that his version was motivated by partisan considerations, and consensus here has not supported it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Age

Someone inserted at the end of the lead that Trump would be the oldest president. I fixed this to say that he'd be the oldest person to become president, and I added a tag because nowhere in the BLP is there a cite for that. Anyway, I don't think this should be in the lead at all. A similar passage was removed from the Hillary Clinton lead today on the basis that actual history should be favored over potential history. Moreover, we're tailoring potential history in a way that disfavors Trump, because we could instead say that he would be younger than Reagan was when Reagan was inaugurated in 1985.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on removing it from lede. I'm neutral on whether it belongs in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I must support removing it from the article, per WP:CRYSTAL policy. "An expected future event should be included only if the event is almost certain to take place." At the moment, Trump is not "almost certain" to become president.

Moreover, if the incumbent President were to be removed from Office before Inauguration, or to die, resign, or become unable to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, Trump would never become the oldest person to become president. Rather, Biden would. See job description, U.S. Const. art. II. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it does not belong in the lede.CFredkin (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Nor does the other passage (in § 'Presidential campaign, 2016') that begins "If elected, Trump would become..." See generally WP:CRYSTAL.

Wikipedia does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere. An expected future event should be included only if the event is almost certain to take place.

Trump isn't almost certain to get elected. I'm removing both passages for the duration. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

In rev 733324122, I removed some material from § 'Presidential campaign, 2016', explaining, "rm 'If elected, Trump would... If elected, Trump would...' per WP:FUTURE (include future event only if almost certain to take place); Trump is NOT almost certain to be elected, so no need to mention; see Talk § Age)". In rev 733444723, Gouncbeatduke restored the material, explaining, "Please bring to talk page, this does not appear to be a real WP:FUTURE problem".

WP:FUTURE policy says, "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified", but "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is almost certain to take place". Someone is indeed certain to get elected November 8, but Trump in particular is not certain or almost certain to get elected then. No source has been found that supports such a claim; several sources have been found that contradict it. So this does actually appear to be a real FUTURE problem. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Colleagues Calton & Wikidea: Can you propose a compromise text per WP:EDITCONSENSUS? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I must say that Dervorguilla makes a persuasive argument that the age material deals with a speculative event, contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. I don't mind it in the body of the article, except that it does seem to run afoul of the rules. Ditto any material about potentially being the first president who is whatever. If someone wants to find out if Trump is the oldest non-incumbent GOP presidential nominee then we could include that, except I doubt any reliable source has addressed that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I too will support the addition of such a fact to the encyclopedia (if it's true, which it likely is, and if we find a source, which we haven't.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

So, Anythingyouwant, are you suggesting that if Donald Trump is elected President, there's a chance he WON'T be the oldest? Because that's the only way your "speculative" term makes sense, and I don't think time is as flexible as that. ----

Calton: Your summary for rev 733482398 explains, "'Certainty' isn't required for 'if' statements, pretty much by definition." In some philosophical sense, perhaps, but not in the sense clearly intended by the authors of the WP:FUTURE policy.

The 'reasonable editor' would understand the question here to be whether the restrictive clause is almost certain — not whether the main clause is almost certain if the restrictive clause is true. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A "reasonable editor" would note your abuse of the WP:FUTURE guidelines -- which are about presuming predicted events coming true -- with a simple future conditional statement, which bears no relationship -- zip, zero, nada, bupkis, goose egg -- as to its likelihood. "If I were to be hit by a 100-kg meteor, I would be killed instantly" is a true statement that has no dependence -- zip, zero, nada, bupkis, goose egg -- on its likelihood. Your gassing on about restrictive clauses has nothing to do with the probability aspects of WP:FUTURE. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

ApolloFirenze reverts challenged content again (twice within 24 hours)

The user removed the text where the Gallup and CNN/ORC polls showed net negative viewer reactions to the speech. I'd like to see it mentioned that the speech received mixed reviews and that the CNN/ORC and Gallup polls showed net negative public reactions. I think it's alright to retain AF's text that summarizes the content of the speech (law and order etc) and that the speech was widely seen as "dark". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the original version, per above. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Further reading

User:Graham11, I don't think it's necessary to put a huge tag atop this high-traffic BLP, given that you haven't elaborated here at the talk page as to what you think is wrong with the "Further reading" section. Editors often have ideas about how to improve this BLP, but they don't always tag the top of the article. A couple months ago, I expanded the "further reading" section; I simply went to WorldCat and added what I found there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant,

Surely the level of traffic shouldn't affect whether an article has a maintenance tag placed on it – it's not a 'tag of shame', after all. But anyway, I placed the template in line with its documentation:

Add this to the top of the "Further reading" section whenever:

• There are too many publications listed for this article. (Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications, but the best number for a given article depends on the specific circumstances, and may range from zero to more than a dozen.)
• One or more of the publications in the list duplicates a citation in the references or notes sections.
• One or more of the publications present (regardless of number) is inappropriate for any reason.

Naturally, it was added because of the first criterion, but now that I check, the second applies as well. Regarding the first, the template documentation notes "Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications, but the best number for a given article depends on the specific circumstances, and may range from zero to more than a dozen." The further reading section isn't intended to be a comprehensive bibliography, so the tag was added to suggest that the section be pruned by someone more familiar with these publications than I am. Cheers, Graham (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does the tag need to appear at the top of the article instead of at the Further Reading section?CFredkin (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Also, User:Graham11, can you please provide a link to the policies you pasted above?CFredkin (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a link. Notice it says "Add this to the top of the Further reading section whenever...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the tag doesn't need to be at the top of the article. I certainly have no objection to it being moved to the further reading section provided that the "section" parameter is used. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, really.

Regarding the second bullet, MOS:LAYOUT is clear that that further reading sections should not normally duplicate reference sections.

On the first bullet, the same guideline provides that further reading sections should include "a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" (emphasis added). That makes it clear that these sections are not intended to be comprehensive. Rather, they are curated selections of publications that would be of interest, not a list of everything that can be found on WorldCat. The general consensus as to what that looks like is well-described by the documentation of {{further reading cleanup}}: "Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications, but the best number for a given article depends on the specific circumstances, and may range from zero to more than a dozen." In this case, we have 22, if I recall correctly from when I added the tag. In order for the section to be as useful as possible and comply with MOS:LAYOUT, it would be best to prune through the list to end up with a curated selection of high-quality, relevant material. Graham (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Not that it matters, but as I tried moving the tag, I discovered that there is no section parameter. I'm pretty sure there used to be – or maybe I'm just going crazy. Graham (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines and policies probably take precedence over template documentation. Here's the pertinent guideline, and it advises a "reasonable" number of items instead of any particular number. In this case, 22 books strikes me as reasonable. Also, per the guideline, the list of references is too long to serve as a reading list, so some duplication is okay. Another possibility is to simply re-name the section to "Bibliography" instead of "Further reading" since different guidelines then apply (and we would not be over-burdening readers with too much reading).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, per the guideline, the list of references is too long to serve as a reading list, so some duplication is okay.

I definitely take your point there. We probably oughtn't take duplication into account, in that case.

Another possibility is to simply re-name the section to "Bibliography" instead of "Further reading" since different guidelines then apply (and we would not be over-burdening readers with too much reading).

Hmm, I've never known Wikipedia to have biographies with a bibliography section (as distinct from a separate bibliography article) that includes works that are neither authored by the article subject nor are being used as references in the article (assuming I'm correct in understanding that that's what you're suggesting). Are there any examples of that that you know of?

Wikipedia guidelines and policies probably take precedence over template documentation. Here's the pertinent guideline, and it advises a "reasonable" number of items instead of any particular number. In this case, 22 books strikes me as reasonable.

There's no doubt that guidelines take precedence, but it seems that we disagree over our interpretation of the guideline. And while not formally a guideline, I have anyways understood there to be a general consensus in favour of that provision of the documentation. If you believe otherwise, it would probably be best to start a discussion on its talk page to have that corrected.

Specifically on the issue of reasonableness, I disagree that 22 works is reasonable on a topic as specific as one living individual. (I might contrast that with a much broader topic such as politics of the United States, biochemistry, or Plato.) You noted that "[you] simply went to WorldCat and added what [you] found there." Even if 22 were a reasonable number in this context, given that a further reading section is to be a list of selected works, it is clear that we shouldn't have them in the article simply because we know of their existence through a bibliographic database. Graham (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Graham11, items in the "Further reading" section either support material in the article, or could do so. A bibliography can be defined as "a complete or selective list of works compiled upon some common principle, as authorship, subject, place of publication, or printer." So I think re-naming this section to "Bibliography" would be appropriate. If the list becomes too long, then we can start a separate article, analogous to List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton. Okay?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I still have the same question as before:

Hmm, I've never known Wikipedia to have biographies with a bibliography section (as distinct from a separate bibliography article) that includes works that are neither authored by the article subject nor are being used as references in the article (assuming I'm correct in understanding that that's what you're suggesting). Are there any examples of that that you know of?

Graham (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I could go look, but I don't think it's really relevant. If a separate article about a facet of someone is acceptable, then invariably such material can go in the main BLP of that person if there's not yet enough material to justify a separate article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam

The following was deleted from the Trump University section with a "doesn't appear to have long-term notability" comment:

During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican." Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have alarmed legal experts, who have expressed concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence.

From what I have read, this is pretty historic. We have never had a Presidential nominee of a major party using his public position to trash the judge in one of his civil cases. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

References

I would add this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree with that. Inserting edits into sources to draw attention to points you want to make, seems like an end run around the chore of obtaining consensus. And do please remove that edit you made regarding the draft. Firstly, you've not got consensus for such an addition, and secondly, and this is really the point, you've not got a source. This is a BLP. We don't make stuff up about living people and hope we find a source later. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

User:SW3 5DL, I do not understand what you're referring to. I did not introduce any edit into a source, and I didn't make anything up. Feel free to explain further what you mean, either here or at user talk. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

here and here. Are these your edits, or am I mistaken? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The first diff is by an editor named "Mprudhom" and I don't know anything about it. The second diff is by me. In the second diff, I did not introduce any edit into a source, and I didn't make anything up. Feel free to explain further what you mean, either here or at user talk.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I left a message at the user talk page of SW3 5DL which prompted a discussion there. SW3 would like that conversation to be moved here, and so it is quoted below:

“ Hi, your indentation at Talk:Donald Trump makes it appear that you're responding to me rather than to Gouncbeatduke. Is that what you intended?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm responding to your diff on that page. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And do remove that bit you wrote without a source in the childhood/education section regarding the draft. That is totally inappropriate. You've not got a source for any such thing. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

About Trump University, I have responded at the article talk page. About Vietnam, it is absolutely true that he did not protest that War, as he himself has said. As soon as I am allowed to revert again, I intend to shorten that entire sentence to simply say that he didn't serve in the Vietnam War. Please note that it was another editor (not me) who started editing that sentence today, by saying he didn't volunteer. Very few people volunteered for that war, and in any event this BLP should not be a list of all the things Trump has decided he would not do voluntarily. Such a list would be infinite.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Per the NY Times: "'I was never a fan of the Vietnam War,' he said. 'But I was never at the protest level, either, because I had other things to do.'"
• Per CNN: "Curiel is a lifetime member of the National Hispanic Bar Association, which last year called for a boycott of all Trump business ventures -- although it is not clear whether Curiel personally agrees with the boycott."
• Per LA Times: "Curiel’s membership was disclosed in the questionnaire he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he was nominated for a seat on the federal bench in 2012. He also listed several other organizations, including a life membership in the Hispanic National Bar Assn. That group, which describes itself as a nonpartisan professional organization representing the interests of Latino legal professionals, last year in a news release called for a boycott of 'of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels and restaurants.'"Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

”

Saying he didn't serve in the Vietnam War after all the bits about his legal and appropriate student deferments, his temporary 1-Y status, which in no way exempted him from the draft lottery, and ultimately getting a number well above any possibility of getting called up, seems like an attempt to point out over and over, that Donald Trump did not serve in Vietnam. He appears to have done all the appropriate behaviours, he's said he was prepared to serve, and was lucky to get a high draft number. These edits seem more like undue emphasis and POV editing and certainly beating a dead horse. In addition, I spent an entire morning trying to sort out your insistence that bits about his draft lottery number and his 1-Y status did or did not matter. I simply could not discern what the nuance was there until I'd sorted the entire sequence of events which the sources conveniently have obscured. I pointed that out on the talk page where this discussion belongs. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that this edit is not by me? It is by someone else. Moreover, I support making the following edit, but I cannot do it yet because of 1RR: "Trump was not drafted during did not serve in the military during the Vietnam War,[18] nor did he volunteer for military or alternative public service, nor did he publicly protest against the Vietnam War.[citation needed]". Do you support this edit or oppose it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe my comments make it plain that, no I do not support such an edit. The stable edit that was there before you and the other editor added these bits, already fully makes clear that he did not serve in Vietnam. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The previous version said "Trump was not drafted during the Vietnam War.[18]" Why not change it to say he didn't serve in Vietnam? In any event, the sentence is much too long now, and I oppose the other editor's insertion of a statement that Trump did not volunteer. And I totally reject your accusation that "You've not got a source for any such thing." Please retract that accusation in view of the quote I gave above per the NY Times: "'I was never a fan of the Vietnam War,' he said. 'But I was never at the protest level, either, because I had other things to do.'" I only inserted that material temporarily until 1RR allows me to revert, and it is entirely accurate. Also, please retract your accusation that I have made up false information about Trump University. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Trump was not drafted." There follows the deferments and his lottery number which fully explain why he wasn't drafted. Saying he did not serve seems to imply something else. Had he been in military service, like George Bush, and did not get assigned to Vietnam, then yes, that would be appropriate. However, he was never in service, therefore he had no opportunity to serve in Vietnam. He was not drafted. Full stop. And you did not have a source which is why you put in 'citation needed.' And I've no idea what you're talking about regarding Trump University. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to go in circles with you anymore about how this particular material should be edited about Vietnam. Vastly more serious is your accusation that, "You've not got a source for any such thing" regarding material I inserted about Vietnam, and your accusation regarding Trump University that "you've not got a source. This is a BLP. We don't make stuff up about living people and hope we find a source later." I have given you verbatim quotes from the New York Times, CNN, and the LA Times to establish that I have sources for everything discussed. You won't discuss it at your user talk page, so I'm asking you to please retract your accusations here. The reason why I inserted a "cn" tag regarding Vietnam is because the sentence required sourcing in view (e.g.) of the other editor's assertion that Trump did not volunteer for "alternative public service". I only inserted the material about protests temporarily because I could not revert yet due to 1RR. In any event, I have got a source for everything I inserted regarding Vietnam, and I did not make stuff up regarding Trump University. Can you please acknowledge those two things or not, because if you cannot then I will have to seek assistance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The question now is do you see the difference as I've outlined above between 'service' and 'not drafted?' The issue is not service in Vietnam, but rather, the fact he wasn't drafted. There follows the reasons why. I will strike the bits you've taken exception to. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for striking those bits. And please feel free to restore yesterday's version of the sentence in this BLP about not being drafted. I cannot do it yet because of 1RR. I would phrase it a bit more generally than you would, to say that he never "served" in Vietnam (which would cover being drafted as well as volunteering), but the way you like is a big improvement over what's in the BLP now. Thanks again, in advance, for striking those bits.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do we need to say he didn't volunteer? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to say it explicitly. But it might be useful to imply it (by using general language about not having served) because that might appease the editor who thought it was important (thereby contributing to stability of this article), and of course many sources confirm that he didn't serve in Vietnam (as either a draftee or a volunteer). But it's no big deal, if you'd prefer to merely say he wasn't drafted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

He simply did not demonstrate any behaviors that would even remotely suggest he would volunteer. Also, 'things he didn't do,' is a silly concept. He didn't protest the war. He didn't burn his draft card. He didn't neglect his studies. He didn't protest in front of the White House screaming Hey! Hey! LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today? Not to mention, there's no expectation for any young man to deliberately volunteer for Vietnam given the nature of the war and the circumstances at the time. The only men who did that were in prison or headed for prison and the judge gave them a choice, thanks to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's clever scheme to send young men desperate to avoid prison for likely ginned up charges who were represented by incompetent public defenders. Almost all were young, poorly educated black men. They got their records wiped for agreeing to this suicide mission. Of course, so many of them were killed, far more than any other demographic of soldiers. I suppose we could add that Trump also was not a young black man headed for prison. But we've not got RS for that. And 'implying' anything in a BLP seems counter to the rules. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, there would be absolutely nothing contrary to the rules in saying "Trump did not serve in Vietnam". Second, I have strongly opposed saying "Trump did not volunteer" for the exact reasons you describe. Third, I have said it's no big deal and you can put into the article that "Trump wasn't drafted".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No, no, I was thinking of the other editor who wants the volunteer bit, not you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing "Investments" section?

I'm trying to figure out whether the "Investments" section fails the WP:UNDUE test. For example, reading this:

"Trump also has US$9 million invested in hedge funds.[146] He earned US$6.7 million from selling shares in Bank of America and an additional US$3.9 million from selling Facebook in 2014"

or this:

"Trump also has US$9 million invested in hedge funds"

I'm struck by how little money - for a billionaire - appears to be involved. Investments totaling (say) $30 million dollars would be 1% of his net worth if that net worth were $3 billion - and even then, Trump could well have borrowed (on margin, for example) in buying that (hypothetical) $30 million dollars of investments.

More importantly, compare the sources cited in that section, versus (for example) the sources available on the topic of the Trump Shuttle, which gets far less coverage in this article. (It almost certainly involved losses to Trump, personally, in the tens of millions of dollars, but that's not the point - the point is that media coverage was far, far greater for the shuttle than for Trump's investments, while this Wikipedia article has them reversed.)

In short, unless someone can show that there are a lot more reliable sources that have discussed Trump's (meager?) investments than are listed, currently (it's telling that the section starts with citing a press release, which absolutely fails WP:RS), I suggest deleting this entire section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, especially as it doesn't seem supported by reliable sources and this is a BLP. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Stuff like this makes sense in an article on Carl Icahn. Seems trivial here. Objective3000 (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually I think it is quite significant because some politicians might speak against private prisons and own shares in CCA for example. But I am not sure if political candidates have to disclose this. It would be useful if an expert here could let us know what the legal requirements are for presidential candidates.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It also raises the concern that HRC has not disclosed her own investments, as far as I know. But are presidential candidates required by law to disclose which companies they own shares in and how many? (I don't know.) To answer your question about Trump more directly, he owns a lot of buildings and a lot of land. It might make sense to create an article called List of buildings owned by Donald J. Trump, actually. But is the information public?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps List of properties owned by Donald J. Trump, to include golf courses etc. --Hordaland (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I have found Category:Assets owned by the Trump Organization. This raises the question, is he the sole proprietor (100%) of the Trump Organization? Or do his children (and possibly others) own a share of it? Are all his buildings owned by the Trump Organization, or some by himself separately? What about the buildings developed by his father--does he co-own them with his siblings? Do they still collect rent from those buildings?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

To answer some of your questions, I believe once elected president, a candidate is expected to put their holdings in a trust and not have anything to do with the transactions due to conflict of interest. I assume, as his children are running his business now, they would simply continue to do so but without his input. On his income, I know he collects rents on buildings. He owns 40 Wall Street, for example, where he collects rents and has a 200 year lease on the land under the building from the Hinneberg family of Germany. On who owns his buildings. All property is in pubic records of the city or town where they are located. The ownership would be listed in each. He owns certain properties personally, like his penthouse in Trump Tower. As for ownership of Trump Tower, it's likely the Trump Organization. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be useful if a New York-based Wikipedian could take some pictures of his buildings for us and upload them on Wikimedia Commons. For example Trump Village, developed by his father.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump has no interest in Trump Village. Objective3000 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Objective3000: Who owns it? Either way, it would be useful to have pictures of his buildings and his father's buildings on Wikimedia Commons.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

As it's a co-op and co-op's are owned by the share-holder residents, it would be owned by the share-holders, nearly all of whom are residents. I don't see any reason to include images of things his father once partially owned. I live directly across the street from a Manhattan Trump building. I have no idea what part he owns and don't care. Anyhow, most buildings that are named after him are not owned by him. It would require an ongoing effort to determine what complex relationships he has with each building as these relationships change over time. Objective3000 (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, Wikipedia does not promote obscurantism. The buildings are not hidden in gated communities; we should have pictures on Wikimedia Commons to improve related articles.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the section - no one has indicated that this isn't a WP:UNDUE problem. The legal questions discussed above are interesting, but (a) the information in the section isn't relevant to those questions, and (b) Wikipedia content isn't supposed to be put into articles in anticipation that it could, at some time in the future, be relevant. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry sections

Shouldn't the ancestry section and the family tree be under one part? And why isn't the section under "personal life", but rather at the top of the article? Burklemore1 (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggested edits

1. Quote from article: "In 1981, Trump purchased and renovated a building that would become the Trump Plaza. The Plaza later became the home of Dick Clark and Martina Navratilova.[35]" The claims to fame of those two people should be stated, if they are to be mentioned in the article, and any relationship between them should be clarified. (If the two are/were not sharing a home, it should say "became the homes of..." -- or the sentence could be rewritten) I have wikilinked Navratilova as there is only one of her. Does the Dick Clark in the article have a wikipedia article? If so it should be linked; otherwise his "fame" should be clarified.
2. It should probably be sufficient to explain the $2.9 billion just once in the article. It's there twice:

a.) "Trump has claimed that his net worth is over ten billion dollars, whereas in 2015 Forbes estimated his net worth at 4.5 billion, and Bloomberg estimated it at 2.9 billion, with the discrepancies due in part to the uncertainty of appraised property values.[164] Bloomberg raised its estimate of Trump's net worth to $3.0 billion in 2016, ..."

b.) "Estimates of Trump's net worth have fluctuated along with real estate valuations: in 2015, Forbes pegged it as $4 billion,[174] while the Bloomberg Billionaires Index (which scrutinized Trump's FEC filings) estimated a net worth of $2.9 billion,[175] raising its estimate to $3.0 billion the following year.[165]"

I'm just making these suggestions here as I assume that involved editors who are keeping the article up-to-date would prefer to make the edits. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I wikilinked Dick Clark. I cannot fix the other problem yet because each editor is only allowed one revert per day, so feel free to fix it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Allegedly racist and fascist

Can someone explain why these obvious characterizations have not already been put into this article? I just added after "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist"... - the obvious additions that he is widely described as - "racist",[295] and "fascist".

I expect some people might object to this, because they think it is an insult. No, it's just actually what people are describing him as, and that should be in an encyclopedic article. If it fails to do so, it is utterly bias. This is also important given that the American Nazi party today sees Donald Trump as presenting a 'real opportunity'.

If you want statistics, just google "Donald Trump" and "racist" or "fascist". "Populism" isn't even half of what people are "widely describing". Wikidea 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You forgot "bully", Wik. Citation [295](2): "Editor’s note: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully..."

Citation [295](1) lost me at "COMMENTARY". --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

As for citation [296]: Newsweek ("Is Donald Trump a Fascist?") lost me at "OPINION"; New Statesman at the headline ("Is Donald Trump a Fascist? It Doesn't Matter"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Challenged, poorly sourced, removing immediately per WP:BLPREMOVE. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 03:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." Saying Trump is widely considered to be a racist fascist is an overstatement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I see you removed quite a bit more than the disputed content in your edit, which is poor form at best, and slow edit warring at worst, considering this. Please don't use removing BLP violations as an opportunity to further other disputes. ~Awilley (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for using clear edit summaries.

I understand your concern, Awilley. To (further) clarify: I removed part of the material per FUTURE, part per FUTURE and BLPREMOVE, and part per BLPREMOVE only.

I'm willing to remove each part as a separate edit. But this would likely exacerbate the edit-warring problem; my colleague would understandably feel that he had to revert two of my edits, not just one.

What would you propose instead? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 06:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

While they may seem obvious to you, articles are supposed to represent mainstream opinions. Most consider it unlikely that Trump will jail political opponents or ban future elections. TFD (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you heard the phrase "lock her up" - and (on racism) "build that wall"? Wikidea 16:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't change the talk page heading will you? Are the editors above suggesting that people aren't widely describing Trump as EITHER racist OR fascist? If so, maybe they can explain their thinking with evidence? Google search shows that hit rates for ""Donald Trump is a racist" (over 5m) and "fascist" are significantly higher in each case than "populist". Wikidea 16:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

He's neither. Ask Dr Ben Carson. Unless you can prove it, we need to say "allegedly". There is no proof because he's not. He's opposed to illegal immigration, which simply means he is in favor of the rule of law. He supports legal immigration!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The American Conservative has a new article entitled When Trump Fought the Racists.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification

Are you serious?Ernio48 (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Atiru, this BLP has 589 footnotes. Tagging the top of the article with a big notice declaring insufficiency of footnotes is inappropriate. If you think a particular section lacks footnotes then put the tag there, and come discuss here at the talk page. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Wharton School

Donald Trump did graduate from the Wharton School. The University of Pennsylvania is made up of schools. There's the Wharton School of Business, the Towne School of Engineering, the School of Nursing, the School of Allied Sciences, the School of Liberal Arts, and the Annenberg School of Communications. All schools have undergraduate and graduate programs. When you are admitted to the University you then choose the school. Trump did indeed receive his undergraduate degree from the Wharton School. I am going to restore the edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm concerned about the sourcing around the claim that Trump transferred to or graduated from Wharton, as opposed to the University of Pennsylvania. This Washington Post source says: He did well there, and then went to Fordham University, a Jesuit school in the Bronx, for two years, before transferring to the University of Pennsylvania and studied economics for two years, graduating in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree. He took undergraduate classes at Penn’s famed Wharton School of Business. Though he was not enrolled in Wharton’s prestigious MBA program, the Spring 2007 Wharton Alumni Magazine featured Trump, with this headline, “The Best Brand Name in Real Estate.” So was Trump actually enrolled at Wharton or did he just take classes there? The sources currently cited in the article don't support enrollment at Wharton, so at a minimum they need to be sharpened up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted that and left the talk page note above. We should probably combine these sections. There's no such thing as graduating from UPenn. If someone told you they were a Penn graduate, you would ask them, which school? Even at graduation, you first go to the ceremony at your school where you receive your diploma, and then if you feel like it, you can attend the university wide commencement, where you receive a cardboard tube for your diploma. Also, please note that the MBA is the graduate program degree, Masters in Business Administration. It is also possible to receive a Bachelor's in Business Administration. The WashPo writer seems to not have done his/her homework. He is an alum of the school so certainly he'll be featured in the school's alum magazine. All the schools at Penn have their own alum magazines. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll add this source from the Boston Globe. It shows him wearing Wharton's colors. [39]. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, Penn graduates in May, not June. The WashPo has it all wrong. Trump graduated in May, 1968, That needs to be changed, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we need reliable sourcing for your statements (which may or may not be true, I don't know) before dismissing a usually reliable media outlet such as the Washington Post as unreliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, if Wharton undergrad is just another school of many at Penn, then does it have its own special admissions process or higher admissions standard? If not, is it misleading or undue emphasis to mention Wharton in the lead section? (Just because Trump himself loves to talk about his Wharton degree doesn't mean we have to.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You have to meet prerequisites to successfully enter the school. Apparently, his record at Fordham satisfied those requirements. There's nothing misleading about the Boston Globe article. The WashPo article is misleading, either deliberately obfuscating, or just plain sloppy work. The Boston Globe also has a photo of Trump wearing Wharton's undergraduate academic regalia. And since I'm not inserting the facts about Penn's organization of schools, I don't need to source that. But certainly, you could source their school admissions catalogue or email them for how things work there. The first two years are spent meeting prerequisties for your school. If you have satisfactorily met the prereq, you are admitted. It is extremely competitive. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me. Do the WaPo and Globe sources conflict? If so, and if both sources are reliable, then the conflict must be described neutrally. On the other hand, if you're saying the WaPo source is unreliable, then you need to provide more compelling arguments than those based on your personal knowledge. What I mean is, please provide links for your assertions. As for my comment about "misleading," I didn't suggest the Globe source was misleading; I suggested that our article might be misleading if it says that Trump went to Wharton and Wharton was just one of many schools at Penn, no different than the others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the Boston Globe article makes it plain that Trump went to and graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat yourself. Please listen to my arguments and respond. I make them in good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by, "just one of many schools at Penn." If you are saying that there is not distinction from graduating from one of the schools and that all degrees are from UPenn, then that is not the distinction that UPenn makes. They distinquish the schools. I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better than that except to say that it appears The Boston Globe has correctly stated where Trump graduated from. The WashPo appears to have skipped over the Wharton part. Yes, he graduated from Penn; from the Wharton School at Penn. I hope that helps. I'm trying my best here. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Most RS say that Trump went to the Wharton School. Even the DP [40]. Not sure what the issue is, but.--Malerooster (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, I feel like we're not oommunicating well. I'm trying to understand your perspective here. How do we know that the Boston Globe got it right and the Washington Post got it wrong? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Malerooster:. @DrFleischman:, I've made it as clear as I can. Try this link: Undergraduate Admissions at the Wharton School. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That link is broken. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Citations in lead

I would contend that this article requires some citations in the lead. The statement, "[...]he also believes that the quick defeat of ISIS is mandatory" is not actually cited in the article. Trump's statements and positions on ISIS are noted with good references. I would also suggest that statements like this do not belong in the lead.

WP:CITELEAD

"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.

The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

Atiru (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)