Talk:Donald Trump

Bone spurs?

Is this all just a quaint story or is it the actual real reason he didn't serve in the Vietnam War? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC) [1]

The lead picture in the "Bone spurs" article was even worse than the one here. If I was a Knight Templar, I would respond to you with the appropriate template. WP:EYESORE? With regard to your question, we in the World of Wikipedia do not speculate and we do not make unsubstantiated claims against living people or orang-utans. For example, if you said that Trump was cowardly, unpatriotic, or dishonest, you would have to provide reliable sources. Personally, having worked in real estate, my faith in Trump's veracity is as boundless as a dead kangaroo. Even if he hadn't been spurred out of action, clearly his hair would disqualify him. In closing, can I remind all editors that this is not a forum to discuss Wikipedia policies.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes EYESORE certainly springs to mind, sorry. But plenty of other sources, which don't have the gall to label him a "cowardly draft dodger": Washingtom Post, NY Daily News, Pundit Fact, Politico, even UK's glorious Daily Mail. Take your pick. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop providing links to websites with offensive images, please! I've had to take an overload of eyewash. But, yes, there are reliable sources that suggest that Trump's explanation might be spurious, but clearly this remains a bone of contention. If only Trump had had the foresight to join the (h)air force like George W Bush, he would have been able to serve his country with distinction like Douglas Bader rather than having to resort to limp excuses.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Actual IQ?

For Donald Trump's IQ score, I see online speculations from a wobbly 90 to a firm 160. In this Washington Examiner item, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-i-have-a-higher-iq-than-george-will/article/2577023, Trump is quoted as saying: ". . .he has a higher IQ than conservative pundits George Will and Karl Rove. . ." For that to be true, however, Trump needs to know the scores of Will and Rove and his own score. He offers no real details, though, so I suspect that this is a blustery speculation as well. He has said over and over at his rallies that he has a very high IQ, perhaps even among the highest. Is there any impartial source that states an actual score or at least an expert observer's ballpark number? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

His net worth claim is $10B. Forbe's estimates it at $4.5B. If he claims an IQ of 160, and we assume the same level of exaggeration, we can estimate his IQ at 72. Joking aside, this is not worthy of discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

We wouldn't want to make the "Personal life" section any denser than it already is. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If those hair-raising figures are true, then he would been an asset to military intelligence if he'd ever put his boots on the ground.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I'd agree with Objective3000 regarding one's IQ. However, since both Trump and his supporters make such a big deal about it, they have made it a topic of discussion. If the actual number is sourced for real, then it's relevant. Meanwhile, Objective3000's calculation seems to be well thought-out. And I like Martinevans123's pun. Touche! Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Trump's IQ is claimed to be 156 which would be at the 99.9905490555 percentile and means that Donald Trump is smarter than 99.99 percent of the people on planet earth. Buster Seven Talk 07:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Violations of NPOV

I noticed a number of violations of NPOV on Trump's Wikipedia entry.

First and most glaringly, is it really necessary to have a section on Trump's hairstyle? This may have been appropriate when Trump was a reality TV show star and entertainer, but not as a candidate for President of the United States. I noticed that there is no section on Obama's hairstyle or on other aspects of his physical appearance, such as his gauntness, his aging, his skin tone, etc. This is really inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry.

Secondly, I notice a very long section on "Allegations of business with firms linked to organized crime" in Trump's entry. I suppose such ties would be a given for anyone doing business with New York firms, but what stands out is the length of this section. I count this at 631 words in length.

Looking at the Wikipedia entry for Hillary Rodham Clinton, I see the section to what is referred to as her "Email controversy" (not "scandal") is much shorter at 228 words. This makes the entry on a major scandal that called into question Hillary's eligibility to run for President (or even to hold public office) a little over a third the length of the section on Trump's normal business activities. This despite the fact that, as a current elected official of the U.S. government, Hillary should actually come under MORE scrutiny for her alleged wrongdoings, not less.

In addition, I see nothing about other scandals involving Hillary, such as her claim that she represents women, when she was recorded laughing about getting a child rapist who she knew to be guilty off the hook. This is on tape and is a matter of public record.

I also notice a disproportionately long section on Trump's entry for "Corporate bankruptcies." This runs at 671 words. The section on Hillary's Whitewater Scandal (which the entry calls a "controversy," runs at 721 words, just a shade longer. Again, this is for a current elected official who should be subjected to much more scrutiny than a private individual.

In addition, each paragraph ends with the claim that Hillary was cleared of any wrongdoing. In the section on Trump's "Corporate bankruptcies" a few quotes are taken from Trump out of context that make it sound as if he is attempting to rationalize any wrongdoing, rather than from independent third parties stating that he was cleared of wrongdoing or that he was acting in accordance with normal business practices. This is a not so-subtle way of injecting a good deal of bias into these entries.

I'm not done yet. If you take the sections on Hillary's scandals or anything that could be considered embarrassing to her candidacy, which includes the sections on "Whitewater and other investigations" and "Response to Lewinsky scandal" and scrolling down to include the section on the "Email controversy," the total number of words comes to 1360. If you take the sections on anything that could be considered embarrassing to Trump's candidacy (not actual scandals), which includes the sections on "Corporate bankruptcies" "Lawsuits," "Allegations of business with firms linked to organized crime," and "Campaign contributions," it comes to a whopping 3170 words, which is well over twice the amount of space devoted to Hillary's actual scandals.

This is a shameful example of bias on the part of Wikipedia and may offer a clue as to why Wikipedia is having so much trouble getting contributions during its pledge drives. People can sense bias and unfairness, even if they can't always put their finger on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimMagic (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Deleting emails is far more serious than mafia ties.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This was not just about deleting emails. This was a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and cover up wrongdoing, similar to Nixon's Watergate coverup.TimMagic (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice a very long section on "Allegations of business with firms linked to organized crime" in Trump's entry. I suppose such ties would be a given for anyone doing business with New York firms What? Objective3000 (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Roy Cohn was Trump's lawyer for a time, a man who did represent Mafia figures and was highly unethical. This is certainly not an overt indictment on Trump, but perhaps not the best lawyer for him to choose out of so many available. He spoke about Cohn recently during an interview. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What I was questioning is his suggestion that all NY business firms are Mafia-associated. Matters not. His POV clearly comes from fringe sites. Objective3000 (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

To date, I have not heard Hillary or Bernie or any of Trump's GOP opponents or any interviewers bring up supposed mafia ties concerning Trump. To my knowledge, it has not come up in any of the debates. If it comes up later in the campaign, then maybe it will be appropriate for an insertion in Trump's article. Also, Trump will then have an opportunity to respond to the charges. As it is, Wikipedia is attempting to do a form of muckraking that I doubt is within the purview of an encyclopedia, and, again, the amount of space devoted to this is out of proportion to Hillary's scandals. What do you include in an encyclopedia entry? Who made the decision on what to include and not to include on Hillary? Which of these 22 of Hillary's scandals should be included? (http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever) TimMagic (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

People previously made a similar point in comparison with John F Kennedy: why are his mafia ties not mentioned? That's a valid point, but my response is that they should be mentioned. The American people need to know whether their Presidents were crooks. Similarly, maybe there is something missing from Hillary Clinton's article. I think there's been a surge of interest in Trump, who has not been seen as a serious political contender until comparatively recently. The page information shows that this page has had twice as many recent edits.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is not on his presidential campaign. It is on Trump. As he is known as a builder, and two Mafia families were involved in the construction of his signature building, that would seem appropriate material. As far as Ms. Clinton, I am not aware of any "scandals". And, I am not going to follow a WND link. WND has been publishing that she is a lesbian for over a decade. Objective3000 (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who knows anything about NYC knows that for someone to have as extensive work in construction there as Trump, it is almost inconceivable to not have some run-ins with the mob, and to have to work around and in some cases even work with them. Again, if it is such a big issue, why haven't the other candidates brought it up? There's nothing about Hillary being a lesbian in that WND link I gave, but it hardly makes sense to state that you are unaware of any scandals if you are unwilling to read anything about it. TimMagic (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

So? Keep it on the TALK page, not in the Article. -- AstroU (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

What about New York Jewish Mafia lesbians? Why is there not an article about them? Liberal bias!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to tag this article with NPOV issues. I agree that we don't need to be commenting on Trump's hairstyle, nor do we need to be using the words "fodder for comedic remarks". NPOV really does need to be adhered to, especially in cases of politicians - there's an essay which states that as a general rule you should not be able to tell an editor's political stance from reading the article. The whole "hair" thing could be a violation of WP:BLP or even WP:UNDUE. --Ches (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is nonsense. His hair has been a subject of discussion for decades -- a subject which he himself has discussed innumerable times and which he recently lampooned himself on SNL. I don't know what essay you refer to; but is there a single WP article on a politician where the political stances are not discussed? The POV claims by the editor that started this thread all come from WND, a conspiracy site. No one has brought up an actual NPOV violation. Objective3000 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Objective3000 - if I confused you, I meant the editor's political stance, not the politician's. If we're going to talk about Trump's hair, we may as well talk about Hilary Clinton's hair. Or Jeb Bush's. Completely insignificant. --Ches (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"If we're going to talk about Trump's hair, we may as well talk about Hilary Clinton's hair [..]", I'm not so sure.. as said here, his hair has been discussed much, even by him. I'm trying to be impartial here (does NPOV apply to an article, or across all candidates, or possibly an unbounded number of other articles?), I'm not even a US citizen, so I can not vote there. Shouldn't each article be considered on it's own by NPOV, or BLP-issues concerning the target person only, without looking at (possibly all) others? He was already known before, can we erase someone's past (what's already in an article, considered, ok at some point), just because you later run for office? comp.arch (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. But, no one has pointed out how any of this article shows any editor's POV. As for hair, I think you are missing the fact that his hair has been a matter of massive discussion for decades. It has been mentioned many times by The NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, CNBC, NPR, Forbes, the gamut of reliable sources. He talks about it himself on a regular basis. This is not true with Clinton or Bush. Objective3000 (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the hair should read this before rerunning the same issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Jack Upland - precisely. The consensus for that discussion seemed to be that it would be silly to add a section on Trump's hair. This article is no place for humour or jokes. It's obvious that whoever added that dislikes Trump (as do the majority of us, but the editor still has a bias). Best, --Ches (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

But the editor still has a bias. That is an accusation without evidence. Objective3000 (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Objective3000 - I know it seems like a baseless accusation, but do you think that somebody who would add a section on Trump's hair, which mocks it and claims it is "fodder for comedic remarks", would have a pro-Trump bias? --Ches (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea who added the section. So, how could I, or you, know his motivations? You are actually claiming bias of a person that you can't even name. You have failed to respond to the fact that I named a rather large number of RS's that have discussed this. An encyclopedia is based on RS's. Why do you think that an encyclopedia should completely ignore something discussed in, what appears, to be all reliable, relevant sources? Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ches, if your problem is with the hairstyle section, which has been discussed on this Talk page many times, put an NPOV flag on that section and open a new discussion here. An NPOV flag over the whole article is unhelpful and non-specific. Thanks. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks Vesuvius Dogg - I'll sort that out. Best, --Ches (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A google search for "Donald Trump's hair" yielded 10.4 million results. I have moved the hair section into the 'Public image' section where it is appropriate. If editors think it is too detailed, it can be edited to give it less weight. IP75 (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Trump's Standing as Leader of the 2016 Republican Candidates

According to a New York Times and Wall Street Journal poll [2] Ted Cruz is leading the candidates. I'm still a noob, so I'm not totally sure how to go about this edit, but is this viable to edit or at least add as an annotation? Guitargeek98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, it would be on the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article. Frankly, it could be an outlier and could be WP:Recentism. Objective3000 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

political positions

The current version of the political positions section [3] refers to Trump's current positions. It does mention that they have evolved over time. But I think that's insufficient. A biography should not just focus on the present WP:RECENTISM; past times should get considerable weight. But that's a big enough change that I thought I'd get some reactions here first.CometEncke (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed Mk17b (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Undiscussed split

An editor appears to be quite insistent about splitting this article.[4] But as a simple matter of process, such a major change needs to be discussed here first.CometEncke (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• There needs to be consensus for splitting this material and there needs to be a good summary of all of his major political positions left in this article. Let's first discuss whether a WP:SPINOFF is even needed, or whether it is a WP:POVFORK.- MrX 18:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I can understand where the unease is coming from; it is a big change. During the Political positions of Donald Trump split, I viewed the changes as more negative than positive and I made the case against the change in talk and worked for consensus with WP:DONTREVERT in mind. However, the reversions from CometEncke and MrX seem to be solely that the change is big and not specifically discussed in a particular format in talk. Again, I understand the concern, but I'm not aware of any policy supporting that. If there is a WP Policy, please cite it. On the other side of that, I can readily point to several policies that support my edit: WP:BOLD WP:EDITCONSENSUS WP:DONTREVERT and WP:DRNC

I see no argument explaining how my edit makes the article worse. I spent a significant amount of time on it and was very WP:CAREFUL. If there is a particular problem with my edit, please cite the WP Policy. Otherwise, the reverts appear to be in violation of the several policies I have cited. Yourmanstan (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The argument is that by removing Trump's controversial policy positions, this article become very non-neutral. Relative few reader drill down into sub articles. We just went through this at Marco Rubio. I have no objection to a split, as long as we leave a point-by-point summary of all of his major political positions as they are currently presented in this article. The summary needs to be written before content is removed. Major changes to major articles such as this should always be discussed first. It's OK to be bold, as long as you stop being so bold when another editor objects.- MrX 18:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see how you can possibly justify such a large change to such a sensitive article at such a sensitive time without any discussion. Discussion is obviously required. Forgive me, but linking to numerous policies instead of discussing obvious concerns looks like WP:Wikilawyering. Objective3000 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you MrX for trying to bring up a specific concern and fair point. I do completely welcome legitimate criticism. But to address MrX's concern, MrX or anyone is welcome to further edit, such as transcluding Trump's major political positions. Reversion of my edit remains in violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR in addition to the other policies I have cited. It is not WP:Wikilawyering, and even if it were, that is an essay, not a policy. This was a good faith edit and is exactly the spirit of the wp policies Yourmanstan (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Stan, try to take a look at what you've done so far and what the effect has been. If you want to split, you need to build consensus. At the moment, you've managed to get three users objecting. The reason is that you are trying to throw a lot of policies at the wall, rather than working with us to satisfy our concerns. Take a deep breath and listen to what people are telling you.CometEncke (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Comet, yes there are three users objecting. I'd love to satisfy each of your concerns but so far the only concern raised is by MrX and I addressed it in talk a moment ago. The WP policies exist specifically to instruct each of you to not revert for the reasons you have given, that is why I cited them. If there is a WP policy that gives stronger instruction against my edits for being 'too big' or something like that, I'd be happy to know about them so I can do a better job editing.Yourmanstan (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. Also see the warning at the top of this page to be bold, but not reckless. Making this large a change to one of WP's most viewed articles (most viewed 2nd week in Dec) without discussion is reckless. I would also suggest that repeated links to policies instead of discussion doesn't tend to convince most editors. Objective3000 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Straw poll

Indicate whether you support or oppose splitting out the political positions, provided that we leave a robust summary in this article.

• Support - MrX 19:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Cant vote yet -- need to see the actual "robust summary" before I give an answer. Until then, Oppose, once I see one, I'll take a look.CometEncke (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - One of the problems was that the section was very fragmented and not in summary style (I've just done some work on it so let me know what you think). It currently has a header link to the main article, as a summary section should, so if readers want to learn more they are only one click away. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the split to the artcle Politics of Donald Trump created by Yourmanstan. IP75 (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the split--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The summary should be written into the article before removing the bulk of the political positions material.- MrX 19:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a summary must be developed first. But, that does not look like an easy task given the contradictions and shifts, sometimes within hours. Objective3000 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"sometimes within hours". Ok, assuming true, then how does WP:Recentism not apply? IHTS (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

An idea

It is really hard to know how to approach this since it seems like I'm getting stonewalled. The best I can tell is there seems to be some concern about a POV issue caused by summarization... nothing to do with the split itself. I suspect the particular issue is this edit in the newly created article. To address this, I have set the Politics of Donald Trump to to match the content currently on the main Donald Trump page. This way the transclusion will not affect the content on the main Trump page. The purpose of the split is to help organize content so we can start to resolve the sync issues, bring length in line according to WP:SPLIT, reduce the recentism and have long term perspective and well done summary of content. You can read about those issues in talk here: talk1 and talk2 and talk3 and talk4. I believe this is already a consensus position, but in an effort to be a good citizen, I'm happy to give some time for others to respond. Yourmanstan (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that does not represent my concerns at all. Please see my previous comments, which have nothing to do with the content of the sub article and everything to do with keeping a summary of Trump's political positions, candidacies, affiliations and controversies in this article.- MrX 00:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

MrX, please re-read what I wrote. I'm saying the "summary of Trump's political positions, candidacies, affiliations and controversies" will remain in this article. Yourmanstan (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Mr.X. has it exactly right. We need an existing, accurate, consensus summary in place before a split can occur. That is a lot of work, yes. As the person wanting the split, the onus is on you (Stan) to get it done; others may or may not want to help. It's not a tactic; it's just the way things are. I'm not sure exactly where such a summary should be drafted, but it was done on the Rubio article and/or Cruz articles recently, so there must be a place and there must be someone who knows. I've been quite skeptical of your split so far, yes, mainly because you have not made any apparent progress on the relevant process, and instead continue to insist that policy demands we just do it, which is simply not the case.CometEncke (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is around summaries and not the transclusion. I've submitted an edit and you can see nothing changes in the main article. Yourmanstan (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yourmanstan, that's not how it works. If you have a problem with the current summary then propose an alternative. What I can say is that if you continue blanking you are likely to get blocked. The warning I placed on your talk page should not be taken lightly. Let's work together. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff please read the edit. The summary did not change. Yourmanstan (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand how WP:Weight works. The fact that Donald has been the front-runner for a very long time on the GOP ticket means that this article, including what he's done politically, needs to be represented in this article as reported by reliable sources. Completely removing the political content from this article as you did here [5] and again [6] and again [7] is a blatant POV violation. You then copied and pasted the content into a "new article" [8] simply because you wanted to. What are you doing? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You still have not read the edit. Here is the article before my edit [9]. Here is the article after my edit [10]. This was not a 'blanking'... the main trump article reads the same. Yourmanstan (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a friendly note. You are going to be blocked if you continue to make very large changes during discussion, particularly given the sensitivity of this article. Keep in mind that discussions can take weeks on substantially smaller edits. Objective3000 (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Link to the Central Park jogger case

Is there anywhere to put this information? I figure it might be worth putting in, since he took out a full page ad essentially advocating for the execution of five innocent men. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

After the fifth paragraph of the 'Business career' section'. But, it happened 27 years ago. I wonder if it's an important event in his overall life. If so, I think you would need several strong sources to establish WP:WEIGHT.- MrX 23:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point about the 27 years. But, when they were released and received a settlement a couple years back, he claimed this was a disgrace and they were still guilty of something saying "what were they doing in the park". There were a bunch of articles at the time. Here are a couple: [11] [12]. Objective3000 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Using The Atlantic article as a cue, perhaps there should be a paragraph under political positions discussing his views about the death penalty, and then this content about the Central Park five can be included there.- MrX 01:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove David Duke from Introduction

I believe that including that Trump's campaign is supported by KKK member David Duke in the introduction to this article is not appropriate. From an unbiased perspective, it is slanderous in that it implies that Trump is affiliated with the KKK, which is absolutely is not. This sentenced should be either moved to a later section in this page, to the page Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, or removed altogether. Unless there is a legitimate source which confirms that Trump acknowledges and approves of Duke's support, it does not below on his introduction. While this sentence is there, this page is clearly in violation of Wikipedia rules as it is biased against Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rforb001 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it pending discussion as it does seem over the top. OTOH, it's true and not surprising given his speeches. Objective3000 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

David Duke is notable as former politician, activist and radio host. Politico is a reliable source. The support itself is a controversial public topic. Duke's support is therefore worth mentioning (maybe not in the introduction, but in the campaign segment).--Cyve (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere in the body is more reasonable. Objective3000 (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Prob. right. Also worth noting: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/donald-trump-declines-to-disavow-david-duke/?_r=0 Mk17b (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can also direct me to somewhere in the President Obama article where his ties to the Nation of Islam are discussed. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/farrakhan-obama-islam/2008/11/03/id/326298/. I must have missed it. Frankly, I don't think Obama getting support from the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers is relevant and Trump getting the approval of David Duke or the KKK is relevant either. Ronald Reagan had the approval of the KKK as well yet that's not mentioned. Again, irrelevant unless the person receiving the support declares his approval. Trump has done no such thing. Jtpaladin (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Drumpf

Is the mention of the original family name necessary? According to the source, it was changed some six or seven generations even before his grandparents emigrated from Germany. Personally, I don't see it as relevant to anything. Does a mention on John Oliver make it notable? —Matěj Grabovský (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's an error that can be corrected at the Frederick Trump page.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The source states that the family changed the spelling sometime in mid 1640's -or during the course of Germany's Thirty Years' War that ended in 1648. Without a family tree to reference it's not clear how many generations ago that was, regardless Friedrich arrived in America as Trumps in 1885 as a Trump. The "Early life" section should always be about the life and experiences of the subject, place of birth and family relationships. If he knew his grandparents their mention might be relevant. However there is no way Donald Trump, or even his grandparents, would have personally known any ancestors from the 1640's. It does not belong in the "Early life" section for Donald Trump, or his grandfather Frederick Trump for that matter. 1305cj (talk) 13:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Including events that occurred 300 years before his birth... well, that's a stretch for the 'Early Life' section! My understanding is that John Oliver is making this a meme on his show, so that's probably why there's a bunch of people trying to put it in. Unfortunately it doesn't belong in this article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

May not belong, although many BLP articles have details about ancestry. But Geoffrey David Trowbridge of Elkhart IN, seems to think that Christian Johannes (born June 1829) was still a Drumpf? I wonder where he got his information. Not sure what the big deal is here - very many US European immigrants changed their name to "fit in" better. Blair (2000) is quite certain, however, that the family changed its name in Kallstadt some time during the Thirty Years' War (page 16). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

From Blair (2000), p.11, which was also extensively quoted in this morning's WaPo:

In a sense, Donald Trump had merely polished to the highest of glosses what was already there. "Trump" is a wonderful word, a marvelous name. A name Dickens would surely have given to a prominent character if only he had thought of it, ‘Trump’ evokes trump card, trump hand, trump suit — all terms associated with winning. Whether Donald Trump could have had the same success with any other name is an intriguing question. How fortunate that "Drumpf," the unresonant original version, evolved over the centuries to the current orthography.

What Blair, WaPo and Oliver are really talking about is the resonance of the name Trump. That sentiment deserves a sentence in this article. It was acknowledged a few years ago by marketing professor Diane Derval that the "name Trump... brands better than the original family name Drumpf"

Trump makes the same point in one of his books, acknowledging that the name change was: "a good move, I think, since Drumpf Tower doesn't sound nearly as catchy."

How about a sentence along the following lines:

"Commentators have acknowledged that the resonance of the word Trump may have helped in the creation of a brand around the name, particularly in comparison with the family's ancestral name Drumpf."

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Outside of John Oliver and WaPo's article on John Oliver's segment, there's only a couple of passing references to this Drumpf name. That doesn't seem to lend it enough weight to put it in the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I've put five sources in my post above, including Trump himself. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a barely notable piece of trivia though... there's very little other than the occasional passing mention. It's gotten some attention because of John Oliver's comedy piece, but would we really be here talking about it if a comedian didn't make a joke about it a couple nights ago? Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe if it should be added it should be added to the Frederick Trump page. However as has been discussed on that page, this does not merit mention due to the time in which it has passed, and the lack of relevance beyond minor trivia. If there were significant importance for this mention then it might be worth including but it is currently no more important than a distant relative being the first person in a town to build a well. Names change all the time, and a change from 300 years ago that does not impact anything today (beyond the John Oliver sketch) does not need to be included. Apriestofgix (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump --> Drumpf courtesy of Chrome browser Drumpfinator - heads-up

Hey all, just a heads up that the John Oliver Show has released a jokey Chrome extension that will replace "Donald Trump" with "Donald Drumpf" (the surname of his ancestors). (See video around 20:00 for mention of app, and 18:43 for explanation of Drumpf.) I've tested it and it does also change Donald Trump to Drumpf in the edit window, so this is very likely to cause some accidental changes across a number of Trump-related articles. I wouldn't automatically assume that they're all vandalism. I seem to recall someone using a plug-in a while back that would change "political correctness" to "respect", and the editor totally forgot that s/he had it installed. It caused some irritation. Good luck! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Donald Trump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022165435/http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nln7g/Youve_Been_Trumped/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nln7g/Youve_Been_Trumped/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. but iplayer won't play the clip from my region. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 01:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) currently redirects to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, but sources have been collected at Talk:Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) if anyone is interested in creating an article from the redirect. I think the segment is obviously notable. Tobacco (Last Week Tonight) shows what an article about a single segment can look like. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe creating that article will lead all the John Oliver fans to stop trying to insert "Drumpf" into this article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

We should probably create this article, as it is notable. epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've created the article. epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm admittedly unclear on Wikipedia policy, but when does a show segment become notable? Shows run segments all the time which are then summarized by bloggers or other news outlets. What makes this segment more notable than others? That being said, I don't think I have a problem with a blurb about John Oliver being in the article somewhere. My issue is that people keep trying to add "Drumpf" to the Early Life section of the article, which IMO is clearly inappropriate as this was hundreds of years before the guy was even born. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Politician status

Is it right to call Donald Trump a politician? He has never held an elected office. This is his second-ever political campaign. epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe Donald Trump has only once been a candidate for political office, and Trump is currently a pre-selection Republican Presidential candidate; how does this warrant describing him as a politician? User:Brisbane1965 15:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That is also what I am trying to say. If he was only ever a candidate, how is he a politician? epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just re-iterating/supporting your point of view. User:Brisbane1965 15:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• From our article: "A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government". Dictionaries define it similarly. There is no need to have actually held office. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  There is no way he is a politician. He is a bombastic ****** who talks a lot of **** (censored due to BLP).

  But joking aside, I understand that by Wikipedia's own article, he could be considered a politician. What do other reliable sources say, though? epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Holding office is only one definition of politician. The etymology of the word is " a person skilled in politics", while definitions include "a person who is active in party politics.....a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles...a person who holds a political office." Cambridge dictionaries gives the British definition as "a ​member of a ​government or law-making ​organization" but the American definition as "a ​person who is ​active in ​politics, esp. as a ​job"

As for sources, The Washington Post, The Independent, The New York Times, The New Yorker all describe Trump as a politician. Valenciano (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Since this can be a contentious label, I suggest we add these sources to support the fact that he is a politician in the lead, despite it violating policy. epicgenius (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no... we shouldn't allow the media to influence these definitions. User:Brisbane1965 15:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too, but we should see if other reliable sources do not mention him as a politician as well. That may influence whether it can be included in the article. Otherwise, I guess "politician" has a looser meaning these days. ;-) epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, my definition may be different, but that's a different discussion. Trump being a former Mayoral candidate qualifies. Many thanks. :-) User:Brisbane1965 15:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Stating in the lead that he is a "politician", even before stating that he is a "TV personality", is misleading since it suggests to the reader that running for or holding office has been a major feature of his life. And that is not the case. (This sophist justification to specify "politician" is the kind of coat-rack POV argument that turns people off to either editing, or reading, or referring to, the WP.) A "politician" as the 2nd descriptor in the lead suggests a significant stake in career politics in his life. That's just not reflective of the fact regardless what the WP politician article says. IHTS (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

For those who feel Floquenbeam's use of WP definition ("active in party politics, holding or seeking office", where "no need to have actually held office") justifies identifying Trump "politician" as descriptor in the lead, then for a little consistency, perhaps the same people s/ feel compelled to go over to the Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina articles, and make the same claims there (that they are/were "politicians"). (Or maybe consistency is a *bad* thing, and I just haven't learned that yet ...) IHTS (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think politician is restricted to those who hold office. Clearly as the leading Republican candidate, he is a serious political contender. This is not a new, looser definition. The Shorter Oxford dictionary defines politician as "An expert in politics; a person engaged in or concerned with politics, esp. as a practitioner." It says this definition goes back to the early 17th century. An earlier meaning was a "schemer" or "intriguer". It is a misnomer to use the word to signify only a member of Congress or a holder of executive office. As for sources which describe Trump as a politician:[13][14][15]etc--Jack Upland (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that politician is appropriate because it sets the sphere as politics, which is true. But I think "xxx is a politician" really does imply some time spent doing politics, which Trump does not have. So I think that 'aspiring politician' is a good identity for Trump today. SocraticOath (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I also think that politician is appropriate. 'Aspiring politician' is good too, and should address the most of the concerns raised here.- MrX 21:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"Aspiring" is wrong. He is one of the most prominent politicians on the planet at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In the US, since the electorate grants politicians their consent to be governed, it's my feeling that calling Trump a politician can mistakenly imply that he already carries that warrant, which he can't unless actually elected. I think this is a meaningful difference between candidates and politicians. SocraticOath (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, since Trump is "running as an outsider," doesn't that pretty much mean that he doesn't identify as a politician himself? I clarified this with six words at the end of the first lede paragraph. Any objections? SocraticOath (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation?

What shall we do with: "I guarantee you, there’s no problem"? --Piers Gaveston (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

--Piers Gaveston (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This made headlines not only in US media, but also internationally:

• Donald Trump Makes His Penis a Campaign Issue During Debate
• How Donald Trump's penis is helping his quest for the White House (UK)
• A new low for the Republican debate: the size of Trump's penis (Australia)

Still, I think this should not be in the article. It will be forgotten tomorrow, when we get another Trump quote.

Austrian (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump has turned the Republican quest for the White House into a back-alley pissing contest. Boys v. a Man. American politics have never seen this level of crude obnoxious school-yard antics before. His petty attacks regarding menstrual flow, disability, phallus size, "on his knees" and all the rest should definitely be in the article. While Trump forces the other candidates to discuss banal topics during the debates, his tactics prevent real discussions about real issues. I always think of these type of articles in a historic sense. What does the WP reader in 2030 need to know? For Trump to bring the size of his hands related to other body parts back onto the debate floor shows his enormous ego. Our future reader needs that information to evaluate what happened during the campaign so they can make up their own minds as to what happened and why. Buster Seven Talk 12:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

We can all tell you like him, really. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Austrian. This material should be left out of this article. It would probably be appropriate for a brief mention in the campaign article.- MrX 12:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there could be a section on physical appearance, including information on his hair and spurs...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Spurs? Do you mean bone spurs? As in, "I got a deferment from the Vietnam War because of bone spurs but I forgot which foot". Or do you mean the spurs a cowboy would wear? Buster Seven Talk 15:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_2#Donald_Drumpf

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_2#Donald_Drumpf. epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

New Jersey Generals

Why no mention of the New Jersey Generals? Trump owned them---twice. He was instrumental in the short history of the USFL. His involvement could be considered his first appearance on the national scene. Buster Seven Talk 18:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump Taj Mahal

It seems that everybody on the Eastern Seaboard knows about Trump Taj Mahal, but it was notably absent before today on this page. I added it. Does anybody object to its inclusion here? SocraticOath (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Somebody just tried to give Trump a Sep 11 birthday!

I undo'd it. Is there any basis for this? SocraticOath (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

loser.com

I have removed the content about loser.com being redirected to this article. It's trivial and has very little relevance to the biographical coverage of this subject. It's also WP:UNDUE.

Removed content
In February 2016, the website loser.com began re-directing to this very article on Wikipedia.[16]

If this is to be re-added to the article, there needs to be consensus for doing so.- MrX 12:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No, there doesn't. It's in the pop culture section and you can't get anymore "pop culture" than that! It's sourced (by TIME, I might add) and definitely notable. Google it and see for yourself! Welcome to the world we live in. 'Tis the internet.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. This is new content and requires consensus for inclusion. Any idiot can redirect a domain to a Wikipedia article. It doesn't make it a pop cultural phenomenon.- MrX 12:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Request archive for news sources

Would some of our friends who are not in the United States please create archives of the news articles that support this Wikipedia article? They would not need to be shown today, but I suppose it would be good for them to be ready for the future. Thanks! SocraticOath (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Donald Trump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120802060852/http://www.acninc.com:80/acn/us/trump_events.html to http://acninc.com/acn/us/trump_events.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151125105242/http://www.americanprinciplesinaction.org/apia-education/education/school-choice/donald-trump-on-school-choice/ to http://www.americanprinciplesinaction.org/apia-education/education/school-choice/donald-trump-on-school-choice/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Age

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Donald Trump just said he's 67, the article says 69. Which is it? Buffaboy ^talk 02:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

He can't even tell the truth about his own age. Or he forgot. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Not trying to turn this into a forum, but with this guy I bet that half of the stuff in this article is reliable but invalid. Buffaboy ^talk 02:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Primary results

I've removed the primary results from the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not introduce WP:NOTNEWS. Individual primary results are not historically significant and should only be added to the campaign article.- MrX 12:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits

Forgive me if I am incorrect in my edits here, but according to Wikipedia, Donald's son Donald Jr. also holds an executive VP position with his father's firm. Also, I placed people who weren't "family" such as a few people he dated briefly as well as his feeling about Princess Di in its own section. In my humble opinion, I would not even include such a section in this biography, due to the fact that famous people briefly date many throughout the course of their lives so perhaps it is not even worth mentioning. I welcome more seasoned Wikipedians to edit my edits and improve upon it as he or she sees fit. Conspirasee1 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

An interesting tidbit, by the way, is the fact that all of the women mentioned here in Donald's life all have names that end with the letter "a". Has absolutely no value to it when editing, but interesting nonetheless. Conspirasee1 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal paragraph on 1980s campaign contributions

Another editor removed a single-citation paragraph about Trump's 1980s campaign contributions. The single citation was an investigative article by the Washington Post which gave references, one of which I used in restoring the paragraph. Now it has two citations. The other editor also cited WP:Weight and said that the paragraph didn't fit the subject of this article; unless there's another article somewhere about Trump's legal issues, I think this appropriate for this article. SocraticOath (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I looked through the Washington Post article and provided the next source for various other claims, and clarified the Wikipedia writing here and there as appropriate. I also showed those other sources, when provided as published books, in the Bibliography. SocraticOath (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal Issues Section Needs to be shortened way down or made its own separate article

The legal issues section at the bottom of this bio take up way too much of the article's space and consequently violates WP:WEIGHT (and possibly other Wiki rules) for a bio.

That's not to say that some (or all) of what is documented in this section shouldn't be included, but it needs to be shorter as obviously these issues have not been a dramatically defining issue in Trump's life thus far.

However, if some editors are plastering the end of this article with legal issues for political reasons, that obviously has no place on Wikipedia. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If that was intended as a directed comment, please allow me to note that I added only one lawsuit to the list, the $500 million one against Univision, a recent addition. I did separate the paragraphs for readability purposes and give titles. SocraticOath (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I do object to the idea that Trump's lawsuits have not been a dramatically defining issue in Trump's life. If you want to establish that point, please do it here on the talk page. It seems clear to me that the lawsuits are notable. SocraticOath (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Weasel words in lawsuit reporting

Another editor removed the description of Rancho Palos Verdes' financials from the paragraph on Trump's lawsuit against the town, saying that it was weasel words. I objected to this weasel words characterization and undo'ed the change. I think it's fair in reporting to give this kind of identifier to the players of a story. SocraticOath (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention Trump. Inclusion of the content sourced to it would be WP:original research.CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, user:CFredkinVoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That's better than calling it weasel words... I didn't think weasel words is the right rule for this. And I have less empathy now for Rancho Palos Verdes, having read a little more about the story. SocraticOath (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"And I have less empathy now for Rancho Palos Verdes, having read a little more about the story." You seem to have a lot of biases and political motivations in all of your persistent and lone edits on this page. You really need to back away from such unrelenting edit warring. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. You are the first other editor to object to any of my edits, and I'm sorry that it seemed like edit warring for me to attempt to keep the old words that you called weasel words. Have you made up your mind about the lawsuits being notable or not? SocraticOath (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuits seem notable, but these random details need to be cut. epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving the Maher "orangutan"defamation suit to the pop culture sub section

It seems clear from the sources that the Maher-Trump orangutan defamation lawsuit originating from Maher's comedy bit was not serious, and likely a PR stunt or joke, having been dropped almost immediately after being filed. Putting this suit alongside the more serious defamation suit Trump was engaged in gives it undue weight. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump vehemently denied it was a joke. I think it indicates Trump takes himself very seriously, and is slightly unhinged. But there is no evidence that he filed the lawsuit as a joke or stunt. And, by the way, I think the lawsuit was for breach of contract, not defamation.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

New articles proposal

OK, I think that Wikipedia's long-format reporting on Trump's various activities is valuable and should not be simply deleted for the sake of WP:Weight. Maybe there should be several new articles to avoid this problem. I propose a new article, Lawsuits involving Donald Trump. Perhaps Alleged links between Donald Trump and organized crime would be another good article to add, as well as Donald Trump real estate ventures, Donald Trump in pop culture, and Donald Trump in US politics. Clearly, this active 69-year-old mogul requires extra attention in order to be the subject of good Wikipedia articles. SocraticOath (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Honorary degree from Liberty University

This:

Honorary Doctor of Business (Hon. D.B.), 2012, Liberty University[17]

is sourced to a press release. I think it should be removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTPROMO, as this article is not (supposed to be) a hagiography.- MrX 20:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

but it was so easy to find a third party source. Honestly, you went to the trouble of going to the talk page but couldn't fix it yourself with the third result in a google search? : http://time.com/4143157/trump-stripped-honorary-degree/ VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, content that is sourced to a press release often has no other available sources. Anyway, thanks for adding the additional source.- MrX 20:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Alleged links between Donald Trump and organized crime

Alleged links between Donald Trump and organized crime could be merged with this article, perhaps in a criticism section. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. This would also fix many of the WP:WEIGHT issues with the back end of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)VoltaireEditor2016 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Even though Donald Trump is a disgrace for a presidential candidate (and the most conniving businessman I know), this is still inappropriate as a standalone article, especially if we have a whole article about "alleged" (i.e. unproven) links. Not only does this fail WP:WEIGHT, but it also fails WP:SYNTH. epicgenius (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Fourthed - "Alleged" article definitely needs some slimming down, too. GAB^Hello! 21:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I've noticed that this content already exists in the article, under the "Allegations of business links to organized crime" section - the new page seems to be an exact copy of that page. I'm going to propose speedy deletion of the new page as a duplicate. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to hear from the article author, SocraticOath, before weighing in. If there are plenty of sources and material to support such an article, then I don't see a problem with such a WP:SPINOFF. By the way, I don't think its WP:CSD#A10 eligible simply because there is overlapping content between this article and the new article.- MrX 21:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I didn't realise CSD A10 was out of scope in cases like this. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I copied the readable text (the edit window) of Donald Trump and saved it as a Notepad file that is 227kb in size. WP:Article size gives a general guideline to split the article when it gets bigger than 100 kb. Also, many of the recent deletions are because of undue weight rather than other kinds of POV (such as defamatory language and "original research"). As I said elsewhere, Trump is a 69-year-old business mogul who has a long list of public relationships with people, places, projects, TV shows and government entities. Just because any of the possible lists is long doesn't mean it is not notable, but it does make it seem like a good choice for an article spinoff. This is why I am proposing the split of this article. SocraticOath (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete the Trump and crime article: Unless if, by "merge", you mean, "a one-to-two sentence mention" pbp 22:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please remove the Merge tag from the top of this article page. The title of the article under discussion for merging here (Alleged links between Donald Trump and organized crime) is highly POV. The corresponding section in this article is "Allegations of BUSINESS links to organized crime". This page is getting a lot of traffic. The merge tag, given the title of the article, is inappropriate. In addition all of the content to be merged here already exists in this article. So as far as this article is concerned, the point is moot.CFredkin (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the merge tag into the relevant section, but I don't believe we can outright remove it while this discussion is going on. FunPika 22:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the total overlap in content between the articles, the discussion should really be whether the other article is deleted. That discussion should happen in the Talk page of that article, not here.CFredkin (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not a case of content overlap. This is a proposed spinoff to a new article. The spinoff is intended to improve NPOV for Donald Trump. It is worthwhile to note: the subject of the spinoff is not fringe or unsupported, or a conspiracy theory, but it is the subject of a biography and various governmental reports. It would be irresponsible for Wikipedia to remove this content wholesale, especially out of concern for NPOV. SocraticOath (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the removal of keeping the content here. I'm objecting to the Merge tag at the top of this article. Technically this isn't a merge discussion. All of the content in the other article already exists here.CFredkin (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that it might be the right thing to WP:Spinoff sections of the Donald Trump because the article is long. This is what I'm proposing by opening up Alleged links between Donald Trump and organized crime. SocraticOath (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User: LoudLizard, Please remove the Merge tag from this article. What's being discussed here is not a merge.CFredkin (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Merge This is not appropriate for a stand alone article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. The "Alleged links" article is malformed, it does not preserve the edit history of the original content, making it appear that a single editor created the "Alleged..." article's content. The procedures outlined at WP:PROSPLIT & WP:CORRECTSPLIT need to be followed if the content is retained as an article. Shearonink (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that this shouldn't be a standalone article. However since it looks like this new article has no original content to merge into this one, and has no incoming links to make it worth redirecting, it may be better to just take this discussion to WP:AFD. Also, this split really should have been discussed BEFORE actually carrying out the split, since it is such a high profile BLP page. FunPika 22:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)