Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎"people associated with the Tea Party movement": WP:VOTE and it misrepresents what I said to move it.
Line 178: Line 178:


*'''Don't apply the category'''. The bot sent me. Trump doesn't appear to be affiliated with any group. He doesn't even seem to have any allegiance to the Republican Party. This is a BLP and while he isn't being put into a category with a racist hate group like La Raza, it seems that depending on headlines, which are written by editors, not writers, and vague comments by him and/or news shows seems [[WP:UNDUE]] and could be a BLP vio. Especially given the sources above which are very poor sources. If you had a scholarly source from a peer reviewed journal that identified Trump with a particular group or ideology, I'd say apply the category, especially since it seems benign compared to other groups. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, so I'd just drop it. It doesn't seem crucial anyway. [[User:SW3 5DL|SW3 5DL]] ([[User talk:SW3 5DL|talk]]) 07:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
*'''Don't apply the category'''. The bot sent me. Trump doesn't appear to be affiliated with any group. He doesn't even seem to have any allegiance to the Republican Party. This is a BLP and while he isn't being put into a category with a racist hate group like La Raza, it seems that depending on headlines, which are written by editors, not writers, and vague comments by him and/or news shows seems [[WP:UNDUE]] and could be a BLP vio. Especially given the sources above which are very poor sources. If you had a scholarly source from a peer reviewed journal that identified Trump with a particular group or ideology, I'd say apply the category, especially since it seems benign compared to other groups. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, so I'd just drop it. It doesn't seem crucial anyway. [[User:SW3 5DL|SW3 5DL]] ([[User talk:SW3 5DL|talk]]) 07:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
::My comment was based upon direct quotes from Trump himself, not headlines, and I am not aware of any reason to think that the sources of the quotes are not [[WP:RS]] for the veracity of the quotes. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:08, 2 August 2014

Former good article nomineeDonald Trump was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Rapist

I remember reading this biography once, and it makes reference to supposed court documents filled during Donald and Ivana's divorce, documents which supposedly contain allegations by Ivana that Donald raped her once after coming home angry from some liposuction and hair replacement procedures, the results of which he was unhappy with. The biography is available on eBay, and here is a review of it which mentions these allegations. - 101.169.127.245 (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC) http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-21/news/vw-15193_1_donald-trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.127.245 (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're Fired trademark

The links provided for the You're Fired! trademark are not valid.

The following link shows the trademark that was awarded to JMBP in 2008 for the purposes of Entertainment services in the nature of a reality television series.

Thats J. Mark Burnett Productions producer of the apprentice.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:tm8x06.3.3

Of the 2 live trademarks, only one is associated to the apprentice and is owned by J. Mark Burnett Productions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.216.189 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PR Piece...

A lot of this reads like a PR piece. In particular the overwhelming majority of the sources are to various of Trump's many autobiographies and memoirs.

This is someone with a well-established history of distorting his personal and business record for public gain.

I notice a number of things are missing here of major importance: 1) The extensive loans he took against his trust fund (never mentioned) and from family members; 2) It presents the casino bankruptcies as decisions Trump made, when in fact they were compelled by creditors one of whose biggest complaints was Trump taking outsized compensation from companies that were all losing money; 3) The discussion of Trump's personal wealth and the assets of the Trump Organization include a major distortion -- the way Trump got out of his personal financial problems, is that he no longer has beneficial interests in what used to be his indirectly owned properties -- the Trump organization principally is paid for managing properties owned by others.

I'd be very surprised if there aren't a *lot* more things like that throughout this article.

And what does anyone care about this guy's presidential-run publicity stunt? Someone's PR campaign is not, of itself, notable...

Is anyone well-versed enough on this guy's history to do a real, objective re-write? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supporter of the Tea Party Movement

Numerous statements that Donald Trump has made to the media indicate that he is a Tea Party supporter, not to mention that he was a featured speaker at a Tea Party event:

JoelDick (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph for now out of BLP concerns. Easily re-added if there's consensus. Sources seem good to me, but I recommend letting discussion play out before re-adding it. 2600:1006:b100:ccd4:840d:88bb:6f0b:4171 and SQGibbon have expressed concerns. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky. In the sources listed here it looks like Trump wants the support of Tea Partiers and aligns himself with at least some of their principles but always comes just short of calling himself a member. "I certainly seem to be in a sense. They like me, and I like them. And we have very much the same principles", "I'm a believer in the tea party because what they want is what's really right for this country", and "I think so. I'm very proud of some of the ideas they put forth." Notice how he always refers to them as "they" and just won't come right out and say he a Tea Partier. He is hedging his statements like politicians do. I think any claim we use in the article needs to be suitably hedged as well without engaging in any original research (like saying that he is hedging). On review: At least the most recent version of the "tea party" edit does seem sufficiently hedged. I no longer see a problem with it given these sources supplied here. SQGibbon (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way the paragraph is phrased ("Is a vocal supporter...") is hedged enough because it doesn't claim that he is a "Tea-partier", only that he has vocalized support, which he certainly has, based on the sources provided. To the comment above about "BLP concerns...", I'll point you to Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!": "...to prevent or reduce harm to living persons, these can be abused as some sort of trump card..." (Notice what I did there :). Besides, since when has it been damaging to a person's reputation to claim that he/she is a Tea-Partier? On the contrary, I think Trump would be flattered by that characterization.JoelDick (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reply to "crying BLP", since this page is protected, there's heightened scrutiny of BLP concerns. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard anything from 2600:1006:b100:ccd4:840d:88bb:6f0b:4171 so I'll assume we have a consensus to add the paragraph back in.JoelDick (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think again. WP:BLP has not been repealed. Collect (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party

Making a speech where there are Tea Party supporters in the audience does not make a person "associated with the Tea Party Movement" and does not make the person in any sense a member of such a movement. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't just make a speech. The sources have specific quotes that he made that were supportive of the movement.JoelDick (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The audience contained some Tea Party members, and also non-Tea Party members. That you personally find his words sufficient to directly link him to the tea party is something the source does not do. Cheers. You should immediately self-revert your edit war. Collect (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two blog sources for this, nope. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per the previous consensus here are quotes from the two sources I added to the article "So I asked him straight out if he considers himself a member of the Tea Party. 'I certainly seem to be in a sense. They like me, and I like them. And we have very much the same principles,' Mr. Trump answered ... I seem to get along very well with the Tea Party. Part of it is a mutual respect. I have a great respect for the Tea Party." and "Asked if he considered himself part of tea party, Trump said, 'I think so. I'm very proud of some of the ideas they put forth. They want to stop this ridiculous, absolutely killer spending that's going on. '" I do not see how all of this would not be considered as him having "...expressed support of the Tea Party Movement..." which is what the currently contentious edit states. SQGibbon (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SQGibbon, as per the previous consensus here? Where exactly? Are you talking about the section above or elsewhere? --Malerooster (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)ps, maybe start a RFC to gain wider input than the 4 or so folks currently involved. --Malerooster (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just above. Three people discussed the matter, one dropped out, and two of them reached an agreement based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That is a consensus. Also, I'd like to think that we can work out the wording of one ultimately trivial sentence without needing an RFC. This shouldn't be that difficult and the controversial statement in the article is not making a particularly bold claim. SQGibbon (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It clearly states that he is not a "member" and that he supports some of the Tea Party positions - specifically that he supports reductions in spending. What might be said is "Trump supports reduction of spending, as does the Tea Party movement" which is substantially different from the claim currently made. Nor does any of this make him a "person associated with the Tea Party movement" specifically. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no claim in the text that he is a member of the Tea Party. He also makes clear that he wants to be associated with the Tea Party "have very much the same principles", "I certainly seem to be in a sense", "I seem to get along very well with the Tea Party", etc. That category appears to leave the exact meaning of "associated" open to interpretation but there are enough sources provided here to indicate that he is associated with the Tea Party by other people. SQGibbon (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a vast leap from what the sources explicitly state. Wikipedia is not the place to make such leaps. And the claim that he is "associated" with a group may be contentious -- If one were to say the Pope is "associated with the Mafia" by some critics, that would not make such a claim valid, would it? We can state he supports some principles of the TPm, but that does not make the claim as stated correct. Putin supports Assad (apparently) but des that make Putin "associated with" an anti-Semitic movement? When we make any claims, we stick to what the sources explicitly state and we appear to be violating that principle here, and one can never assert that two people can make a WP:CONSENSUS in any event. The claimthat an ausience which includes some TPm members is a "Tea Party audience" is also an affront to Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely no leap being made and you asserting it does not make it so and is, quite frankly, insulting. I read the sources carefully, and having absolutely no interest in any part of these subjects, determined that the proposed text adequately conveyed the content of those sources. If you disagree with the consensus interpretation then state your case but saying things like "nope", "vast leap", etc. do not in any way, shape, or form, help the discussion or work toward consensus building. And yes, the claim that he is associated with the group may be contentious but the the text in the category leaves interpretation quite open. Given that reliable sources in the media very clearly associate Trump with the Tea Party makes the claim at least one worthy of consideration. Finally, where in WP:CONSENSUS does it state that two people are not sufficient for establishing consensus? If that were the case then at least half the article in Wikipedia would never reach a consensus. So please, respect the consensus that was achieved and start working within Wikipedia guidelines and stop forcing your new opinion on the article in direct contradiction to the previous consensus without achieving a new consensus first. SQGibbon (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do not "convey intent" - we convey what is clearly stated in the body of reliable sources. Period. And I suggest that your assertion of "consensus" here is quite premature indeed. And claims of association in general may be "contentious" per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say anything about conveying intent? I said "I read the sources carefully ... determined that the proposed text adequately conveyed the content of those sources." The current text is an accurate summary of the content of all those reliable sources. I am not going to engage in violating copyright by copying the text over from those sources (in case that's what you are calling for) nor do I think it helps the overall quality of the article or Wikipedia to just quote every source (properly cited). The text conveys exactly what is clearly stated in those sources. "Period". There was absolutely nothing premature about the consensus that was achieved in the previous section. A discussion was had and all the editors still involved came to an agreement based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines and edited the article accordingly. That is exactly what WP:CONSENSUS calls for. That there is a new discussion attempting to achieve a new consensus is fine and is how Wikipedia works but in the meantime the previous consensus view holds until a new one is established. And I said "the claim that he is associated with the group may be contentious" so you repeating my statement to, what, make a point(?) is uncalled for. But just because something is contentious does not mean it cannot be included in Wikipedia especially when it is properly supported by reliable sources and is perfectly within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(od)Sure looks like there ain't a current consensus for the material. Contentious claims about living persons require exceedingly strong sourcing.

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.
"See also" links should not be used to imply any contentious categorization or claim about a living person.
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources

Seem to cover most of the problems. And in case you did not notice it consensus can change is part of WP:CONSENSUS. A two or three person consensus is not generally considered of any more than moot value. Collect (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Contentious claims about living persons require exceedingly strong sourcing." Exceedingly strong sources have been provided. Twice now.
"And in case you did not notice it consensus can change is part of WP:CONSENSUS." Not only did I notice this before you said it I even said it myself several times. This is another example of you repeating back to me something I've said as if I didn't already say it. This is insulting behavior on your part.
"A two or three person consensus is not generally considered of any more than moot value." For the third time, please show me any policy or guideline that even suggests this is the case. You won't be able to find anything because if it were the case then at least half of the articles on Wikipedia would never reach a valid consensus on anything. If only two people are involved in a discussion then the consensus they reach, as long as it follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as the previous consensus discussion did, is valid. SQGibbon (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the discussions concerning "consensus" on Wikipedia. At this point I see an actual majority not accepting the asserted "consensus" which would seem to imply that the asserted "consensus" -- isn't one. I hate to disillusion you, but two people != consensus on any dispute. In the case at hand, several people demur on the "2 person consensus." I count Malerooster, Capitismojo, Collect, Noq, 2600, and Darkness Shines as amounting to more than 2 people, provided simple addition is not a problem. Collect (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please point to the relevant policy or guideline that states that two people are not enough to establish consensus when there are only two participants in a discussion. Not one person, besides you, has made the direct claim that two people are not enough to establish consensus. But even if they have and I missed it, it is still not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. "I hate to disillusion you" -- must you always find a way to make a snide comment to me? Please stop with the incivility. SQGibbon (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all -- where far more editors (>>2) reject an edit on the page history than "agreed on the edit" on the talk page, it is fairly obvious to the most casual observer that there was no actual "consensus" on the talk page.
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale rather states that a small group can not override policies and guidelines, which is also an issue here.
Secondly, I can find no case where a "two person consensus" has been deemed of any value on Wikipedia. 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
"First of all -- where far more editors (>>2) reject an edit on the page history than 'agreed on the edit' on the talk page, it is fairly obvious to the most casual observer that there was no actual 'consensus' on the talk page." After a consensus was established then editors came by weeks later to disagree. But first there was an established consensus. The consensus-making process cannot last forever just in case more editors show up.
"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale rather states that a small group can not override policies and guidelines, which is also an issue here. " That is not at all what is going on and your attempt to paint it like this is yet another insult. A consensus was achieved that was entirely within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. That consensus can change is something I've stated several times now and if/when a new consensus is established then the previous consensus can be considered overthrown.
"Secondly, I can find no case where a 'two person consensus' has been deemed of any value on Wikipedia." I am not interested in this. Your task is to point to any policy or guideline that states that if only two people are in a discussion then the consensus they achieve, as long as it is within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, is not considered a valid consensus because there were only two people involved. It's very simple. You've asserted this fact numerous times and have yet to back it up. SQGibbon (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" is not a timed process and Wikipedia has no "deadline." In fact, it appears that no formal discussion ever took place here. See WP:RFC and WP:DR. And since I have found zero cases of a "2 man consensus" ever being considered a "consensus" you wish me to "prove a negative" which is a well-known fallacious argument. Collect (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"'Consensus' is not a timed process and Wikipedia has no 'deadline.'" Nothing I have said or that has been done in any manner contradicts this claim. Consensus was achieved and now we're waiting for a new consensus to be achieved.
"In fact, it appears that no formal discussion ever took place here. See WP:RFC and WP:DR." Normal WP:CONSENSUS process was followed. Saying that there was no RFC or call to DR is 100% irrelevant as it was not needed. There is absolutely no policy or guideline that requires an RFC in order for consensus to be established. If you think there is then point it out. Consensus was achieved as per the Wikipedia definition of consensus as seen at WP:CONSENSUS. Two editors disagreed on a proposed edit. Discussion was had based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines using independent and reliable sources and a consensus was achieved. That is exactly how Wikipedia operates and is exactly in line with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
"And since I have found zero cases of a '2 man consensus' ever being considered a 'consensus' you wish me to 'prove a negative' which is a well-known fallacious argument." In no way am I asking you to prove a negative nor have you accurately restated my very simple request. You have asserted multiple times that consensus from two editors is not a valid consensus. All you have to do point to the relevant guideline or policy that states this and your case is made. The analogy is that you claim that unicorns exist and I am asking you to prove this claim. The "proving a negative" fallacy would be you asking me to prove that there are no unicorns or to prove that there is no policy or guideline which states that two editors do not make for a valid consensus. Again, all you have to do is point to the policy or guideline that states that two editors are not enough to establish consensus. It's simple. SQGibbon (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#query about this. I answered in the following manner and I'm copying it over here for what it's worth. Let me add, in light of the specific issues raised above, that I do believe that consensus can be formed by two editors, that no formality is required to form consensus, and that timing does play a part in judging whether consensus has been formed by concession or by silence, but I think most or all of that is largely irrelevant here for reasons stated below:

I do a lot of dispute resolution work and have to look at questions like this fairly often. Let me note here that the agreement which asserts the two-person consensus was made in this edit on July 4, with a corresponding edit in the article that same day. The next edit to challenge it was, I think, made in the article text in this edit on July 18 and on the talk page in this edit on July 25. Unless there were some prior edits that I've missed that's 14 days between consensus assertion and objection-by-editing. In a "hot" article such as Donald Trump (i.e. one which gets a lot of editor attention), I have to say that I think that in ordinary circumstances it would be a very close call whether or not the subsequent objections were sufficient to prevent a consensus from being formed by the prior agreement and edit. However, this is a BLP article, it was a clearly controversial edit, and the quality of both sources and consensus (see the second bullet point of the WP:No consensus section of this policy) are of importance. On the whole, I either think that either there was no consensus formed due to the subsequent objection or that the quality of the consensus (and the interpretation of the source, though that's a different issue) should keep the disputed edit in play without further bickering over whether or not there was a consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) PS #1: Unusually, I disagree with Blueboar in this instance. A consensus is a consensus. However weak it may be, it cannot be set aside merely by objecting to it. A new consensus must be formed to set aside the old consensus. An objection to the prior consensus may be enough to form a new consensus, of course, if no one objects to the objection. PS #2: I strongly object to the idea that any sort of formality should have to be observed in order to form consensus. I could say more about that, but I don't think that's really necessary to resolution of the specific problem here. TM — 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, so that's about all I'm probably going to say here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit which first made the "associated with the Tea Party" claim was 26 June. It was reverted by an editor on 27 June. Reinserted 2 July, removed by a second editor on2 July. I fail to see how a discussion on 2 July thus made a very recent edit into a "consensus". Reinserted 2 July, removed again on 3 July. Reinserted on 3 July. Removed on 3 July. Reinserted 4 July. Removed on 18 July (amazingly enough, some people do not live on Wikipedia - the claim is one where an RfC would be needed, but the number of times it was removed would seem to indicate that many editors did not view it as "established consensus" at all. BTW, consensus is never obtained by tendentious iteration of the same "bold edit" - it must be arrived at by full discussion - which did not occur. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to note that the people who disagreed with the initial edit in the early days of July are the ones who participated in the discussion on the talk page and achieved a consensus. There was only person who appeared to object who did not continue to participate thus the remaining people achieved a consensus. There was absolutely no need for an RFC since there was no one left who objected and the two main parties who were in disagreement reached a consensus view. That is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
"it must be arrived at by full discussion - which did not occur." A full discussion did occur. It's in the section just above this one.
What this means is that a consensus was achieved in a fully good-faith process exactly in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines by the editors involved and the actions of the editors since are people acting unilaterally against established consensus. A new consensus can be formed but in the meantime the old/existing consensus remains in place.
By the way, does this mean you're dropping the "two editors don't a consensus make" argument? SQGibbon (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"people associated with the Tea Party movement"

Are the sources:

  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/12/cruz-and-paul-greeted-by-cheers-at-tea-partys-2016-warm-up/
  2. http://www.c-span.org/video/?318743-2/donald-trump-freedom-summit
  3. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/16/trump-bashes-boasts-and-curses-in-first-major-tea-party-speech/
  4. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-believer-tea-party/2013/10/10/id/530486/
  5. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/7/donald-trump-says-hes-a-tea-party-member/
  6. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/04/trump-on-the-today-show-im-with-the-tea-party.html

sufficient to label Trump in the possibly contentious category "People associated with the Tea Party movement"? 00:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that labeling any person as "associated with the Tea Party movement" may readily be deemed contentious under WP:BLP, and that WP:BLP requires more than a person saying he agrees with some particular positions of a movement or making a speech to a group which is not specifically directed at the movement or about the movement. Some of the sources are videos and some are clearly editorial opinion about Trump, but I cannot find in any of them that he specifically states any "association" with that controversial movement, and plenty of sources which have him taking positions rather antithetical to the movement other than on government spending. I suggest further that being opposed to government spending is not in itself sufficient to label a person as being associated with a controversial group or movement. I also suggest that contentious categories be generally avoided in BLPs. Collect (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • RfC comment. I came here from the RfC notice, and am not otherwise involved in the page. In fact, I haven't even looked at the listed sources, but I can offer a comment in a more general way. It seems to me that a category using the words "associated with" is going to be problematic from the start: how closely "associated" is associated enough? Based upon WP:BLP, I would suggest that the way to decide, here, rests upon what the subject (Trump) has said, himself. If there is a reliable source in which he, himself, has said that he is in some way associated with the Tea Party, then apply the category. But if the sources all are based upon other persons saying it about him, then do not apply the category. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources can reasonably be read as saying he supports reductions in spending in agreement with the TPm, and conversely that the TPm agrees with him - but is that sufficient to call him "associated with" is the question. This is a fairly general recurring issue - for example is a person who supports Hamas with regard to the current fighting in Gaza then "associated with anti-Semitism"? Were pacifists pre WW II "associated with Fascism"? The list is endless and in the case of categories which can reasonably be deemed "contentious" seems to me to be best handled by avoidance of such categorization. Collect (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to comment about extending this discussion to other pages and topics, but here, I'd say that it's not enough for sources to say that the TPm agrees with him, nor enough for sources to say that, in the sources' opinions, he agrees with the TPm. There has to be sourcing in which he, explicitly, says that he, himself, agrees with the TPm. (Again, I'm talking only about Mr. Trump, not about antisemitism or anything else.) And I'm talking about applying a category to the page; there is nothing wrong with reporting on the page, with attribution, that there are reliable sources that say that he agrees with the TPm. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trump has specifically stated mutual agreement on fiscal stuff, but on no other issues as far as these sources go. Note the TPm article has a number of non-fiscal issues listed. Would you find agreement on fiscal policies be sufficient to state "association"? Collect (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a difficult question. If he has explicitly said that he agrees with them on some issues, and there is no source material to indicate that he disagrees with them on the other issues, then I'd say that the threshold has been met, and applying the category is appropriate. It really depends on the details: he would have to indicate agreement without also distancing himself on other issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you are well aware, "headlines" are not what we use for contentious claims, and since the sources furnish quotes making quite clear that Trump does not claim to be a TPm member that the headlines may be misleading. “I certainly seem to be in a sense. They like me, and I like them. And we have very much the same principles,” Mr. Trump answered. “When I speak to the Tea Party, they have the biggest crowd of anybody.” is the actual content of the first ref - and it is decidedly not what you wish to assert it is. The second has an interesting headline which also is not part of the reliable source. In fact the story says: Asked if he considered himself part of tea party, Trump said, "I think so. I'm very proud of some of the ideas they put forth. They want to stop this ridiculous, absolutely killer spending that's going on. What's going on in this country — the way we're spending money like drunken sailors — we are absolutely, we're going to destroy our own freedom." He says he is "proud of some of the ideas they put forth" which is a quite evident different claim than that proposed in the headline. Where a headline is not supported by the text of an article, we go with the text of the article. Thanks for showing exactly why we can not use the headline as the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're bolding the wrong parts. Washington Times: So I asked him straight out if he considers himself a member of the Tea Party. "I certainly seem to be in a sense. Los Angeles Times: Asked if he considered himself part of tea party, Trump said, "I think so. Therefore, Trump, by his own admission, certainly seems to be a Tea Party member in a sense. starship.paint ~ regal 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cited what Trump said and that would seem to be better than citing what the headlines said. In case you did not understand, quote snippets benefit from being given in context, not taken as three or four word pieces taken out of context. Wrenching quotes out of context is about the worst form of sophistry one can do for a BLP, IMO. while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement. Generally the one who gives the fuller quote is the one who is being more accurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you brought up headlines when I didn't. Also, I too, quoted what Trump said. You also seem to be indirectly accusing somebody of quoting Trump out of context. Whether you're referring to the Washington Times, or the Los Angeles Times, or me, I'm not very sure. Let's not beat around the bush here. starship.paint ~ regal 10:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You used fragments of quotes (in one case you gave - the fragment was the same as used in the headline). Fragments are susceptible to the Fallacy of quoting out of context and actually meet that fallacy head on in the case at hand. Where a full quote has a different meaning from the fragment, then it is an "out of context" use. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe headlines are RS generally, much less for BLP articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes Collect, I used fragments. But, I don't think that the full quote disagrees with my conclusion. Above, I concluded that Trump certainly seems to be a Tea Party member in a sense. I stand by that. That means that Trump is not 100% a Tea Party member, but he's leaning towards being one. The question, as Tryptofish posted is, how closely "associated" is associated enough? starship.paint ~ regal 13:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to look at the quotes that Collect provided on their own merits, without the accompanying editor commentaries. It sounds to me like Trump is saying directly that he considers himself to be associated with the Tea Party, but he is saying it in a manner that demonstrates a slight ambivalence on his part. It's the difference in nuance between "I seem to be" and "I am", or "I think so" and "Yes". Based on those quotes, he certainly seems close to belonging in the category. I'd be very interested in whether there are any quotes where, instead, he distances himself from the Party, because that could make a big difference here. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How much distance is needed where it is clear that he does not specify any agreement with the TPm on social issues at all in any venue? Suppose this were the 1930s -- and a person were a member of a "Communist Front" organization -- your position would imply we could label such a person as "associated with the Communist Party" alas. Such is a slope which I suggest is easily avoided by using a strict version of "associated" when the movement is not solely a fiscal movement, and Trump only speaks about fiscal policy. Trump is in favour of completely legalizing marijuana and taxing it - not a TPm position in general. [1] shows comments about this - he is not really "associated with the Tea Party" as far as most people are concerned. [2] makes several jabs at Trump insistent with him being "associated with the Tea Party movement", he has contributed to the DNC and Democratic candidates who are not likely to be TPm members (Kathleen Hochul, Brian Higgins, Kirsten Gillibrand, Democratic Committee of New York State, Charles Schumer, Anthony Weiner, Hillary Clinton, Charlie Crist, Carolyn Maloney, Bill Nelson, Harry Reid inter alia). Sorry -- agreeing on fiscal issues alone does not make one "associated with the TPm" any more than agreeing that Hitler was bad made one "associated with the Communist Party" eighty years ago. Collect (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, Collect. You're arguing that CNN, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Times are insufficient sources to show that Trump is associated with the Tea Party. But at the same time, you're arguing that a ideologue's blog post and Yahoo! Answers (!!!) are sufficient to show that he's not associated with the Tea Party? I think it might be best to step back, because you're tying yourself in knots here. MastCell Talk 17:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly read what I wrote instead of snarking out on us. The full quotes found in reliable sources are better than snippets of quotes taken out of context. The fact is that Trump agrees apparently with the TPm and a helluva lot of others about fiscal restraint, but that is insufficient to assert that he is "associated" with a contentious group and the full context of the quotes makes clear the limitations of his agreement. No knots involved here -- just normal common sense that taking material out of context is not a great idea. Collect (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it makes sense to harp on the idea that quotes are being taken out of context. For one thing, context in this case is provided by the article headlines and text surrounding the quotes—that is, the exact things you insist on disregarding. By divorcing the quotes from the rest of the article, you are the one guilty of taking them out of context. For another, the context is obvious: Trump was asked about the Tea Party, and he indicated that he is significantly in tune with their views. To go back to Tryptofish's question, I haven't seen any similarly reliable sources describing differences between Trump and the Tea Party (I'm assuming you were not seriously presenting Yahoo! Answers as a reliable source). MastCell Talk 18:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where Collect points to differences with the TPm on social issues and the like, let me ask this: are there any reliable sources that quote Trump as saying something like "I disagree with the Tea Party about [issue]."? If there are, then I'd say drop the category. If all we are going on is editors or secondary sources observing that there are differences between Trump's stated positions and some TP positions, then we are back at the quotes where he says that he seems to be in agreement with them, minus any distancing on his part. In that case, I think the category is valid. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trump specifies his areas of agreement -- exclusively fiscally related - shouldn't that be a clue that he is not in lockstep agreement with everything supported by the TPm? Trump supported Romney when the TPm abhorred Romney. He has supported many liberal New York Democratic campaigns financially. If anything he is likely saying what people want to hear whenhe is campaigning. This is neither a new nor rare phenomenon. There are no quotes outright saying "I am a member of the TPm" in any source thus far given. Asking that we "prove a negative (evidence of absence)" is a wondrous fallacy in debate. Collect (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said above, it depends on the category. Trump certainly seems to be a Tea Party member in a sense. If the category only recognizes 100% Tea Party politicians, then Trump does not belong in it. If we do take the category very literally as in merely "associated", then yes, I think Trump belongs in it. starship.paint ~ regal 14:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(od) In which case, folks who were once members of Communist Front organizations in the 1930s should be categorized as "associated with the Communist Party" - right? The "Tea Party movement" is clearly "contentious" as a claim about a living person who does not clearly and unambiguously self-identify specifically with such a group. Which is how I consider contentious claims must always be handled - including "claims by categorization." Collect (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apply the category. Collect is correct that contentious categorization should be held to a high standard under our BLP policy. And I'm uncomfortable with the name of the category, but that's a discussion for WP:CFD, not here. We have reliable sourcing indicating that Trump says, albeit with some apparent caution, that he agrees with TPm on some issues, and is even "proud" of some areas of agreement. He also says that he feels positively about the times he has given speeches to TPm groups. That does sound like he considers himself "associated with" them. The evidence for him having any objections to such a categorization appear to depend upon WP:SYNTH. There are sources showing various TPm persons expressing positions on various social issues; there are sources showing Trump expressing different positions on those issues, but not, it appears, referring to the TPm in that context. Absent him saying, himself, that he disagrees with the TPm, inferring that he considers himself separate from the movement is SYNTH. Someone can be part of a movement without agreeing with all that the movement stands for, and even if being criticized by other members of the movement. I came here as an uninvolved editor, but I am now persuaded that the category is appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't apply the category. The bot sent me. Trump doesn't appear to be affiliated with any group. He doesn't even seem to have any allegiance to the Republican Party. This is a BLP and while he isn't being put into a category with a racist hate group like La Raza, it seems that depending on headlines, which are written by editors, not writers, and vague comments by him and/or news shows seems WP:UNDUE and could be a BLP vio. Especially given the sources above which are very poor sources. If you had a scholarly source from a peer reviewed journal that identified Trump with a particular group or ideology, I'd say apply the category, especially since it seems benign compared to other groups. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, so I'd just drop it. It doesn't seem crucial anyway. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was based upon direct quotes from Trump himself, not headlines, and I am not aware of any reason to think that the sources of the quotes are not WP:RS for the veracity of the quotes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=619605245"