Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Is this page being hacked or something?

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

I saw it someplace else also. It appears it is a problem with the software, not something to do with this page. -- GB fan 00:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
See WP:VPT#Script error?. -- GB fan 00:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Father's fake ancestry claim

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

I understand and appreciate your "sins of the father" argument. It's quite possible Trump (born in 1946) grew up believing his father's assertions that the family came from Sweden. As you point out, however, his 1987 claim to be Swedish in The Art of the Deal is independent of his father's biography. I took out the quote from a cousin and simply paraphrased from the Fred Trump obit, which provides what seems to me a necessary context (that his father said the family was Swedish). This seems like better NPOV, as there's nothing here about pretending not to be German or the family's apparent business rationale behind it. Better? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks okay to me. I tweaked it a little.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Much clearer. For what it's worth, Friedrich Drumpf is not mentioned by name in The Art of the Deal but is identified only as Fred's "father, who came here from Sweden as a child" (see ref). Does the article now imply that Trump mentioned Friedrich Drumpf by name? I can live with the copy as is, but tweak if you want. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
If we were quoting The Art of the Deal then it would matter a great deal whether we say "Freidrich Drumpf" as opposed to "father's father" or "paternal grandfather", but since we're not quoting, and since they're all the same person, we should be okay. Since the paragraph in this Wikipedia article previously refers to "Friedrich Drumpf", it's seems clearest to keep referring to him as such later in the paragraph. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, just wanted you to know Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal of a new picture

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

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

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

He doesn't look presidential enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm adding a cropped version above, which I think works quite well. Bluntly, it doesn't have to look presidential. He's not president. Either way, this is better than the image we currently have in the infobox. Support using this image over the current one. ~ RobTalk 11:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Do you not see the faces you linked as odd? The first one has mouth open and eyes cast away from the camera. The second one has him looking sideways (emphasizing a double chin that he usually doesn't appear to have) and again, mouth open. I would classify those both as odd, whereas the currently suggested pic has a fairly neutral expression directed more-or-less at the camera. ~ RobTalk 13:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Rob, This is Donald Trump looking straight, little bit angry and resolutely. In both previous pictures he's in mid-speech and has big bags under eyes. All Candidates for president in 2016 have good pictures.

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

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

Trump posing for photo in June 2015

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

  • You do realise this image is "grainy" right? its possible to fix many things and flaws with images but its actually impossible to fix a grainy image...--Stemoc 16:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    I do realize that the technical quality is less than the pics having the blue background, but on balance it's preferable for the reasons I described.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    He looks particularly constipated in this picture. ~ RobTalk 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    I am presently checking to see about getting a higher-quality image from the same event. He looks kind of ill in the pictures with the blue background, though, and I prefer constipation to illness.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    I have consulted an expert who has now smoothed out the graininess of the picture above (with bow tie). Honestly, I think this pic is now vastly superior to the ones with the blue background.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    I think that dark background on white Wikipedia will be weird. I think the best proposal is the first one. -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    "He looks particularly constipated in this picture"< lol true, more reason to use it then :p.. anyhow, i have created a few crops myself cause if we are going to use a shitty image in the end, i'll try to make sure its the best shitty image we could use (lol)..people should accept the fact that the Donald is now fat thus the fat bag of ..well fats under his chin..he pays people to come to his conventions lol and photographers to take good pics of him (photoshopped ofcourse) ..Wikipedia doesn't have to do that, we can use his real images without worrying about it ..I created alternate for 2 of the images above.....if someone can shoop out the shield from this pic without compromising the quality of the image, I think this is better that the one where he looks constipated....I have also added a Higher quality and fixed version of the currently proposed image incase people want to compare ...I still prefer the currently used image though, or the one from March..--Stemoc 08:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Well I'm sorry Mr Professor of bullshit that I'm the ONLY ONE HERE making sure that we do not use a POOR IMAGE of Donald Trump on his article..If you want what the other s above are offering, then go TAKE it.. I'm NOT the blind one here, I have added thousands of great images for people on this wiki, even begged fora few god images only for idiots like you to appear and attack me and show no respect..You want them to use an image that makes him look "constipated" or a "shitty image" or one that makes him look like an "over cooked potato" or a "fat bag" theh go for it, Support whatever crappy images those guys's above are proposing cause they are the one here who do not care what image gets used on that article. .I DO.oh and i'm deleting your shit off my page oh and another lesson for you, WP:TEMPLAR ..--Stemoc 10:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I recommend you to not participate on any article related to Donald Trump because you do NOT fullfil criteria for editing it. Please read WP:NPOV. Best regards, -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Revised

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

I know I'm tardy to this party, but I don't see what's wrong with the image being used right now. There's more important things to worry about than an image that might or might not be "better" than the one currently in use. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking off to the side, facing away from article text, appears tired and half-asleep, mouth open but appears to have no teeth and left dentures at home, poor lighting of neck and collar, bags under eyes, shoulders askew, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Good points. File:Donald August 19 (cropped).jpg looks good to me, but I've already proven I have zero knowledge on the art of photography. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That's the proposed picture. -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I know, I'm supporting it. It might be silly reasoning, but I feel the suit and tie is a more appropriate look than the tux, because it's a more common wardrobe choice. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Break

  • Guys, I just took it upon myself to touch up the proposed picture from the top of this section. I lightened the bags under his eyes, removed the microphone and fixed the over-saturation. Anythingyouwant has been working with me at the Photography Workshop to come up with a substitution, but it's been difficult fix the graininess of the other photos. If anyone has specific requests for further modification that might get you to vote for the proposed image, just post them here and I'll see what I can do. This argument seems to be getting a bit out of hand, and as a fellow Wikipedian, I just want to see this get resolved. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: Thanks again, and please note that your work on the bowtie pic has not been entirely in vain; it's just below the infobox in this article (for now).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That's good to see. As I said, if there are any requests for it, you can leave them here or leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get to it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Good job and thanks! I think this is the best picture we have! Should we put it to the infobox? -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the cropped original is the best option we have right now. This is a matter of personal taste, but the tuxedo picture looks stiff and somewhat smug to me. The parted lips are also odd. I prefer the original suggestion. ~ RobTalk 20:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If the bowtie pic (currently in the "series" box below the infobox) is left where it is, then I will not object to the second image in this section as the new top image, for now. Better pics will very likely become available, but that one is a big improvement over the one that's there now. I think the bowtie pic is the best, but at least it will be used in the "series" box.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The color saturation seems to be a bit intense in the current profile pic. IHTS (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That's because someone went here and reverted the image that we all agreed to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I see. (Thanks.) IHTS (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not think the microphone s/ have been removed from this photo. (It's unnecessary doctoring, and puts the shot out of context - e.g. the tilt of his head etc. could be directly related to.) There are at least two other presidential candidate articles with microphone in their lead pic (Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore). IHTS (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
My experience has been that such microphones are removed from lead images unless they actually are blocking part of the subject's face, as in the Carly Fiorina article. The Jim Gilmore microphone is barely noticeable, and so not comparable to the obtrusive one that's been removed here. But the Chris Christie microphone is similar. I would not object if both are removed, or both are not removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know from where you draw that experience, I still think it is a wrong idea. (Trump may be listening to a questioner in the current pic, in anticipation of responding into the mic. Removing the mic shoves such pic details out of context. The positives of that doctoring are outweighed by its negatives.) IHTS (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you've persuaded me. The microphone ought to be restored, but the desaturation should not be withdrawn. Unfortunately, an editor at the image page has restored the microphone plus the over-saturation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. (Restore mic, fix over-saturation.) IHTS (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Which pic do you think is most appropriate, IHTS? By the way, here's a new one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In 2013
Unsure. (I'd acclamated to the orig 2011 image. Bowtie image, no. March image with mic, OK.) But I know I don't like your crop, the composition before your crop was more natural (as is Stemoc's below). IHTS (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
As i said in my previous post, I had already created a better crop for the proposed picture which is File:Donald Trump August 19 2015.jpg without compromising the quality and the value of the image, microphones are ok as long as its in front of the speaker and the picture isn't focused on it ....again, this is futile, a month from now, the image will be changed again for invalid reasons..My support still stands for the current image or the one from March.--Stemoc 01:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the current one to the March one. I like your crop except my crop omits more of the microphone. I think we both did a good job desaturating it, so I could live with either one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but then it adds more blue background which is unnecessary....you can literally now "photoshop" a Halo over his head and call him an angel ..lol...I prefer to make good high quality crops thus why it looks better even though the microphone is in view but as i mentioned above, microphones are fine just as long as they don't distort the person's face which was a flaw in the March image , the only flaw and it was fixed accordingly...--Stemoc 05:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes on crop, but saturation still seems a tad over-done. (His blue tie is virtually neon.) IHTS (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The tie he wore that day wasn't just blue, it was shiny, quite possibly intentional as he was standing in light which made it shine like neon..I actually own a similar tie ;) ..it kinda glows when light is focused on it ..--Stemoc 02:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I shouldn't have mentioned the tie. It's all relative. The blue background is too brilliant (at least on my computer). The color intensity would be improved by toning down a notch. IHTS (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
In this set of two pics, I just re-cropped the pic on the left.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
He is actually standing in front of a background which is dimly lit thus making him look a bit too dark, i had to 'light it up' but anyways, i have reduced the intensity a bit, should be ok now..--Stemoc 04:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

German

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

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

Image proposal

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

The first image is extremely unflattering, and I oppose its use. The second image is better, and I'm indifferent between that image and the one we're presently using in the infobox. ~ RobTalk 10:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Bu Rob13: I disagree the first image is mildly unflattering at most. Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Actually, now that I'm seeing it in the infobox, does that lighting give anyone else a "villainous" impression? The shadows set an odd tone. ~ RobTalk 19:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The shadows do set an odd tone, but I want consensus before a reversion please. Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Why use a "smug" and 4 year old image of Trump when a new HQ one is available?, anyone with good photoshop skills can easily remove the microphone from the new image ....the 4 year old image portrays him as smug and wikipedia is supposed to be NEUTRAL regardless of what an utter ass the person whose article is..--Stemoc 06:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I think using photoshop would be manipulative and deceptive. Current picture stays unless we get a better one. Iady391 | Talk to me here 11:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
After thinking about this quite a while, I believe this picture is non-neutral due to the tone created by the shadows. Considering we have the earlier picture that has no neutrality issues, I've reverted back to the original picture per WP:BRD. For reference, here are the pictures. ~ RobTalk 11:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I 100% agree with Iady391 that we absolutely cannot photoshop an image of a living person, though. ~ RobTalk 11:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Not an actual photoshop, just request that the microphone be removed at the Graphics lab ..that easy..no one is saying to photoshop Trumps image to make him look different...I could do it myself but my internet speed does not like uploading large images--Stemoc 13:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I sent a request at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop#Donald_Trump Graphics Lab will see how it goes. Iady391 | Talk to me here 14:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Update They've been done. Iady391 | Talk to me here 15:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I now prefer the proposed image, with the better lighting. I'm still iffy on using a photo that's been altered in any way if it contains a living person. MOS:IMAGELOCATION says we shouldn't even flip an image of a person, because that's misleading. I would assume actual digital alteration, even with the intent of keeping things realistic, is more severe than a flip. Even without my thoughts on that, I would still prefer the proposed with the new lighting. ~ RobTalk 15:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree the "newly proposed" image is better - lighting, the skin color in the "original" image is yellowish as though Trump has jaundice. And I don't see "smug" I see "pleased". IHTS (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Pictures being compared
Original image (March 2015)
compare candidate Trump image skin tones to skin tone from this image form article Jaundice
Newly proposed image (February 2011)
    • Note - now that the mic has been removed, I have been able to fix the lighting, saturation and levels of the recent image..the image was taken in a brightly lit room thus why he looked 'yellowish'..I prefer the recent image because he doesn't look 'smug' in that and IHT, being smug means to look 'overly' pleased ...--Stemoc 11:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes that's better. But about "pleased", IMO it's not "overly" - he looks relaxed & contented/pleasantly satisfied. People look more attractive when they smile, as well (don't you think so?). So the "proposed" image still puts him in a better light (no pun intended). ;) IHTS (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have uploaded an adjusted version of the first image. The yellowish look is not caused by lights being too bright; it's caused by the camera's white balance been wrong. There was also some slight levels issue. Here is the version before Stemoc's adjustment for comparison. - MrX 12:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • thanks for the added fix, now the image looks perfect in the infobox...yes image quality was sacrificed but it indeed looks pretty good now..I personally do not like the smuggy 4 year old image..thanks MrX--Stemoc 12:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Glad to help Stemoc. I have no opinion otherwise about the quality of the two images (are we allowed to select the middle one?). That said, I would favor a more recent image.- MrX 13:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
        • It's good now (thx). Current is a plus (granted). And I trust Mr. Yellow had some good days after. IHTS (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
          • To be fair, there are many references to Trump's orange skin in online searches, as well as to his unusual hairstyle. I don't mind the photographic corrections but I'm not sure I'd attribute the issue entirely to the room's lighting (he does seem to experiment with tanning and/or foundation, and while I don't mind the remnant 'L' on the right side of his face, does it bother anyone else?) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
            • I don't see why a NPOV demands a flattering photo of Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
              • Including an unflattering/odd photo when a flattering/normal photo exists is clearly not in the best interests of maximizing the image's encyclopedic value. ~ RobTalk 10:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
                • So flattering=normal??? How strange!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
              • I don't see that anyone said that. (I know I didn't.) IHTS (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment- The "newly proposed" image is creepy: I can't see Trump's sclera.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    Demons don't have those ...--Stemoc 15:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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

No, look at Carly Fiorina or Jeb Bush. Hillary has an official portrait photo because she was office holder. I don't know why we would change it. -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, like Trump, Fiorina has never held political office. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I know I was talking about Hillary and I understand I wrote it badly. -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support switch back to 2011 photo, which serviced the article for a long time. (Arguments against are it doesn't show whites of his eyes, more current photos are available, and he looks smug. I don't see smug rather pleased/contented. Each photo option has its own plusses & drawbacks.) IHTS (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the middle picture above is best.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Why can everyone not read?

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

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

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

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

Close reading is a wonderful skill.

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

Please sign your posts (wp:sign). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC) PS: I disagee with your positions.
I also disagree with Kingshowman. (More like POV/OR ranting, however, than discussable "positions".) p.s. Yes, Kingshowman, I can read. Can you? IHTS (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted)You've not given any indication you have read the original quote which does not anywhere contain the word "illegal". Reading will get much easier once you learn how. (Redacted) Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.70.82 (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Why is it you are not signing your posts? Do you not know how?? Please sign your posts (wp:sign). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Beauty Pageant (picture needed)

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

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

We definitely don't need a shot of contestants on stage unless Trump is with them, and I doubt such a shot exists as a free image. Trump's brand extends through so many products that we can't possibly show an image of all of them. The images we do choose to show should be particularly relevant, and preferable include Trump in them. ~ RobTalk 20:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree, agreeing, and agreed. The picture can be of Trump with some of his beauty pageant contentants and/or winners with him. It will be good for him, for them, for readers, the article, and the Trump Campaign. Can someone do this? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, make him beautiful.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Since the Trump remarks about immigrants are under this heading, should subsequent fallout be mentioned here including that Macys, NBC, PGA, Univision and other brands cut ties with him? I know that this is not all about the beauty pageants, since Macys did so in relation to selling his ties and shirts after 700,000 people signed an online petition. (source: http://www.ibtimes.com/miss-universe-beauty-queens-wrestle-donald-trumps-mexican-comments-1999855 and http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-i-terminated-macys-relationship-2015-7) Should the controversy be fleshed out under another heading? Bskydll (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ages at marriage

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

@User:Malerooster Their 24 year age difference was considered noteworthy enough for TIME magazine, The Los Angeles Times, and similar media outlets to devote stories to it. Recent profiles of Melania, contemplating her role as First Lady, include the age of both spouse and wife. I think the current Wikipedia wording of "Trump, who was 58, and Knauss, then 34, were married in Palm Beach in .. [etc]" strikes a neutral rather than judgmental tone, is in keeping with contemporary coverage, and draws no specific attention to their age difference. Given that the issue has received significant mainstream press, how do you suggest we handle it? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"draws no specific attention to their age difference", of course it does, by mentioning it. I still don't see this as that noteworthy or controversial. What do others think? --Malerooster (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
It was noteworthy enough for major media to report it. Like you, I'm not arguing that it's controversial. That's what I mean when I say I'm drawing no specific attention to their age difference, i.e. no wording of "he's 24 years older", just their ages. I'd like to hear others weigh in. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Vesuvius Dogg, mentioning their ages is an editorial judgement, since it usually isn't mentioned, so it draws attention to it whether or not you do the math. -- Malerooster (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
It's good. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Whats good? Making mention of their ages? --Malerooster (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That's how I interpreted what he was saying. Malerooster, you are the ONLY editor who has objected to including their ages, arguing that it isn't noteworthy. You also argue that it's non-controversial, and we've now reached 3RR with your removing this from the article. Please explain to me how TIME, People, Daily Mail, and the LA Times are non-noteworthy sources. Please explain how their editorial judgment is at odds with Wikipedia's standards. if you truly believe the age difference issue is non-controversial, why do you somehow feel it is inappropriate or unflattering to mention their ages, as mainstream sources did both at the time of their marriage and repeatedly since? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree w/ Malerooster. (The birthdates of Trump & Knauss are available elsewhere. So when the ages are pointed out, in the same sentence reporting they married, when they married, and where, it seems to convey by implication that the numbers are relevant for some reason, in the mind of whoever wrote the text. WP is different from its sources, in that WP articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, not like writing to sell magazines & newspapers.) IHTS (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, I think it is encyclopedic to include what has been widely and repeatedly reported. (Most recently, Bloomberg reported on August 17: "In 1998, at a party, she met Donald Trump, 24 years her senior. ") But perhaps this issue will evolve if indeed Mrs. Trump actually campaigns for her husband, as she allegedly wishes to do, and the issue is covered again by the media. I do wonder why we've not heard from her. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Political Campaign 2015

Is there any reason why information about the August 6 debate, and later remarks about Megyn Kelly, are not part of this article? At the very least, shouldn't his controversial statements be included about immigrants, women, and China? What about the Trump University controversy? I understand that you should have neutral articles, but so much of who this candidate is and how potential voters seem to see him relates to his brashness. I really can't believe that the sum total of such material has to do with whether his grandparents came from Germany, whether he owns a book of speeches by Hitler, or what his real networth might be. His vituperative outbursts are a part of who he is, and it seems silly to ignore that. Bskydll (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not ignored. It's at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. That page is where most of the details of the campaign belong. That said, I'm not against reworking the Politics subsection of this article to include something more than just polling numbers. Do you have any specific suggestions on wording? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The article does include discussion of Trump University (in the lawsuit section) and does not weigh in on the Hitler book controversy (raised in a 1990 Vanity Fair article). I agree that it is long and front-loaded with a dull summary of his business interests; the wrestling section seems particularly overwrought. But while we may lose the reader's interest at some point, it's unfair to criticize the presence of things that aren't included in the article, and lament the lack of things that are.
I would, however, opt to include more discussion of his brash and confrontational style, and yes, I do think mention of his misogynistic comments is warranted. They have been widely reported in reliable sources, and are additionally relevant because of his track record for suing women who speak truthfully about him. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help with writing this information up - thanks for your responsiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bskydll (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, Trump has made thousands of outrageous insults and baseless accusations over decades. I don't think it makes any sense to document recent such here as that would be WP:Recentism. If they are recent, they belong in the campaign article. If there is a good resource on a decades long pattern of actions, and it isn't in the article, I think that could be included. Objective3000 (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand your point - we should talk about how this is a well-documented style of his, now and in the past. So, where do you draw citations? Lots of commentary on his personality/character, but it's difficult to find a dispassionate journalistic voice regarding misogyny and racism. Bskydll (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I object to the recently-inserted paragraph claiming that "commentators, academics, and celebrities" have compared him to Hitler. Despite the many footnotes it's rather thinly-sourced when you dig into it (i.e. reports of people on call-in shows calling him Hitler, which isn't surprising) and self-reinforcing, i.e., one source merely repeating what someone else said in an editorial. While there's no question Trump is a racist demagogue, I agree with the rabbis and many others who think these sorts of Hitler comparisons unhelpful and problematic. We can do better than this on Wikipedia. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Vesuvius Dogg, this page is for discussing improvement of the article, not about the subject of it, if you could keep your comments to that, it would be good, thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I do agree it gives too much importance to the Hitler thing, when we should be more focused on his remarks about Hispanics and lost business ventures or doxxing Lindsay Graham. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
And many public figures are compared to Hitler, so it's not notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
"We can do better than this". "Yes we can!" (Pun intended.) IHTS (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(Attack piece by sock removed) Vsmith (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I stopped reading after: "Hello again, my non-reading friends!" Objective3000 (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Okaaaay. Well, there's that one guy. I actually did start this conversation saying that what he said about immigrants should be in there - and I also understand how WP/recentism might be an issue, but apparently not with this subject. These traits are not transient. These traits also appear to be impacting his actual campaign, whether that is calculated or not. I'm hoping actually that all of the candidate pages end up with this type of scrutiny, so there is real balance in the articles. Bskydll (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 

  Let's try this as sample text?:  Donald Trump has a documented history of making flippant remarks insulting to women. In a 1991 Esquire magazine article he is quoted as saying, "“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of [expletive]. But she’s got to be young and beautiful.”  He wrote of women as objectified collectibles in a 2006 book: “Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art is not just superficial or something pretty to see.”He sent Gail Collins, of the New York Times, an article she had written about him with her picture circled and “The face of a dog!” written on it. In 2012, he insulted Arianna Huffington as, "“unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man — he made a good decision.” (Huffington’s ex-husband announced he was gay after their divorce.) Over the years, he has insulted actress Rosie O'Donnell calling her "fat" and "a loser" in 2006, and adding subsequent insults since then. 

  More recently at the GOP presidential candidate debate on August 6, 2015, Megyn Kelly of Fox News pressed Trump on using misogynistic insults such as calling women "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals." She also brought up Trump's remarks on “Celebrity Apprentice” when he told Brande Roderick it would be “a pretty picture to see her on her knees”. His response was to attack Kelly personally and professionally numerous times throughout August, calling her a "lightweight" and retweeting insults calling the reporter a "bimbo". In an exchange with Don Lemon of CNN on August 7, Trump stated she had "blood coming out of her eyes, and whatever". This insult was taken by Erick Erickson, the conservative organizer of the Red State conference in Atlanta to be a reference to Kelly's menstrual cycle, and Trump's invitation to the event on August 8 was rescinded. On the morning of the conference, Trump tweeted that "political correctness is killing this country. "weakness"."

Sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-history-of-flippant-misogyny/2015/08/08/891f1bec-3de4-11e5-9c2d-ed991d848c48_story.html http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/07/brande-roderick-defends-trump-i-dont-even-remember-get-on-your-knees-comment/#ixzz3kfxbQ0nl http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/donald-trump-cnn-megyn-kelly-comment/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-dropped-redstate-gathering-megyn-kelly-gop-debate-2015/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/politics/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bskydll (talk • contribs) 12:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll work on the insults regarding immigrants today. I don't want to put a lot of time into this if it isn't going anywhere though. Bskydll (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump introduced her father to run for president

This should be noted in the article here: 

Headline-1: WATCH: IVANKA INTROS FATHER DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

Anyone editing this article should watch this six-minute video clip for insights to Ivanka Trump. The video is great! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Trump now owns 100% of The Miss Universe Organization

Donald Trump has control of Miss Universe (buying it).
Headline: Donald Trump becomes sole owner of Miss Universe

"Just purchased NBC's half of The Miss Universe Organization and settled all lawsuits against them. Now own 100% -- stay tuned!" Trump tweeted.
AstroU (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC) -- PS: http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/11/media/donald-trump-miss-universe/

Allegations of business with companies linked to organized crime

I appreciate that this section has been restored. However, WP:BLP concerns have prompted the insertion of unnecessary weasel words, particularly the opening phrase "Although disputed by the Trump companies". Trump has NEVER disputed or denied his ties to mafia families and their businesses, and would not respond to CNN reporter Chris Frates' multiple queries on the subject. (Also, Trump memorably walked out of an interview with BBC Panorama's John Sweeney when Felix Sater's name was raised, and interestingly, the Trump campaign edited this, and only this, out of their own Youtube posting of what they purport to be the full and unedited Sweeney interview. Is this because Sater is the son a notable Russian crime boss? Is this because Sater is still closely associated with Trump's businesses?)

A weasel phrase like "Although disputed by the Trump companies" conveys the false impression that media have asked the outstanding mafia/mob questions and been answered with a Trump denial. So I have added a "citation needed" request, but am not holding my breath that any U.S. broadcast journalist, in particular, is willing to risk a network's future access to Trump in exchange for performing actual journalism on this subject. Sadly, real journalism is still sorely needed. Vesuvius Dogg (talk)

There could be more sources for these allegations, but, as it stands, there are no sources disputing them. The section should stay, without any weasel words.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

WWE

Under his HoF award/honor we should mention Vince McMahon himself inducted him, and also that he hosted WrestleMania IV and WrestleMania V at Trump Plaza, and that he won the "Battle of the Billionaires" at WrestleMania 23. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Need a new photo

I think we need to find a different photo for the main sidebar. While it is quite recent (Sept. 2), the photo currently in use shows Trump frowning (frankly, the out-thrust lower lip makes him look like he's pouting). I don't like the guy at all, but as an encyclopedia we should really try to find a more neutral image. Searching for 'Trump photo' on Google, I came across two promising options, one from CNN, another from ABC, but they have minor issues as well and I don't know whether they're available for our use. Some of the images found by searching 'Trump portrait' might also be usable, for instance or here. PublicolaMinor (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015

Errors in history

Samvanasse (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Requests need to be specific, in the form of "change X to Y". 331dot (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Barron Trump and Trump family

Earlier today (or was it yesterday?), somebody created an article on Donald's kid son Barron, which prior to this week had been a redirect to here. Generally speaking, precedent (particularly NOTINHERITED) on underaged children of politicians or celebrities would say delete the article. As such, I recently created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump. However, what I believe ought to happen is that the content should be merged into an article on the entire Trump family. At present, Trump family redirects here, but I believe it should be expanded to have little blurbs on all the Trumps who have articles, and bigger blurbs on family members like Elizabeth Christ (Trump's grandfather) and Barron who don't. Thoughts? pbp 00:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There are some interesting figures in his extended family — a notable uncle (John G. Trump), sister (Maryanne Trump Barry), and nephew (David Desmond) — as well as a few chilled ex-wives in sable orbit (Ivana Trump, Marla Maples) and of course the three eldest children each with a Wikipedia entry. Trump spoke on "60 Minutes" about his deceased older brother, who died of an alcoholism-related illness, so I think it would be worth having a Trump Family page to mention him and perhaps the less-notable siblings and extended family, giving capsule biographies. FWIW, Fred Trump's biography seems to recap a lot of information now available and better sourced at Frederick Trump (Friedrich Drumpf), so Fred Trump needs to be cut down and improved. It also needs to mention John G. Trump, his brother! If you start it, I'll help out... Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Foreign... and other matters

Donald Trump is one of several Republican Party candidates for the Presidential election next year. He might win both the primary campaign and become the Republican winner. And as such he may very well be the next American President. For such a person (who might get the most powerfil work in America and perhaps in the entire world), his or her political opinions in each and every general matter, is importaint for us to express or reveal. How he want's his country (USA) to trade with other (foreign) countries, and which countries he conciders to be a threat is of cource importaint. I'm sorry for the misspelling of the word "foreign", but that soesn't make the Presidential canditates vthoughts less importaint. Boeing720 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Of couce my contribution was just a beginning , and I think there should be chapters of wole lot of domestic matters aswell. This since mr Trump appear to become the final candidate of the Republican Party in next year's Presidential Election. But also edjucation, health-care, defence matters, taxes, etc are topics which also ought to be examined. Preferably concrete suggestions, but also statements as he so far mostly has made a lot of "one liners". From our usual NPOV view. To my knowledge the CBS 60 minutes comment about "allowing" Russia to help Syria (and Assad) to get rid of Islamic State, is his first comment about other countries. Why should only American blood be spilled in every mad-regime matters ? Obama has had plenty of time by now, but seem to believe that if Russia succedees crushing the worst ever maniacs (?) - would be some kind of threat to America, is difficult to understand. But of cource should all other candidates' foreign policy, and other ideas on the different political subjects also be NPOV examined. If he wasn't a candidate, then of cource his political ideas could well be transferred to an other article of lower importance. But as of now I think that for instance the "Entertainment media" -section is far more suitable for a secondary article. Until we know the outcome of the Republican Convent and later perhaps the Presidential Election - mr Trump is mainly of interest as a politican, isn't he ? Boeing720 (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to follow from your rant above, but the gist of it seems to be you think we should include a foreign policy section for Trump. I'm not arguing that shouldn't happen, but you haven't offered a tangible reason to do so - just a diatribe littered with typos explaining non-cited opinion positions on ISIS and Syria. You also worked in some opinions about Obama, which don't belong in a Trump wiki article unless there is a notable (by the standards of the wiki) event or development involving the President. Even then, criticism can't come from the wiki, and it has to be from a notable source of relevant impact to the wiki page. Jacotto (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Trump's foreign policy views belong at Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Political_positions, not his biographical article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
No idea what you are proposing or why. Please be more specific. Objective3000 (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
In America individuals campaign for becomming Democratic Party/ Republican Party candidate for the President Election. So what he sais about Russia, Syria, Irak/Iraq must be regarded as a part of his (so far rather thin) foreign policy. This is of cource included in the Presidential Campaign 2016 section. And atleast twice ha has stated the same thing - "We don't like Islamic State, the Russians feels the same, so why not let Russia have a go at IS (or ISIS if you prefer that version)". And America can perhaps later join Russia in Iraq/Irak. Isn't matters like that more importaint than for instance the Apprentice, a silly TV-program ? Althogh mr Trump's Foreign Policy currently currently hasn't been the largest section of his overall policy, he is bound to expand it. And I can certainly not understand why we should censor his (so far) thin Foreign Policy. Especially since we already have a Presidential Campaign 2016 section. Boeing720 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The word censor is overused, IMHO. Not including something is not censorship. As Muboshgu said, this better fits the campaign page. Objective3000 (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This page is already 49kb long. If we include everything about his campaign that's notable on this page, it'll be unnavigable. The "see also" link should suffice to direct anyone interested. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Net Worth

New Forbes source claims he's worth 4.5 billion. Please make the change.--2602:306:C400:1A60:C04F:37BB:6908:3195 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on October 1 2015

Within the "Net worth"-section, the same source (http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-07-22/7-22-15-Report.pdf) is cited twice for the same claim (The "In July 2015, the Federal election regulators released new details of Trump's wealth and financial holdings when he became a Republican presidential candidate, reporting that his assets are worth above $1.4 billion, which includes at least $70 million in stocks, and a debt of at least $265 million"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.23.43.88 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump mob ties section violates WP: BLP

The mob ties section is clearly based on hearsay and speculation. It is a blatant violation of WP:BRD. John Kennedy's much more well-known and established mob ties aren't allowed to be a part of his Wikipedia bio [2], so why smear Trump? I suggest User: Vesuvius Dogg to read WP:OWN.--Cuckservative (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Cuckservative, you have deleted the entire section wholesale and its multiple sources, complaining in your first deletion note of a "liberal bias". You say its because you tried to put a Mafia section on JFK's entry and were thwarted. That is obviously a different circumstance. Is it because, as a conservative, you believe CNN and the New York Times are "liberal" and therefore unreliable sources? Or that a Republican candidate with documented Mafia connections should not be embarrassed by them, and this is therefore a "liberal" attack? I really don't see this as a liberal vs. conservative issue. Do you understand that the caveats in WP:BRD apply to your own behavior? Do you understand that WP:BLP is not a policy intended simply to exclude information because its subject might find it unflattering? (Please read it on that issue.) I get the sense Trump and his campaign are exquisitely sensitive to this mob issue, to the point that the only thing edited out of its own independent release of the John Sweeney interview was Sweeney's mention of Felix Sater, Trump's long-time business collaborator in the development of branded offshore real estate projects — I recommend you go to YouTube and find the supposed complete interview Trump's camp posted, and compare it to Sweeney's account of how Trump abruptly ended the interview. You'll see where the tape is cut/spliced and Trump is abruptly out of his chair. Was Felix Sater's mention censored because Sater's father is reputed himself to be a Russian mob boss? If there is nothing to hide here, why did Trump edit out that one moment of the interview? Also, the fact that S&A was run by two Mafia bosses, and supplied the concrete for Trump Tower and some of Trump's other projects, is not a matter of "allegation", it's fact. It was all well established by the time these figures were convicted. That Trump was the target of a Federal bribery investigation, and left that off of his casino license application, is also firmly established.
I recommend first discussing your specific concerns about the passage here, so that it can be further improved. It has been debated on Talk before, see the archives. Contrary to your note on your first deletion — you are at 2RR now, so this is a warning — the consensus was 'keep'. These paragraphs have been on this page in some form close to this for months. They merit inclusion. — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't comment on the veracity of JFK's ties to OC, but the material in this article seems to be pretty well sourced. Wholesale removal is not the solution. If there are errors or if something specific is WP:UNDUE, let's discuss how to fix it.- MrX 17:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The article on JFK's father does mention organised crime, but, yes, you can argue this is minimised. That's not a reason to minimise it here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree that these sections are too lengthy.

Some specifics. 1: 3rd line, remove the word "noted" 2: This sentence should be softened as it sounds sinister - and he was never charged: " Although Trump was a federal target in a 1979 bribery investigation, and later questioned in a 1981 racketeering probe, neither investigation resulted in criminal charges.[257] Trump was criticized for omitting mention of that investigation in his New Jersey casino license application, and Johnston alleged that he had persuaded state officials to limit his background investigation." 3: last sentence very lenthy. Would suggest amending to this: "According to investigative journalist John Sweeney, Trump walked out of a BBC Panorama interview after Sweeney asked why Trump continued to do business with an ex-convict who identified himself a "senior advisor to Donald Trump" (a claim disputed by Trump's representatives), after mafia and ties, as well as a 1998 racketeering conviction, were publicly reported.[258][259][260] Felierrrrrr (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me

Excuse me but why does it say Barack Obama above this tosser's photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.57.207 (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Objective3000 (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add

Please add this hatnote to the Golf section:

For Trump's extensive and controversial golf course development in various world regions of natural beauty, and the struggles by legal and governmental authorities in those regions to prevent it, including the documentary films You've Been Trumped (2011) and A Dangerous Game (2014), see You've Been Trumped.

84.51.143.85 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Infobox person}}

|office1 = Chairman of [[The Trump Organization]] |term_start1 = 1971 |term_end1 = |predecessor1 = ''Position established'' |successor1 = |office2 = CEO of [[Trump Entertainment Resorts]] |term_start2 = 1995 |term_end2 = 2004 |predecessor2 = ''Position established'' |successor2 = Robert Griffin |office3 = Candidate for the [[United States 2016 Presidential Election]]

  • added by unknown user, but ignored by template...

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed (Removed.) IHTS (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

184.191.131.227 (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Error

in the section of of net worth according to the Forbes list Donald Trump has $4.1 Billion 2015 Billionaires Net Worth Paola301.295 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)paola

Forbes updated this to 4.5 recently. Objective3000 (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015

Can I edit, please? JeoHero (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You will be able to edit this page when your account becomes autoconfirmed, which usually happens when your account is at least four days old and you have at least 10 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hero, meanwhile you can make suggestions. How is it working out for you? -- AstroU (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Supporters

Should this article indicate the fact that Donald Trump has greater appeal among less educated Americans? search -- Moxy (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not in this article. Possibly in his campaign article. But, that would require very good sources and careful wording. Objective3000 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
As seen above sources not a problem....the concern is the wording that should be used. "The difference is staggering.....Among Republicans, 71 percent of noncollege graduates have a favorable opinion of Trump, compared to just 46 percent of college graduates"....the problem he has is getting these people to actually come out and vote-- Moxy (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
You can try the article at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Personally, I don't like the use of polls, particularly current polls, in an encyclopedia, particularly in narrow areas. But, that's just my opinion. Objective3000 (talk)
sounds good will go over there...that article is simply stacked full of polls. -- Moxy (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The Suntimes article is from 9/30/2015, probably by then there wouldn't be further Repub candidates entering the race. ("Among Republicans, 71 percent of noncollege graduates have a favorable opinion of Trump, compared to just 46 percent of college graduates.") OK, so what other candidate--if any--did the other 54 percent favor?? It seems the media sources didn't care about asking or reporting that! That info would add context to the reported 46 percent stat. IHTS (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To me (educated) it seems like a dumb premise; but I agree with the suggestion to TALK/discuss it over on the campaign WP site for Donald Trump.Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 Thanks, AstroU (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Presidential campaign summary section

Am I the only one who thinks the section summarizing his presidential campaign is too heavy on polling and too light on issues? pbp 00:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed a paragraph that consisted of polls from July and August, as they are completely irrelevant even now, and will be even more irrelevant come Iowa. In its place, I have added sentences summarizing the general polling trends over the past four months. I have also added a little more on what he is campaigning on, chiefly bombing the bajeebers out of ISIS, building a giant wall, and using his personality to fix everything pbp 04:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Image placement

I got reverted, but the reason I moved some images in to the section where they are most relevant is this, from MOS:IMAGELOCATION: "An image should generally be placed in the section of the article that is most relevant to the image." Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Note word "generally". So what is justification to move, when the 2 pics in question are 1) already physically adjacent to their respective content (secs), 2) utilize surrounding (above & below) dead (white) space better, and 3) (in the case of the 2nd pic) give text at least some organic wrap (versus blocking off the entire sec's text margin)? Article layout priority s/b for readers (appearance) not editors (ease of editing). IHTS (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad the layout works for you, but not everyone has the same computer, OS, browser, and screen as you. For example, I was recently using a mobile device that shows me one subsection at a time (more if they are short). On that device, if I go to the "Golf" section, I don't see the photo of the Turnberry golf course, and if I go to the "Apprentice" section I don't see the Rodman on Apprentice photo. I have another browser in which if I click on "Golf" in the table of contents, I don't see the Turnberry photo unless I scroll up, which I am unlikely to do because I won't know it's there. I suspect screen readers will have trouble with this too. I agree that the MOS shouldn't be slavishly followed if there is a better way. But I don't see a compelling reason to break usability on some devices to improve the appearance on others. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks for that. (I don't use a phone for WP so didn't see that, I'm sure I'd agree w/ you if I saw it.) Go ahead & revert me back. OK, IHTS (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

WE can include that he is running for president and that he is currently leading the polls. Endicott213 (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Um, we do include that, both in the lead and in the subsection on the presidential election. pbp 18:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_6&oldid=1136669266"