Talk:Donald Trump - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AliveFreeHappy (talk | contribs) at 17:20, 7 August 2015 (→Undue weight to running for president in lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:20, 7 August 2015 by AliveFreeHappy (talk | contribs) (→Undue weight to running for president in lead)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Donald 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
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

New York City High‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Florida Low‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philadelphia Low‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Professional wrestling Low‑importance

	Donald Trump is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).

University of Pennsylvania

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post.
Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Net Worth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dutch Reformed Church

This article contains the phrase "a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, which is a Presbyterian denomination". Is that really an adequate description? The Dutch Reformed Church is most notable for having claimed to provide a theological underpinning to apartheid rather than just being one of many, mostly quite respectable, Presbyterian denominations. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither statement is true. It is a Reformed church with a small-p presbyterian form of governance. The connection to apartheid is incorrect as there is no more basis in Reformed theology than in Methodist or Anglican - and British industrialist were among the key players promoting the policy. Rmhermen (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The phrase is misleading, but it is a quotation. The best way to fix this is to remove the direct quotation. It is possible for a Presbyterian to attend a Reformed Church, however. Apartheid would be relevant if there was some connection to South Africa, but I don't see that there is. I will amend the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Vaccination statements

I plan to add a reference to a Steven Novella blog post about his statements about vaccination, and improve the redaction of the paragraph to a stance more close to scientific consensus, according to the standards of Misplaced Pages.--Jardouin (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph on vaccination was moved to a more ambiguous stance. I suggest to go back to the previous version that is more close to the standards of Misplaced Pages. --Jardouin (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Joking about dating his own daughter

Shall we mention this or does it constitute as trivia as per WP:Trivia ? http://boingboing.net/2015/07/13/whatthefucktrump.html --88.104.136.214 (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPGOSSIP it seems it shouldn't be included. WP:WELLKNOWN also says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article". I do not find this particular incident noteworthy, and I am not sure boingboing counts as a "high quality source" which is required in BLP articles. It could also be argued that including such a trivial item that happens to be negative violates WP:BLPSTYLE per "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." I would consider the people who care about this statement as a tiny minority. 217IP (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Snopes has this on the mention of him dating his own daughter.Sabelum (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

'Race Relations' section Mathmensch added to the Trump article

(addressed to me, moved here from my talk page --Mathmensch (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)) This is not in any way acceptable on Misplaced Pages as a political position. It is hearsay about a joke from the early 1990s, expressed in a book written by an ex-employee. It is questionable whether reporting hearsay comments is even notable for inclusion on wikipedia at all, let alone attempting to dress it up as a 'political position' for a presidential candidate. I understand that you might want to express your political views about certain candidates, but Misplaced Pages pages are not the places to do it.Avaya1 (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(revised edition by Avaya:--Mathmensch (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)) This is not in any way acceptable on Misplaced Pages as a political position section. It is hearsay about a joke from the early 1990s, expressed in a book written by an ex-employee. It is questionable whether reporting hearsay comments is even notable for inclusion on wikipedia at all, let alone attempting to dress it up as a 'political position' for a presidential candidate. I would argue against its inclusion anywhere on a WP:BLP. Misplaced Pages pages should be giving notable and accurate information, not for reporting hearsay and gossip alleging that someone once said a politically incorrect joke. Avaya1 (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree this information should not be included in this article. BLP has a very high standard for sources, especially for material that is contentious and inflammatory about the subject of the BLP. 217IP (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear 217IP,

First of all, the information that I included was not that Trump did in fact say it, but instead the article described the allegations, which recieved huge media attention and are therefore relevant. The sources were well-respected newspapers en masse.

Further, since Donald Trump himself stated 'The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true.', the probability that the statement was made is rather high. And the further statements of Trump (which are recorded on video tape) also make the happening of that statement more plausible. Since people need to know about it if it happened, this is an argument for inclusion. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 12:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Avaya1,

I have noticed that you do not think that statements of Donald Trump about other races do not qualify as political opinion. Since racial issues have dominated the political discourse in many countries, I wonder on what your view is based? Furthermore, to delete the section altogether is not the right decision, we should instead talk about moving this somewhere else if you regard it as apolitical.

I do not want to express my political views about that candidate, but instead I want to express the political views of the candidate.

A hearsay comment, which has had so much media attention, and furthermore was not denied by Trump himself, I do see as very relevant for the article and for all people who want to make an informed decision regarding the election.

And by the way, the section I added was named 'race issues' and not 'race relations'. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe Mathmensch's edit summary should be dispositive:

"Reverted edit of Eclipsoid, since first of all, the claim of the paragraph was not that Trump actually said it,"

This is actually a strong argument for exclusion. If we aren't saying that Trump actually made those statements, there's no reason at all to include them in his biography. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary. Donald Trump has not denied saying it, and the statement has recieved huge media coverage, as proven by the sources I provided (a quick Google search brings up much more articles about those very statements). It is VERY important for the reader of Misplaced Pages to know if Trump insulted black people, since I assume that few people would vote for a candidate who does such things (in my opinion, one should NEVER insult somebody on the basis of race). --Mathmensch (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my argument using a parable. We still do not know for certain all the details of the physical world around us, and yet there are tons of Misplaced Pages pages discussing plausible conjectures. Now apply this reasoning to the present article. We don't know if he said it, but even if there is only a probability that he did it's relevant. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody cares about your parable. What matters here are Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines, which expressly prohibit putting this kind of unfounded garbage in a BLP. Eclipsoid (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My parable was intended as a way to illustrate that the inclusion of the section in dispute is in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Hence, it has, in my opinion, a certain relevance here. And I fail to understand how a well-sourced, relevant (as argued) section should be garbage. This harsh use of words is not recommended. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Another comment on the allegations (which Eclipsoid repeated on his talk page) that I was arguing against my own edit. Dear Eclipsoid. You base your argument on saying that it would not be adequate to quote allegations by a former Trump employee, which have recieved broad media coverage and were not denied by Mr. Trump himself, because we do not write that Mr. Trump certainly made this statement. To the contrary, it is considered good style to include to the article where the information comes from, who said what, and what does Mr. Trump himself say (he said that probably the allegations are correct).

I also note that you consider me not competent. I reply by telling you that I do consider you competent, although I am absolutely certain that you are wrong about this particular issue (which is not a problem, this happens to me too, as can be seen from my talk page).--Mathmensch (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Look again. I base my argument on the fact that (as you, yourself, have so helpfully pointed out) Trump didn't actually make the comments. That pretty much ends all intelligent discussion of whether or not to include them. Eclipsoid (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Eclipsoid,

I have NOT, really NOT, pointed out that Trump didn't actually made the statements. I did not do that. You can check all my statements, nothing has been deleted. What I did say is this: I said that the passage which I included to the Misplaced Pages did NOT state that Trump made the comments, BUT stated that he was accused of making the comments, and that he himself confirms that he probably made them, which is well documented by a primary and a number of secondary sources.

Trump himself stated that he probably made the comments. Hence, there is indeed a possibility that the comments were made. Further, O'Donnall claims to have heard the comments. AND the comments recieved a lot of media attention, also in the light of Mr. Trump's recent statements about Mexico. Hence, my conclusion is that the section should indeed be included to the article.

And further, I hope that the discussion has remained intelligent so far, and once again call for a more friendly use of language. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It is important that people get to know the points of view of their candidates, and that people have enough information to assess what they would do in office. And a part of this process might happen through Misplaced Pages, and this would be a very good thing. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What's important here is that we edit the encyclopedia in accordance with its policies, the most important of which is WP:V. If we can't verify that Trump said something, then it doesn't belong in Wikpedia. Period, the end. Eclipsoid (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I once again find your argument invalid. Indeed, we can't verify that Mr. Trump has said it. This is precisely why we don't write: 'Mr. Trump has certainly said this and that', but instead we write 'O'Donnell has reported that Mr. Trump said this and that, and Mr. Trump said that O'Donnell's account was probably truthful.' --Mathmensch (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And perhaps I should mention once again that the latter statement is verifiable quite well. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I conclude my today's contribution to the discussion by wishing you the best and most convenient of all afternoons, and hope that you will see your errors of reasoning in the close future. With best regards, --Mathmensch (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Rationale for the repeated inclusion of the section in question

A topic often discussed in the context of Donald Trump are the remarks he made about mexicans. In this context, a number of articles (, , , ) mention O'Donnell's book and the allegations presented within it. Hence, relevance of the subject is given. Further arguments for relevance are that

Donald Trump's statements might give hints at policies which he might implement as president, which is why they are highly relevant to the American reader,
and that the statements might allow for a more accurate assessment of the person Donald Trump.

Furthermore, as I mentioned, Donald Trump himself has said that he probably has made the statements in question.

In accordance with Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view, I had avoided presenting O'Donnell's and Trumps opinions about whether Trump said it or not as facts. Instead, as you can read in the two-sentence paragraph, they are explicitly presented as opinions.

Since Eclipsoid and Avaya1 have not successfully argued why the passage shall be excluded, and since I have logically argued that it should be included, I will include it now as announced a day in advance to both users. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 19:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The content is adequately sourced and neutrally written, but without a broader context, it seems to simply be anecdotal and not really worthy of inclusion in this biography.- Mr X 19:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary, comments of a public personality are an essential component of a biography. See for instance Pierre Lalo, Richard Wagner#Controversies, Maurice Ravel#1920s etc. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 19:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps a nicer example: John D. Rockefeller#Monopoly --2001:4CA0:0:FE00:0:5EFE:A94:F85A (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The measure of whether comments of a public personality are an essential component of a (Misplaced Pages) biography is the extent of coverage in reliable sources in proportion to coverage of other comments made by the subject in reliable sources (WP:WEIGHT). I'm not sure if that's the case here, but my main concern is that "...Trump once said..." does not, in any way, equate to a "political position".- Mr X 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The statements seem to be discussed by many media; see the sources in the article as well as the additional sources provided above (admittedly there is a nonempty intersection). Furthermore: There is a context of a number of similar remarks. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 20:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the NPOV section you quoted is about the weighing of different opinions on the same matter, comparing their relative representations. Since O'Donnell and Trump agree on that Trump probably has made the statements, I see no contradiction here. It is not a minority viewpoint that Trump made these statements. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 20:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And although I doubt that a clear statement on a political matter can be said to be nonrepresentative of the political position, I still point out that it might give an indication. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 20:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Setting aside possible weight issues (which I have not delved into), racist comments are not indicative of a political position unless we have sources that unequivocally make such a connection. While the content may be OK somewhere in this bio, I doubt that it belongs under political positions.- Mr X 22:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"racist comments are not indicative of a political position unless we have sources that unequivocally make such a connection" - I would rather say: Racist comments can not be described by Misplaced Pages as indicative of a political position unless we have sources..." Then you have a point IMO; although good sources for this may well exist, those sources are currently not available to me. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 08:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Although I think that the existence of this gives strong hints. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 09:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Early life and education

The paragraph about his grandfather's wedding, at https://en.wikipedia.org/Donald_Trump#Early_life_and_education, is not entirely correct. In 1902 the city was part of an enclave belonging to the Kingdom of Bavaria. It hasn't been part of its mainland, respectively isn't part of modern day Bavaria at all.

One of the following two choices would be a better fit

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

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

Discussion regarding Trump's Vietnam draft status and the events surrounding its disclosure in 2011

On 18 July 2015, I (gaas99) inserted the following text in the early life section of the article:

Mr. Trump was of draft age during the Vietnam Conflict. In an interview in 2011 on New York station WNYW he stated "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number." Selective Service records retrieved by "thesmokinggun.com" from NARA records show, however that although Trump did eventually receive a high selective service lottery number, the principle reason for his not being drafted was his receipt of student deferments (2-S) while attending college and the receipt of a medical deferment (1-Y later converted to 4-F) prior to the lottery to which he referred.

References

The Donald and the Draft. "National review online" Retrieved July 18, 2016
Donald Trump avoided Vietnam with deferments, records show. "cbsnews.com". Retrieved July 17, 2015.
Deferments Helped Trump Dodge Vietnam. "Thesmokinggun.com". Retrived July 18, 2015.

Shortly thereafter, "Professor JR" made some edits to the text and to the section title. I had no problem with his changes and thanked him for them. Several hours later "Eclipsoid" deleted the paragraph (as modified by "Professor JR") with the explanation "Trump's draft deferment is already explained in the preceding paragraph. This material is of very low significance other than partisan muckraking." The material was not mentioned in the preceding paragraph. On 19 July, user "Callinus" added material to the Trump article, including the info contained in my initial edit. Eclipsoid proceeded to delete the section of the Callinus post concerning Trump's draft status without any explanation or entry in any talk page.

The following is a transcript of the discussion I (gaas99) have had with Eclipsoid to date on his talk page:

Hello Eclipsoid,

I disagree with your deletion of my addition to the Donald Trump article regarding his selective service / military status during the Vietnam conflict

1) He is a declared Presidential candidate and any and all information regarding his US military service (or lack thereof) is certainly of interest to all readers and significant information. This information has become particularly significant in light of Mr. Trump's recent statements regarding John McCain's Vietnam service.

2) I find no reference to his selective service status or military status in the preceding paragraph (or anyplace in the article). The only possible reference is the mention of his college attendance which does not touch at all on his medical disqualification from service

3) I do not consider this material "partisan muckraking." The references quoted represent a fairly wide range (political right to middle) of respected publications from The National Review to CBS news, all of which still have active links to their articles four years later. There are, of course, numerous additional references which could be cited but I felt that some of these might be questioned for bias being further left.

Gaas99 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"Declared Presidential candidate" encompasses quite an assortment of people: Joe Walsh, Pat Paulsen, Christopher Walken, Stephen Colbert and Vermin Supreme come to mind. Are we pretending that readers actually care about the military records of these individuals? No, merely being a declared candidate would not seem to be the appropriate test for this. Should Trump survive into the primary season and emerge as a serious contender for the nomination, then it would be something to add to the article. Or were it to become a topic in the campaign, for some reason. Then it would acquire weight. But at this point, no, it is undue weight to mention this kind of trivia in his biography. Eclipsoid (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Fox news recently found Trump leading in their poll of Republican voters "Friday's Fox News poll found Trump leading with support from 18% of Republican primary voters nationwide" .

Unless you dispute the accuracy and impartiality of Fox, I think that the seriousness of his campaign is established. Must we wait until November 1, 2016 before mentioning the (undisputed) facts of his selective service status and his response when questioned about that status? He has quite publicly stated his opinion of John McCain's service during the Vietnam Conflict. Are we not entitled to question the qualifications of the speaker (Trump) to make such statements?

In any case, that is not the question here. The question is "is the information I presented factual, is it impartial and is it adequately sourced". You felt compelled to make a wholesale deletion of the information I presented but did not dispute the facts. You stated it was adequately discussed in the previous paragraph but it was not. You dismissed my addition as "partisan muckraking" but one of my sources was from a respected conservative political journal. IMHO my additions belong in the article and with your permission I will restore them as edited by "Professor JR".

Gaas99 (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The question is "is the information I presented factual, is it impartial and is it adequately sourced". Entirely wrong. Sourcing is but a threshold to inclusion, and only comes into play after criteria of due weight and relevance are met. Here, I have already explained why this material fails those tests. You're right--I'm not disputing any facts; I'm saying these particular facts don't belong in the article. Do try to remember, we're discussing a biography. It's not a narrative account of his current political campaign or an exhaustive statement of his political stances. Eclipsoid (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So am I to conclude that the exact date of his grandfather's wedding is more significant than his military service or lack thereof?

I fail to see the significance of your statement that "It's not a narrative account of his current political campaign or an exhaustive statement of his political stances." My edit did not refer in any way to his current campaign or his political stances. Your argument seems to be that the events are too insignificant to mention. If so, why are you going to such lengths to keep it out of the article?

I note that in addition to your deletion of my edit, you have deleted the subsequent insertion of the same material by "Calinus" and, as in my case you did not notify him/her of that deletion. In his case you did not even mention it in your explanation of the deletion. It is beginning to smell like an edit war.....

In any case, it is time to move this discussion to the article's talk page and see what others think..

Gaas99 (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Jump up ^ http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/politics/donald-trump-poll-2016-elections Poll: Donald Trump continues rise, Scott Walker gets bump "CNN.com" Retrieved 18 July, 2015 Gaas99 (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment The 2011 media interview is discussed at length in the US press today. The fact that McCain is the 2008 presidential candidate makes his comments about McCain worthy of inclusion in this page - this is informative in Trump's approach to the establishment Republican party and his interactions with the Republicans who nominated McCain in 2008 - this is worthy for inclusion in this article because of overwhelmingly widespread media coverage and long-term significance given McCain's nomination in 2008. User @Eclipsoid: seems to be used as a single purpose account, this month making editing nearly exclusively to remove unflattering material from articles on Republican candidates. -- Callinus (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment Removing Jeff Lord article added by @Thomas Paine1776: in this edit per WP:SUMMARY STYLE -- Callinus (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment Imo, the relevance of Trump's draft history to his presidential bid is beside the point. The draft info should be part of the article simply because it is of biographical interest. It's present in the articles of other notable people who lived through that era (e.g. Bill Clinton, Muhammad Ali, Ted Nugent, and of course there's a whole article devoted to the controversy surrounding George W. Bush's military service). So the question is not, "Why should this info be in the Donald Trump article?" The question is why shouldn't it be? The onus is on those who don't think it belongs here to justify why not. -- Hux (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment There can be no question that Trump's draft history should be included and we must vigorously defend this decision against any attempts to airbrush it out. Noel darlow (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

How much money did Trump inherit?

How much money did Donald Trump inherit (from all sources)? I've seen estimates ranging from $40 million to $400 million. This is a basic fact that the biography should include given that the subject's main fame/notoriety is for his alleged business success. Benefac (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Eucharist issue

Trump frequently makes seemingly self-contradictory statements when he says one thing then has to walk it back. At one Christian right rally he said that he doesn't ask God for forgiveness then walked the statement back, expressing that Eucharist is "a form of asking for forgiveness."

Including lengthy quotes, or analysis of parts of them, or potential impact on evangelical voters should be placed in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. -- Callinus (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with removing the quotes and I don't think they belong in the campaign article either. Third party analysis is much more informative. Quotes should only be added if they are needed to clarify the analysis.- Mr X 12:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section titled POLITICS, third paragraph, last sentence the word change-denialing is used. I believe climate-denial is the correct phrase. 71.218.234.32 (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Done used "climate change-denying" as that was modifying his statements Cannolis (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Article mentioned in the news

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

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

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

Trump remains a major figure in the real estate industry in the United States and a media celebrity.

The reference does not support this statement so another supporting reference should be substituted or the statement should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.36.190 (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Text in the introduction generally doesn't need citations if the material in question is supported by citations later in the article, see WP:CITELEAD.– Gilliam (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Lindsay Graham comment

Lindsay Graham is not really notable, he polls at 0 to 1% and its already mentioned in the campaign article. Looks like a WP:POV fork.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Which comment are you referring to? Please try to be more detailed before invoking WP:LAWYERING Rockypedia (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is only one Lindsay Graham comment. How is it notable: Lindsay Graham name calling and then having his phone number given out? The comment is already in the campaign article. Lindsay Graham won't even be in the debates. Doesn't seem notable. No need to include it in this page. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's notable - Lindsey Graham's number in the polls have zero to do with the notability of that action. The fact is, Donald Trump took the private cell number of a sitting US Senator and displayed it to the world, in retaliation for that senator calling him a jackass. It's covered by hundreds of news sources. When has that ever happened before?

Here's an even better question: is it coincidence that every single piece of material you attempt to remove from this page and the Trump campaign page could be viewed as negative (although they're all factual) towards Trump? Check your edit history - I'm not sure you should be involved in these pages at all, and that may require some admin attention. You're not trying to improve the Trump pages, you're trying to whitewash them, and it's painfully obvious. Rockypedia (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Trump's presidential campaign has its own article. That's where coverage of the Graham incident should go. Eclipsoid (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Of course it should be on the campaign article, but that doesn't automatically preclude it from being on the main bio page as well. With the level of coverage it received, it's easily notable enough for his bio page. Also, as another editor already pointed out, Graham is polling at 0-1%, so he's barely in the race, making the whole incident even less related to the campaign. Rockypedia (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The racist attacks against Hispanics; the minimization of John McCain's (and by implication all POWs') sacrifices; the violation of privacy of a sitting elected official. These are not campaign issues, they're civilized behavior issues. 2600:1006:B11F:BBE0:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to establish that Trump is a racist and it is certainly of no import whether you approve of his behavior or wish to label it in any particular way. Just so you know. Eclipsoid (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That characterization reflects much of the discussion of his comments in mainstream media. This is the talk page, not the article. Just so you know. 2600:1006:B11F:BBE0:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That may very well be true. Or, they could be tactics. Or, many other things. But, you would need strong refs to put something like that together as part of a BLP article in an encyclopedia. More appropriate in a campaign article. Objective3000 (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mexican immigrants comments

Trump's comments on Mexican immigrants, as they have led to NBC and many others cutting ties with him, may deserve to be quoted in the article. If not in the beauty pageants section, where they were just removed from as a quote, then maybe in another section. Where in the article should we quote those comments, if at all? --Distelfinck (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The quote is problematic in that it's too long and unwieldy--such that it brings undue weight to the event--but can't really be shortened without altering its meaning. Thus, it is better to merely describe what was said, describe what happened as a result, and move on. In the grand scheme of Trump's biography, that's really all the attention it deserves. Eclipsoid (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"That's all the attention it deserves" is the opinion of someone who's interested in deleting anything on the Trump page that has a negative/critical aspect to it, regardless of how well-sourced it is and how noteworthy it is. The comments have received massive coverage, not just on the day they were made, but even now, they continue to be discussed - it's arguably one of the most high-profile things Trump has ever said. Your opinion on this matter is obviously biased, as your edits on this page have been consistently in the vein of white-washing. Can you explain that? Rockypedia (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It can just as easily be pointed out that insisting on a freaking block quote is the doing of someone intent on trashing this BLP with his POV-pushing. Especially when they are willing to edit-war over it.

Yes, the comments received a lot of coverage, but if you weren't so intent on forcing in every negative detail available, you might take a moment to realize that Donald Trump has been a public figure for nearly 40 years, and that what is happening this week might not deserve the kind of microscopic fleshing-out that you are attempting. Eclipsoid (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I assume good faith in the deletion. But, the network pullouts of the pageants, and the large number of significant other ties broken as a result of these comments makes the claim of undue weight very weak IMO. Several large business agreements have been broken. These few words have had a great impact, and therefore great weight. Objective3000 (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't insist on a block quote. MOS:BLOCKQUOTE clearly states that once a quote goes over 40 words, a blockquote is appropriate. The original quote was under 40 words, and your associate Thomas Paine1776 (talk (who has been topic-banned from Trump, btw) was the one to add more of the quote that pushed it over 40 words. That's when I did the proper formatting.

Added to this, I'm not forcing in "every negative detail available" - I'm merely restoring things that pro-Trump people have been deleting that are clearly noteworthy. If you insist on continuing to delete them, we can easily take this to a discussion on the Edit war/3RR noticeboard. Up to you. Rockypedia (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

At the very least not including a footnote/link to examples of Trump's comments is ridiculous. He made them in his presidential candidate speech, not in some private conversations, as the vague sentence currently in the article seems to imply. And I'm definitely in favour of quotation. If Trump's defence of his comments "Who's doing the raping?" is worth quoting, then so is the original comments. His defence cannot be more notable than the original comments. Genesiswinter (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)(talk) 17:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-American citizen, I think that these comments should be included in the text – I'd say a blockquote of the entire commentary may be too far, but you can't say that those comments aren't notable for Misplaced Pages. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Work it into the main body of the text. Adding it as a 'controversies' section, is POV (who selects what is controversial?) and not found on articles of equivalent figures.Avaya1 (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious what is a controversy and what isn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Politician

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

notes

References

^ "Politician". Your Dictionary. Retrieved 3 August 2015.

GOP reaction to Trump's poll numbers

An editor removed a somewhat opinionated piece of writing in the article today, and it was readded. I've reverted again to err on the side of caution, as this comes somewhat close to a WP:BLP violation if not properly sourced. See .

The additional statements are heavily opinionated, and reflect negatively on Trump. They also do not appear to be fully supported by sources, as GOP leaders aren't going to come out and say they're annoyed Trump's in the lead, even if they are. At best, we're stating speculation of a journalist as fact. At worst, we're reporting something inaccurate. If such a statement isn't thoroughly sourced, this violates WP:BLP. Pinging involved editors: @Anythingyouwant and Rjensen: ~ Rob 13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. There may be sources that would support the idea that Trump's polling numbers make some republican leaders uncomfortable, but those sources don't quite do that. Also, "much to the consternation of established Republican leaders" would need to be reworded for tone.- Mr X 14:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement is exactly accurate. Here are some recent quotes: 1) politicsusa: "Donald Trump’s momentum is a source of great consternation to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus and to billionaire donors like the Koch Brothers." 2) The Hill: "The GOP establishment is almost universally hostile to Trump....For now at least, Trump is close to the very top of the polls. This is the cause of some consternation among Republicans, though some are holding out hope that Trump’s allure will fade under the debate spotlight." 3) US NEWS "The prospect of the bombastic real estate developer sharing the stage with actual serious candidates is causing no small amount of consternation among Republicans and other pundits. For example John Sununu, the uber-establishmentarian former White House chief of staff and New Hampshire governor, said...." 4) Seattle Post‑Intelligencer: Jul 9, 2015 "The private consternation of Republican nabobs over Donald Trump received statistical backup Thursday...." etc etc. In my opinion, this encyclopedia should give preference to the exactly correct terminology when it's widely used in the RS. Rjensen (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

At minimum, the statement at the end of the lead requires better sourcing. EJ Dionne is a liberal Democratic opinion columnist, and therefore not a proper source for the thoughts of the GOP establishment. User:Rjensen, if you insert some of the sources you think are appropriate, then we can reevaluate. But the Bush campaign, for example, has expressed delight about the Trump candidacy, because it will wipe out Bush's other competitors (i.e. deprive of "oxygen", and prevent other candidates from building name recognition that Bush already has achieved) before Trump's campaign allegedly implodes. See Jeb Bush’s Camp Sees an Upside to Donald Trump’s Surge in the G.O.P., NYT (August 2, 2015). Does that sound like consternation.?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(EC) There's a synth issue - avoid synthesising multiple primary opinion sources. It may be better to have a single, cited ATTRIBUTEPOV|attributed quote of an individual person (such as Reince Priebus or Chuck Todd) Todd stated on meet the press "And a majority of folks we asked say you're doing more to hurt the Republican Party than help" - or a VER statement on numbers = there could be developments if poll numbers come out after the first debate this week. -- Callinus (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Without breaking out my tinfoil hat, also beware of journalists reporting speculation as fact to juice up the story. Without a specific source that backs up GOP consternation (i.e. direct quote from a person), it's difficult to determine whether a quote like "The GOP establishment is almost universally hostile to Trump" (The Hill, see above) is fact based in sources or the journalist's opinion. Given the WP:BLP issues inherent in stating that an entire political party dislikes one of their candidates, any language suggesting that must be either exceptionally well-sourced or narrower in scope (direct quote of a single person, no implication of rest of GOP agreeing, for instance). As for the second part of the revert that no-one's brought up yet, the surprise of journalists about a candidate's success is just simply not noteworthy or encyclopedic. ~ Rob 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems to go against the principle that Misplaced Pages is not news. I think we have to look at what has enduring notability, not provide running commentary.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It is the job of political Journalists to tell us what the political establishment is actually thinking. They are agreed in stating that the GOP establishment is opposed to Trump. "Consternation" refers to an unpleasant surprise, and that fits the situation, and is in fact used by professional journalists. In my opinion, the strong negative reaction of the GOP establishment is 1) a well-established fact; 2) an important event in the history of the Republican Party; 3) a very important aspect of the Trump campaign for president. Rjensen (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but I also do not believe it's been properly sourced. Adding that information back to the article while discussion is ongoing is not particularly helpful, especially under a misleading edit summary such as "tweaks": . None of the sources you've listed above (or in the article) support the statement that the Republican Party has taken actions to oppose Trump. ~ Rob 04:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it is an important fact that the Republican leadership opposes Trump. It is fully sourced by the standard reliable sources of experts on American politics. As far as I can tell, after a lot of Google searches, there's not a single expert who believes otherwise. BU Rob13 objects to "the statement that the Republican Party has taken actions to oppose Trump" --no such statement or suggestion appears in the article. Rjensen (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement "Trump's early campaigning has seen him catapult to high levels of popular support despite strong opposition by the Republican party leadership" (emphasis mine) in the lead implies an actual opposition, not a general feeling of dislike. ~ Rob 07:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

good point. I took it back to the "consternation" version which seems to me to be a simple statement of fact as reported by numerous RS--the political journalists who are not spokesman for the GOP or for any candidate. Rjensen (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. The sourcing is better than it was to start, so I'm satisfied with returning to "consternation". ~ Rob 01:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight to running for president in lead

Recently, OrganicEarth has added text to the first sentence of the lead multiple times that indicates Trump is running for president. Multiple editors have reverted this, including MrX and Cwobeel, citing WP:RECENTISM and the existing full paragraph describing his candidacy that exists in the lead. I also agree that this places undue weight on recent events. It is better to simply call him a politician in the first sentence and expand later in the lead. WP:RECENTISM definitely applies here. I've pinged all involved editors to resolve this edit war. ~ Rob 14:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy and clarity matter. As per the above discussion (re:politician), he meets the definition because he is a candidate. So let's be clear. Another editor has also made a similar change because ambiguity and abstraction are not encyclopedic. We aren't well served using vague, abstract and ambiguous language and then explaining what we mean later. He is a candidate and hasn't, as far as I am aware, held any political offices. OrganicEarth (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead should be trimmed. I would remove: "In 2010, Trump expressed an interest in becoming a Republican candidate for President in the 2012 election, but in May 2011, he announced he would not run." I would also remove "Trump's early campaigning has seen him catapult to high levels of popular support to the consternation of the Republican party leadership. Since late July 2015, he has been at the top in the public opinion polls for the Republican Party nomination." This is I think too much.

This seems like a reasonable idea. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The remaining sentence could be merged into the opening paragraph "On June 16, 2015, Trump formally announced his candidacy for President of the United States in the 2016 election, seeking the nomination of the Republican Party." I think noting he is running for president once would be fine. Polling data and his decisions not to run for office in the past belong in the body of the article. OrganicEarth (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeating content does not add to accuracy or clarity. His candidacy should only be advertised once in the lead. If you disagree then please start an RfC, or use some mechanism to show that there is consensus for your proposed edit.- Mr X 14:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the RS -- they heavily emphasize his surprising jump to the lead against all predictions and to the anger of the GOP establishment. these are facts agreed on by al;l the experts and are of national importance as they are shaping big league politics. Rjensen (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

MrX, did you read what I wrote? That's exactly what I've suggested. Stating accurately and succinctly ONCE that he is a candidate for president and removing the other newsy bits that belong in the article body. OrganicEarth (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen: The proper emphasis is given by including his candidacy in the lead once. Do you disagree with that? Including the polling information is debatable.- Mr X 15:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but the statement that he has "catapult to high levels of popularity" is dubious. He's polling at 20% or so with Republicans. And polls change. Which is why I don't think this belongs in the opening paragraphs.

What about his thinking about running in 2011 and deciding not to? Can we remove that? OrganicEarth (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraph Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories: