Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 7

Terrible Picture
Why am I not surprised that you've chosen an picture with an unflattering expression?

BTW Our local school is blocking Wikipedia because its so 'Neutral and Liberal/Zionist'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.51.163 (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It just so happens that his face looks like that literally all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.57.207 (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh right. He never smiles, laughs, or shows sense of humor. He never parodys himself or mocks his own mannerisms. He only ever frowns. You are so observant! IHTS (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you want a picture of Trump parodying himself?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you want to go soak your head? IHTS (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree image s/ not be unflattering, e.g. interpretable as a frown or scowl. (Even Carly Fiorina, a GOP candidate notorious for *not* smiling, has lead image w/ smile.) IHTS (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Some additional current and recent presidential candidate BLP lead images. Note the smiles (or Carson & Paul, understated smiles). None of these shots are taken while the subject was talking (where their mouths look as though also perhaps smiling). Also note the dates of photos and that currency is not a requirement.


 * Did I say there weren't exceptions? No I didn't. I said the (vast) majority of presidential candidate BLPs have images incorporating smiles. "Disingenuous"?? You can stop with the personal attacks. IHTS (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this one? It's from 2015, he is smiling, and you can see his eyes unlike the 2013 image. The other one from 2015 is of him at an event where he had to sign an agreement not to run third-party. As a result he's unhappy in that picture. [[File:Donald Trump Laconia Rally, Laconia, NH 4 by Michael Vadon July 16 2015 20 (cropped).jpg|thumb|175px|right|[[Donald Trump|Trump]] (lead image)]] ShadowDragon343 (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the September 2015 image. It shows a serious candidate.  We do not have to use a fake smiling photo like that used on the pages of other politicians.  IHTS is pushing an obvious anti-Trump POV to make Trump look like a typical, run-of-the-mill politician.  No.  An image with a straight face and neutral expression is best.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that claiming Trump is not a typical politician is a POV. Objective3000 (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "IHTS is pushing an obvious anti-Trump POV". Earth to William! Earth to William!: How could that possibly be true, seeing that it is precisely the same photo used on the webpage www.donaldtrump.com?? IHTS (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know who designs the campaign page. Do you take directions from them?  Would you consider the cover of Trump's latest book to be unflattering?  If the entire basis for the image you are promoting is that the campaign uses it, then you are not being neutral.  I am supporting a recent image in which Trump has a straight head and neutral expression.  You are supporting a squinting, 2013 image in which his head is tilted and he has an unnatural expression.  I could care less what the other candidates use as their lead image.  The choice is clear.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First you accuse me of having POV against Trump, then you imply I might be taking orders from the Trump campaign! (Is that a demo of the quality of your argumentation?) Clearly the Trump campaign feels that photo is not unflattering. I'm contending that the 2013 photo is an inferior choice, since Trump's expression could be interpreted as a frown or scowl. You say Trump has an "unnatural expression" in it, however I don't understand why you think that, I disagree, and I think most editors would disagree also. Your detail nitpicks on the photo are overridden by the more important issue of the frown/scowl on the photo you prefer. You say you could "care less" what the other candidates use as lead image, however that info is a reasonable benchmark to take into account. All of these current and recent presidential candidate BLP articles have lead images where the subject is smiling: "Barack Obama (2012), Mitt Romney (2013), John McCain (2009), Hillary Clinton (2009), Bernie Sanders (2007), Ben Carson (2015), Marco Rubio (2011), Ted Cruz (2013), Carly Fiorina (2015), Rand Paul (2011), Mike Huckabee (2010), John Kasich (2011), Lindsay Graham (2006)."(Obviously photo currency is not a requirement too--2009 for Hillary?!) Your take that a smile shows the candidate is fake or is indicative of "typical politician" is refuted by the simple fact that a smile (for millennia!?) conveys sociability, instead of its opposite. Please don't confuse the issue with Trump's new book, which has a specific focus, is not an encyclopedia BLP. (Trump said on ABC today he preferred a family photo where he was smiling, but the publishers had other plans. [I don't buy that either, so please don't shoot from the hip as you are prone to do. Again, that book has a different and specific focus. Trump will be on SNL this Saturday, are you going to hold me to account for any still shot that show produces too?!]) The choice of photo is largely subjective, but the arguments you are offering for your preferred photo are less quality arguments than my rebuttals and arguments for the 2013 photo. (And if it's good enough for the Trump campaign, how can anyone reasonably call it "unflattering"?!) (ec) There are lots of photos of Trump on Commons, but in most all of them he is animated/speaking with mouth open. The fact the 2013 photo is used by the Trump campaign, confirms for me the advantages of that photo versus alternatives on Commons. Your suggestion that my preference is "entirely based" on the use of that photo at www.donaldtrump.com, is another example of your shoot-from-the-hip and crass argumentation.) IHTS (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Otherstuffexists. What other pages do or don't do is not relevant here.  It is simply your opinion that the 2015 photo "could be interpreted as a frown or scowl."  Equally, the 2013 image could be interpreted as him having constipation.  An encyclopedic photo is one in which the head is straight, the expression neutral, and the eyes open.  The 2015 photo does this.  The 2013 photo does not.  The 2015 photo has been in place for almost two months and it has been stable.  Before it the image was often a subject of dispute.  You are an army of one demanding that an inferior, webmaster-chosen photo is better based on your personal "interpretation" of the stable, clearly superior photo. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The great majority of other BLP presidential candidate articles containing smiles is not an "otherstuffexits" argument. I pointed it out because of your weird contention that a smile is "fake" and shows the candidate is "typical". So quit bending what I say to suit your shoot-from-the-hip purposes. Yes, it's my opinion the 2013 photo can be interpreted as having a frown or scowl. You're trying to get me to debate my opinion versus a theoretical opinion about "constipation" that no one has stated including you. (What kind of a discussion argument is that? Manipulative, I'd say.) "An encyclopedic photo is one in which the head is straight, the expression neutral, and the eyes open." Says who? Can you diff that in policy or guideline? And if according to you expressions s/b neutral, what accounts for the vast majority of the BLPs named where current & former candiates sport smiles? The photo you have preference for never had consensus on Talk. Photos are different than article text in that they are subjective, and little exists in policy & guideline that applies. We disagree, and I think I've shown the weakness in all your shoot-from-the-hip arguments. Input from other editors is the way to go at this point. IHTS (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You've focused too much on my tactics rather than my arguments. You are the one disrupting two months of stability.  The burden is on you to prove that your image is preferable.  You have not done so.  How is an image with a tilted head, squinty eyes, bad color, and strange expression preferable to one with a straight head, open eyes, natural color, and neutral expression?  That is what you must prove.  And as if it makes any difference, I believe he looks constipated in the 2013 image.  Again, I don't care if the other candidates have official U.S. government photos as their lead image.  Trump does not have one.  However, the official photos, smiling notwithstanding are much more like the 2015 image than the 2013 image.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've not ignored your arguments, I've dealt with them one by one. (You are ignoring mine, however.) And you're repeating yourself on things I've already responded to. Lead BLP photos are subjective w/ little guidance in policy, nothing therefoe can be "proved" one way or the other. Again, I disagree on your choice of photo for reasons already stated. (The primary one is the photo is interpretable as frown or scowl. The vast majority of past & current presidential contender BLPs all have smiles, so how you get from there to say the 2015 pic is "more like them" I just don't get. (I think the 2013 photo is the best choice in absense of "official photo", so, we disagree there too.) Can you possibly drop it and let others weigh in!? IHTS (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never seen an official photo with the head titled, eyes squinty, terrible color, and weird constipated expression.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again you repeat already discussed points ad nauseam. (Trump has no official photo. If he did, it would likely be better than the 2013 image. But your nitpicking is overridden by lack of smile, which nearly all the other current/past presidential contenders have in their lead photos, for reasons already explained.) Can you stop repeating yourself now?? And quit trying to induce me to repeat myself too?? IHTS (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are single-mindedly focused on the presence/absence of a smile and are willing to sacrifice the integrity of the image to force a smiling photo. George Washington isn't smiling. Lyndon B. Johnson isn't smiling.  Stop focusing entirely on whether there is a smile or not.  It's not relevant.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not "single-minded". I said absence of a smile in 2015 image was the primary reason I didn't prefer that image. That your nitpicks on 2015 image are overridden by comparative presence of smile. Absence/presence of a smile for a candidate for elective office is not "irrelevant"--a smile conveys sociability, the absense of one can convey the opposite (especially if accompanied by what is interpretable as a frown or scowl). How about stop repeating things ad nauseam? It's getting dizzy here, and I just might puke up all over you. I don't want to get motion sickness. IHTS (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris Christie isn't smiling. Bobby Jindal isn't smiling.  George Pataki isn't smiling.  Jeb Bush isn't smiling.  --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I say there weren't exceptions? No I didn't. I said the (vast) majority of presidential candidate BLPs have images incorporating smiles. How about giving it a rest?? IHTS (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC
To help resolve dispute between two contending lead images. IHTS (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Zppix from FRS here. use the 2013 the 2015 is of poor quality thanks Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 2013 image. For reasons already explained above. (It isn't necessary to duplicate the entire discussion-debate again here.) IHTS (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In all your suggested photos, Trump is animated (talking) with mouth open. The bow tie photo is best IMO, but I don't think appropriate for a BLP who is current presidential candidate. IHTS (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well, are animated photos strongly disfavored?  In any case, I'm certain there are photos out there that more people will be willing to agree upon than the two options here.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. But new, strongly advocated photo options w/ satisfactory licenses, isn't happening at the moment. (This RfC, I guess, is to help resolve the dispute between two hotly contested images between Saturn & myself.) Ok, IHTS (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support 2015 image. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My reasons for supporting the 2015 image: The head is straight, the eyes are open, the color is natural, the expression is neutral.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * THTS's reasons for supporting the 2013 image despite the fact that it has a tilted head, squinty eyes, bad color, and weird constipated expression: He's smiling! And a campaign webmaster likes it! --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support 2013 image - Neither is exceptionally representative of what he looks like, on average, but while the 2015 image has undoubtedly better lighting, his that strikes me as being a particularly abnormal expression for him. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe a crop from one of these other recent pictures will do? The lighting is good, and there are a variety of expressions to choose from in the set from this town hall meeting.  A few examples:


 * In any case, there has got to be other better representative photos out there. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support 2013 image - Yes, the lighting may be dark and not as clear, but I don't think the 2015 image is a "neutral" enough photo. It is this expression, in the 2015 image, that many people make fun of/mock on social media.  The 2013 image would be a better choice for a BLP and would contribute to the article's neutrality in my opinion.  But I also agree with the above user in that there has to be better pictures out there to choose from.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 02:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Summoned by a bot - ooo I love picture RfCs! I choose the 2013 picture because the 2015 picture makes him look less like a presendital candidate, and more like the lizard king! Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 2013 image - summoned by bot. Neither are particularly good, but the 2015 one is downright bad. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 2013 image - Trump is clearly frowning in the 2015 picture while the 2013 one only has him lightly smiling. The one he uses in his twitter account is more neutral in expression than both however. ShadowDragon343 (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 2013 image Although more recent, the 2015 one is certainly less neutral and not especially representative. 2013 is superior, though I agree with AdventurousSquirrel that that one isn't necessarily the best image we have of him either.LM2000 (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 2015 image Vastly superior photograph, more even lighting. Too much loss of detail in shadowing in 2013 image. Hugh (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 2015 image While I think a smiling photo would be nice, the 2013 one is just not a good enough photo to have in the lead. AIR corn (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 2013 image the 2015 image is no where near neutral. Although there should be another option, right now its between a negative expression and poor lighting/resolution. Fraulein451 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 2013 image In the 2015 image he is frowning, making it non-neutral. Unfavorable lighting is preferred over a frowning face. Meatsgains (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 2013 image. Summoned by RfC bot. 2015 photo, with frown, is not neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Any of these would work. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Adjunct discussion
Neither photo is a good representation of the man and his personality. And let's face it: Trump is a personality as much as he is a presidential candidate. In 4 of the 5 photos suggested by Squirrel, Trump is speaking, with his mouth is agape. And yet, they seem more appropriate than the two relatively expressionless photos under consideration. I would choose one of those, or something similar that is more true to Trump.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Truer to Trump" is an undefined subjective guidance. Plus you don't make a specific recommendation. Meantime, this RfC is to resolve between two choices contested between two users, so a !vote for one or the other would at least make some progress (as an interim choice and comparable to a potential future "better" specific candidate lead image). IHTS (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)"

Ya'll should check over the image I've selected & implimented. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I like "5 (For good measure)", but the "Current implementation, August 2015" also looks good to me. TNKS, AstroU (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with the current image being used is that its a low-res version, the Higher Quality, better cropped version isn't being used...the problem is trump himself, if you get a pic of him 'not-smiling' then peopel calim its rude and have the image replaced, if you have him of trying to smile, people say it makes him look weird and then they remove the image...not to mention this person changes colour like a chameleon, sometimes whitish, sometimes pinkish but generally, he is yellowish..he isn't the only one, Jeb Bush has a similar problem lol..Its impossible to find a pic of 'TheDonald' where he isn't making a 'weird' facial expression/face or looking yellow ..I actually preferred the image before all this drama..-- Stemoc 01:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. This discussion has been going on since August. The problem isn't with the photos; it's with the subject.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , the "current image being used" is the same photo as the one you prepared in Talk Archive 6. IHTS (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * same image, different quality, the one being used is a "thumbnail" low-quality version, the other is a higher quality better cropped version...-- Stemoc 04:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My point was to clarify they are essentially the same image. (Different color adjustments or cropping, ok, but I don't see a difference in cropping.) IHTS (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Post-RfC
The purpose of the RfC was to resolve a dispute between two images. It seems that 2013 image beats 2015 image per consensus. Meanwhile two other images have been tried, plus Stemoc's preferred image is included below: (My own preference is 2013 (CPAC) is best, April 2015 is next-best. But whatever.) IHTS (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I find "August 2015" to be among the Trump-iest and most neutral I've seen proposed. My previous vote was for 2013, which I also think is decent.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the August 2015 image is acceptable for lead. (As mentioned I think 2013 image is best. I don't have opinion - as user Saturn does - that a tilted head makes the photo "inappropriate for infobox". [Is that just his opinion, or one based on policy? I don't know.] I simply personally feel the 2015 photo is satisfactory.) IHTS (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A new term in the media: "Trump phenomenon" .!.
Started with Rush Limbaugh and others, the term 'Trump phenomenon' is taking off. Headline-1: The Republican Establishment Hates Trump Because He Owns the Media QUOTE: "the Trump phenomenon is a phenomenon [where] Donald Trump owns the media." -- AstroU (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. And we can expand later.
 * http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/12/04/the_republican_establishment_hates_trump_because_he_owns_the_media

Talkpage Protection
Although the article itself is protected, this talk page is still not protected. Therefore it is vulnerable to vandalism by trolls and angry people, especially due to the many controversial things Donald Trump has said (some offensive). Therefore this page should also be protected as some people may turn to this page to vent out their fustration and anger. This is just an idea. Signed 99.240.204.52 (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I support this idea, his lack of political correctness and consistent frontrunner status in a presidential election make this page a prime target.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We can deal with trolls here. There needs to be a venue for suggestions open to people unable to edit the article itself. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just declined this request at WP:RFPP. There has to be some very severe vandalism to protect the talk page of a protected article. Nowhere near enough at the moment. Ged  UK  13:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

J
He's sprouted a middle initial. J for...137.205.183.109 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * His middle name is John, which is in the first line of this article. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the poster meant that the Donald has recently started styling himself the Donald J, probably to add gravitas (he refers a lot to himself in the third person, much like Caesar and Napoleon).92.12.60.184 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Disqualified candidate
The White House has announced that Trump is disqualified from running for presidency. Please clarify that he is a former candidate, not a current one. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/8/trump-ban-on-muslims-entering-US-disqualifies-him-from-presidency.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Comtes (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion from the White House, it's not an actual disqualification, nor is such a thing even possible.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard to take seriously the comments of someone called "Josh Earnest".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to leave it to the readers what they think about the statement from the White House. I propose the following sentence: In response to anti-Muslim remarks by Trump that were widely condemned as racist, the White House announced in December 2015 that he was disqualified from becoming president." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Comtes (talk • contribs) 07:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That implies that the White House has a say: it doesn't. It is the view of the White House press officer that Trump's comments are of a nature that disqualifies him for the presidency on political grounds. The actual decision about qualifications (outside of the constitutional stipulations on age and citizenship) rests with the electorate, not the sitting President, and our article should not imply that it does.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Trump didn't say what everyone (in their bias) is assuming he said. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Straightened image
I straightened the infobox image. See File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped2).jpg. This is a pretty standard practice in order to display the subject in a more encyclopedic manner. It was reverted because "your 'straightening' of the image is a modification of it out of its natural setting and context." That is true, but doesn't the modification make the image more encyclopedic? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree with "straightening" the image and here's why: When you do that, it strips away the image context (in this case the context is body language - clearly Trump is listening to someone, such as a questioner; the tilt to his head and facial expression are consistent with this). When you crop and straighten, the body language context is gone, the result looks like Trump had his photo taken, but made a socially awkward smile as though he's uncomfortable or inept at making a normal smile or even saying "Cheese!". (Another example, theoretic and extreme so you can further know how "staightening" removes critical context: If Trump had his pic taken while hanging upside down by his ankles, his face would be red due to gravity. If you cropped his face and straighened the image 180 degrees, that context would be stripped and he'd look like he was face-red mad, or face-red embarrassed.) So removing context/body language can & does have unintended consequences. IHTS (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a rather, long-running effort to improve the image here to make a person look more like what he likely isn't -- even going to the extreme of photoshopping. Trump's campaign can do that. Why would an encyclopedia do that? Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There exists an image that shows the subject as he is in an unaltered state with a neutral expression. It was used as the infobox photo for many months without any issue.  Then IHTS threw a fit about it so it was changed to this image in which his head is tilted.  This is not an encyclopedic image for the infobox.  The head should be straight.  I changed that image used to make it suitable for the infobox and now IHTS is throwing another fit.  There is no pleasing IHTS. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's anyone "throwing a fit" it is you -- continuing to whine the same complaints even after an RfC determined that your preferred image lost to consensus over a competing image. Is there some rule I'm missing that I must agree with any third image you select to modify in the meantime and place as the article lead image? And if I don't agree that means I'm an editor who is "unable to be pleased"?! I explained my reasons in detail above what problems I have with your "straightening" modification to the image. You ignore the topic of the drawbacks I explained of stripping the photo's context away and simply insist "the head should be straight". (Fine, I don't have that requirement myself, but if you do, then go find a photo - that has consensus or potential consensus - where the head is already straight, and you don't need to strip the photo of its meaningful body-language context. As pointed out and explained, doing that is inherently a distortion and creates a misleading photo image of the person. And that's not good for a BLP.) IHTS (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I agree w/ you - the lead image s/ not be photoshopped, at least to the degree it removes meaning-laden context (body language) from the original. IHTS (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The image with the cocked head makes him look mentally retarded. In no way is that appropriate for the infobox image.  It looks fine when straightened.  I don't see why context should even matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And I obviously disagree, for reasons already explained above. (I disagree your "straightened" image that stripped out meaningful body-language context, is better than the original image with said context. I did not say that I think the original is "appropriate for the infobox image" -- just that your modification of it is inferior to the original, and why.) Now you're repeating what you did earlier on this Talk page -- repeating your complaints over & over & over & over again. (Is this "Act II"?! How about something more productive this time?) IHTS (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does it need to show "meaningful body-language context"? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The straightened image looks weird. Looks like it's already been changed back, though.  The StormCatcher   (talk)   (contribs)  11:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone, for one second, find it acceptable to photoshop an image on a BLP? Objective3000 (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was rotated. That's all. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not just rotated. IHTS (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Already answered. And I agree w/ CatcherStorm and Objective3000. IHTS (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your answer: "but made a socially awkward smile as though he's uncomfortable or inept at making a normal smile or even saying" --- granted, that's all in your mind. You provide a ridiculous hypothetical that has absolutely nothing to do with this image: "If Trump had his pic taken while hanging upside down by his ankles, his face would be red due to gravity. If you cropped his face and straighened the image 180 degrees, that context would be stripped and he'd look like he was face-red mad, or face-red embarrassed." --- obviously that would be a problem but that's not the case here at all. That's not the result of this rotation. Even if the result you imagined is taken as true in that the rotation causes him to appear "uncomfortable or inept at making a normal smile" that is still far more flattering than appearing mentally retarded as the cocked image certainly does.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And it's all in your mind that the head tilt makes Trump look "mentally retarded". Thx for understanding my points, Saturn. I also understand yours. We simply disagree. IHTS (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Straightening". Don't see why it was necessary.  As well, the coloring/lighting was changed and not in a good way.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  04:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi believes everything should appear redder than normal. I did not intentionally change the color. It changed when I went back to an earlier version.  I have no opinion on the color/lightening. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless you've actually met any of these people up close and in person, I doubt you are the ultimate judge on their natural skin tone. Regardless, the straightening was unnecessary (as several other editors also believe, it would seem).  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  05:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the straightened image may be marginally more visually appealing, since it looks more balanced and a bit lighter (which is probably a good thing), though the hue may be a bit too yellow, and it makes the tie hang in a direction that is somewhat gravity-defying. I don't think there's anything wrong with the original image, so it may be best left alone.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave original image alone until a better original image comes along. This one is not just rotated and brightened, but also the microphone is photoshopped out which is an important piece of context that explains his expression and position (he's listening to a question before answering it).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The content you removed is far better than the picture being used now. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify? (I think you're saying you prefer the original uncropped version you supported previously, vs. a cropped version of it by user Rob. ) But this thread is re the original cropped version, vs. further cropping & "straightening" by user Saturn. IHTS (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Hi there, can someone please add this ref in support of However, this degree was revoked on December 9th 2015 because Trump had made 'a number of statements that are wholly incompatible with the ethos and values of the university'. Thanks 79.20.91.220 (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC) ✅ p  b  p  15:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on December 8, 2015, a day that will live in infamy
Now with references--

Here is the text to add: "Trump has been widely accused of fascism by both Republicans and Democrats for his proposals such as banning all Muslims from entering the country, requiring Muslims to carry religious identification cards at all times, and creating a national registry of Muslims, as well as for his descriptions of Mexicans as "drug dealers" and "rapists," and his calls to deport approximately 25 Million Mexican-Americans, including close to 15 million full American citizens of Mexican descent born in the United States whose families did not emigrate legally."

Article now says Trump is fascist in lead
Recently, User:Reattacollector added to the lead "Various media outlets and his opponents have described his platform as being fascist in nature.", followed by twelve references in a row. Do we really want that that early in the article? Maybe move it to the criticism section, or the campaign section? And maybe only 3-4 references? p b  p  13:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed for now as this is a BLP. Certainly belongs in an article. It could be argued that it belongs in the lead of the campaign article, if it remains in the news. Objective3000 (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe if people are still batting around "fascist" to refer to him at the first of the year, we can put it in the campaign article and in the campaign section of this article. Interestingly enough, between the word in the lead and the references that Reattacollector added, Reattacollector's version of this article used the word "fascist" more than it was used in Adolf Hitler's article.  Either Hitler's article doesn't use it enough (just 4 times; Mussolini's uses it 139 times) or Reattacollector's version of the article was trumpeting the fascist card a little too much . Between BLP and RECENTISM, we shouldn't focus too much on reactions to things Trump has said in the last few weeks; we should focus more on grand or long-standing narratives, and portray them with a fairly even keel.  p  b  p  15:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The "Trump is fascist" talk goes back to his campaign announcemen, months ago, based on his deportation plans. All 3 Democratic candidates have called him a fascist, along with all but 1 or 2 Republican candidates, and every major newspaper and news outlet in the country. How can this article present itself as an encylopedic article when it reads like a campaign announcement, and about 90 percent of those who post here are openly cheering Trump on? There are even long threads of complaints that the pictures of Trump are "unflattering" when Trump more or less looks the same in every picture of him which has ever been taken. My fellow encylopedists: plugging our ears, and pretending the "Trump is fascist" talk does not exist, will not make it go away. I can show you references going back to the campaign announcement where Trump is labeled a Fascist, if you really wish to insist on the canard that this is "too recent for an encylopedia." An event being recent does not make it non-encylopedic when it is major, and the fascism talk long predates his proposal to institute a religious test for  entry to the country, and began when he proposed that American citizens who were born in the States with Mexican families should be deported. What is even the argument that Trump is not fascist? And honestly, we don't need to be debating it: it has been such a major theme of the news coverage of his campaign that to ignore it is deeply irresponsible. It is not sufficient to just say that he is "populist" and "appeals to the working class." We are not writing his campaign ad here.DefenderOfFreedom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a reference, one of the earliest mentions of Trump qua fascist in the media, from Newsweek in July. This is 6 months old. Citing RECENTISM is dose genius. this is the defining issue of his campaign. His supporters support him because he is widely understood to be a fascist, and his detractors oppose him for the same reason. Not mentioning that Donald Trump supports fascist policies like banning Members of certain religions from the country is like having an article on the Klan that doesn't mention that they are white nationalists. Let's show some common sense. http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fascist-354690 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefenderOfFreedom (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Some Proposed text to add to the the lead regarding Trump's fascism: "Trump has been widely criticized for political proposals his detractors regard as Fascist in nature, by both Democrats, Republicans, and most major media outlets. For example, Trump has made campaign promises to bar further Muslims from entering the country, while creating a national registry of existing Muslims, and requiring them to carry identification cards. Trump has also been accused of fascist tendencies for his proposal to forcibly deport 25 million Mexicans, including American citizens born in the United States of Mexican descent with family that did not enter the country legally. ·Trump's ridicule of persons with disabilities has also been described as close to fascism. In reply, many of Trump's critics have proposed a compromise, suggesting that they would agree to Trump's plan to require Muslims to carry identification cards, on the condition that Trump's supporters will agree to wear their "let's make America great again" hats at all times, so that these dangerous individuals who hate our freedoms can also be quickly identified, and the danger to Democracy defused.<<  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefenderOfFreedom (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not a Trump apologist. There's a little badge on my page that says who I'm supporting.  But we also have to consider BLP.  It's not our job to call people names.  It's our job to present the facts, and have people draw their own conclusions.  p  b  p  22:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I have thought that Trump has had fascist tendencies for many years. But, I removed the text because this is a BLP and we must be very careful when using such language. Our personal beliefs are not relevant. What counts is Wikipedia guidelines. Having said that, I doubt that this issue will go away and should be added to the campaign article when we see that it remains a talking point, likely given the global condemnation.Objective3000 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If a politician is widely labelled a fascist, I think that's notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Proposed text to add:"Many political commentators from all sides of the political spectrum have labeled Trump a fascist for his proposed policies towards Muslims, Mexicans, and other groups, noting that such policies would place Trump slightly to the right of Adolf Hitler at a similar stage in their political careers."Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hell, no. "To the right of Adolph Hitler", eh? Do you have a reference for that little gem? Godwin's Law, anyone? Why on earth is this page not protected from SPAs like and ? Does anyone think these accounts are not here to push an agenda? This is ridiculous. Doc  talk  01:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the phrase "to the right of Adolf Hitler" was used quite recently in an edit summary by a sock with a... suspiciously similar agenda. I'd wager good money that this is no coincidence. That sock was CU'd and blocked (hint hint). Doc   talk  01:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ok,I concede your criticism. let me try another crack at it, with more neutrality and balance this time.
 * "Politically, Trump's positions can best be characterized as occupying the space just to the right of Adolf Hitler, but just to the left of Genghis Khan."


 * How's that? I think that you will have to agree that is far more objective and neutral, and a significant improvement. I have plenty of sources, yes; the parallels between the Fuhrer's plans to first create a "registry" of Jews, and requirements of identification cards to be carried by Jews, and his initial plans of "deportation" of all Jews back to their "homeland" (along with similar targeting of Roma and Slavs) have obvious parallels with Trump's proposals that many Republicans and Democrats have pointed out. I am not alone on this, open any newspaper and you will see a story which compares "Trump" to Hitler. Goodwin's "law" is a trivial joke and is best saved for silly invocations of Hitler, such as "Hitker was a vegetarian so vegetarianism is bad." Saying that someone has proposed ethnic-nationalist policies akin to Hitler's cannot plausibly be a reductio, lest we have actually learned nothing from the descent of Germany into fascism less than 100 years ago. This is a well-represented mainstream view.


 * Also, you are misunderstanding my username, it is a quotation and has nothing to do with politics(rather about science and religion.)Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * also, per your request, here is a source for the claim of Trump being "just to the right of Adolf Hitler": "Trump, as we all know, is just to the right of Adolf Hitler on immigration." http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/05/trump-rubio-couple-kids.html

The link appears broken, but if you google "trump" "right of Adolf Hitler", it should appear. Cheers!Convictions Are More Dangerous Enemies Of Truth Than Lies (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, not seeing it. It's not a term I've ever heard before except from the sock and you, one day apart. Anyhow, it can't be used as a reference because PoliticusUSA is not a reliable source.
 * You are clearly a single-purpose account (by definition) with the agenda of labelling Trump a fascist. I'm certain you're a sock, and I'll file a SPI report once I have the time. Cheers to you! Doc   talk  02:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone attempted to redact the "Hitler" comments. I'd not favor that, I guess, but this account clearly is trying to trash up this article. We have no obligation to quote every single bad thing ever said about Trump. Coretheapple (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Likely another sock, but I have to run out and do stuff IRL and can't file a SPI for several hours. If anyone else sees what I'm seeing, feel free to deal with it.  Doc   talk  02:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fact is, there can be no repeat no "fascist" and "Nazi" allegations concerning Trump or anyone without multiple reliable sources. Just because some political writer said that about the guy just won't wash, under BLP. Coretheapple (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The 4 padding op-ed piece "references" I just snipped were all clearly selected because the term "fascist" is in each of the titles. This is an encyclopedia, not a political forum. Doc   talk  08:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Redactions
I have acted boldly and redacted the offensive, unsourced personal commentary of the new, redlinked account on the grounds of BLP guidelines for article talk pages. If anyone other than the account that made the comments here disagrees with the redaction, go ahead and revert -- but let's talk about it here, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Reinstating the above subsection, which was removed by the new account at the same time that he reinstated his comments. Coretheapple (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Like I said above, at the time I performed the redactions I wasn't sure I was right doing it, I just knew that the statements seemed to be very anti-BLP policy and something needed to be done about it. I'm certainly not going to edit war over something like that as doing so would likely encourage the new redlink account that seems to be in this for the shock- and disruption-value. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  02:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

John Sweeney interview - no walk out; edits by 591J
I just watched a tape of the interview with John Sweeney (have a look, it's easy to find on YouTube) and doesn't "walk out" of the interview like is stated here - the interview is finished after 15 minutes, he stands up to leave and John Sweeney calls out another question at him about as he is on his way out of the room. This should be clarified.
 * (response to unsigned comment)
 * No, the video you watched (on YouTube) was edited and posted by the Trump Organziation and cuts out the question from John Sweeney about Felix Sater. Watch the end of interview again&mdash;the cut at 15:04 is obvious, the screen going black. That Trump would supposedly post the entire interview except for this Sater question is an indication of just how sensitive the issue is for him. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On at least three occasions, editor 591J has attempted to delete some or all references to the ex-con Felix Sater, the mob-linked Russian-born real estate developer with whom Trump has worked closely for many years; Sater's Bayrock Group owned at least 18% of the Trump SoHo project, for example, and also collaborated with Trump on failed and/or allegedly fraudulent investment projects in Ft. Lauderdale and Phoenix. Although Mr. Trump has, by his own admission, "one of the all-time great memories", he can scarcely remember Sater when asked about him by reporters. The Trump/Sater issue has now been covered in multiple Reliable Sources and more coverage is quite possible, notwithstanding an apparent warning to the Associated Press from one of Sater's lawyers that they research his client's past "at your own risk".
 * User 591J also attempted, without success, to establish a biography of Felix Sater on Wikipedia in July 2015, which was not approved. (I do not have access to 591J's deleted draft.) I recognize that Felix Sater has his defenders, such as the person writing this blog. If there is mitigating information beyond Sater's two known convictions, including one for assault, it should certainly be taken into account. In any event, User 591J has repeatedly been asked to comment on his deletions here on the Talk page and discuss before performing them again; this is a reiteration of that request. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "If he were sitting in the room right now, I really wouldn't know what he looked like" &mdash; Trump's response when asked about Felix Sater in a November 2013 videotaped deposition. "Memory lapse? Trump Seeks Distance From 'Advisor' With Past Ties to Mafia", Matthew Mosk and Brian Ross, 10 Dec 2015, ABC News.

Sorry (this is the original poster), this actually my first suggesting anything on a Wikipedia page (in a long time) since they introduced the whole log-in thing and this probably represents the 2nd or 3rd time I have suggested anything on Wikipedia, so I don't totally get the procedure, but I will try to follow it here (btw, I have no idea who User 591J is, but clearly I have walked into the middle of something here). So I guess back to my original point, I have no idea if Trump has links to organized crime (which it sounds like a lot of the responses to my original comment are attempting to claim), I am simply making the point that (as someone who is actually a big fan of awkward interview moments) I have looked all over the internet and CANNOT find anything showing Donald Trump "walking out" of a BBC interview. Maybe he did. If so, show us the video tape and I will concede the point. I loves me a good awkward interview point - but where's the video of it so I can get my fix? If no one can post a link to it, then I don't see how this can stay here when the only other evidence shows a reporter calling out questions to Trump after the interview is clearly over and he's heading out of the room.

I suppose that Trump could say that the interview was over so the cameras were cut and that's why there's a gap in the footage? (that would seem to be a reasonable explanation) And maybe turned right back on again when Sweeney seemed to indicate he didn't want the interview to end? Maybe that happened or maybe something else, but the only video evidence I see is one of a person leaving an interview that is finished getting questions called out to him after the interview ended.

Ir Trump is editing BBC interviews in a conspiracy to make himself not seem involved with a mobster, why isn't the news full of stories from the BBC about him doing so?

Frankcarle (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)FrankCarle, Dec 12th, 2015

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2015
This page to me appears to be vandalized and I want to fix it

Golluman (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This to me appears to be vandalized and I want to fix it
 * If you're referring to Meepsheepy's hack it happened on the St. Petersburg, Florida page as well. I don't think a protection would help personally.  A dog 104  Talk to me 23:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The template you used requires a specific suggestion for a change, in the form of "change X to Y", X representing the current text, and Y representing your proposed change. If you want to report vandalism, no edit template is needed. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edits re Muslim ban proposal
Of all of Mr. Trump's positions, the one that gets currently serving leaders of other countries, the pentagon, and main three leaders of his own political party to intervene in a presidential primary, is of historic significance, and so deserves expanded coverage in the main article on Mr. Trump, not just in the daughter article on his presidential campaign.

I propose replacing

with


 * 1 - WP:NPOV requires adding that "Trump clarified that US citizens and those serving in the US military would be let back in." This should be before the criticism content, especially as the clarifications came before the cited criticisms, and indicates the criticisms were made even with Mr. Trump's clarification.


 * 2 – It fails to be NPOV if we do not include Mr. Trump's own chosen specific first two justifications, made with specificity, and stated with language that could not be called demagogic - – ““If you look at President Roosevelt, a respected president, highly respected — take a look at presidential proclamations back a long time ago. 2525, 2526 and 2527. What he was doing with Germans, Italians and Japanese, because he had to do it. Because, look, we are at war with radical Islam”.


 * The media incessantly accuses Trump of lack of specificity and demagoguery. In this case, in his first (or one of his first) major serious network interviews, following his public statement of the proposal, Mr. Trump specifically referred to "Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527", and he used highly esoteric and technical legal language, which could in no way be called demagogic. Then what Mr. Trump first presented, with specificity and technical language that was not dumbed down he received no further media coverage until he got more general and plain in his language again, i.e., became less specific and more demagogic.


 * Under WP:Use plain English, "Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527" is too esoteric and technical for a general Wikipedia reader, so should be linked and replaced with the plain English "application of presidential powers under the [[Alien and Sedition Acts (whereby immigrants of Japanese, German, and or Italian ancestry could be legally apprehended, restrained, or removed from the United States without further due process during and after World War II) as examples of similar previous use of presidential powers in regard to immigrants." The Alien and Sedition Acts are widely taught in the most elementary US History classes, and for other users who do not know what it refers to, the parenthetical comment saves chasing down a link.


 * The article says Trump, in an interview on Good Morning America, drew comparisons between his plan and Franklin D. Roosevelt's actions during World War II. The clause "in an interview on Good Morning America" should be removed. "Good Morning America" is mostly irrelevant to an already long article on Donald Trump. Before appearing on Good Morning America, Mr. Trump made the same comparisons on MSNBC Morning Joe, and with more specificity. "Franklin D. Roosevelt" should be replaced with "United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt" since we should not assume editors know who Franklin D. Roosevelt is, and writing "President" saves editors chasing down a link and disrupting their reading of this article.
 * This entire sentence should be replaced with "Trump cited President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's wartime application of presidential powers under the Alien and Sedition Acts (whereby immigrants of Japanese, German, and or Italian ancestry could be legally apprehended, restrained, or removed from the United States without further due process during and after World War II) as examples of similar previous use of presidential powers in regard to immigrants. Then Mr. Trump cited Roosevelt's being regarded as a good president as evidence that this was a good application of presidential powers." The source is the Morning Joe interview at the break of dawn on the day following Trump's announcement to the general public.
 * Whether or not the argument that (paraphrasing), "because Roosevelt did it, and Roosevelt is generally regarded as a good president, it is good", is a good argument, this is the argument Mr. Trump himself chose to make. It violates NPOV not to include what Mr. Trump chose as his first arguments for his proposal. Moreover, a Wikipedia user should have information from examples of Mr. Trump’s thought and reasoning processes.


 * 3 - This content should be moved to immediately follow Mr. Trump's quote, before "The press release drew wide criticism from sources both within the U.S. and abroad... etc." Mr. Trump's own choice for his first justifications - specific citation of Roosevelt's application of the Alien Enemies Act, and argument that Roosevelt being a good president means anything he did was good – should both be included to satisfy NPOV.
 * 4 - The House Speaker, Republican Chair, and Senate Majority leader should be listed critics of this proposal, with their reasons, because it is historically unusual for them to get involved in their own party's presidential primary. The fact of their involvement, of involvement of leaders of Britain, Canada, and France, and of the pentagon, is of historic significance.
 * 5 - There should be some explanation that the pentagon comment implied, by context or overtly, that Mr. Trump's proposal so bolstered ISIS, and explain the reasoning, with secondary sources. Otherwise, a casual reader could not possibly see how the pentagon comment would related to Mr. Trump's proposal in any way.
 * 6 - There should be content regarding criticism from Mr. Trump's own party frequently being based on the separation clause of the First Amendment, and on the country's core founding values of freedom of religion. MBUSHIstory (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This proposal has been up for two days without objection or comment, so I am making the edits as having WP:SILENCE consensus. MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What the hell is going on?
Mr. Trump issued a written press release statement saying "until our representatives can figure out what is going on". He then made several verbal statements, sometimes "until we can figure out what is going on", or more colorfully appealing to the 6th grade mentality of many voters, "until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on"(CNN source for Malerooster's revision), and "until we can figure out what the hell is going on". User:Malerooster added "the hell", but kept the original source to the written press release, which lacked the language with the added color. We need to decide which version to use in the article, then have a source that matches the version we use. MBUSHIstory (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The citation does not include a direct quote, just a stated position, so we shouldn't use quotation marks here. Find a citation which includes the direct quote, include it here for review and adjust the article as necessary. Not a huge deal in the scope of things. --Malerooster (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

failed verification tags in political campaign section
I am unable to find my own story to substantiate this claim, although I grant I didn't try very hard. I am not supposed to need to if it's all that obvious. The reference to The Hill *says* he said that and as proof links to another story where he doesn't say that. The Blaze (seriously? the Blaze??) does in fact provide a quote that says that Muslim-Americans *who are in the military* will be "taken care of" and "able to come home" which leaves a lot of wiggle but more importantly does not address the question of what about let's say an American citizen who is a Muslim but not in the military. Also, The Blaze is...please find a better source. If this interview was broadcast someone else covered it. Elinruby (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I initially added the sources because they had quotes and a link to a vid clip, but I erred in that I did not verify that the vid clip actually supported the quotes. This was sloppy on my part. Worse, I did not check if the sources were reliable. I have found The Hill to be reliable, but maybe other editors have info that I do not. So I left your tag up on it. I looked up what The Blaze is, Glen Beck, who I have personally witnessed to be repeatedly grossly unreliable (an understatement). So I replaced The Blaze source with the identical quote from The Daily Beast, which I have found to be reliable. But other editors might not, so I left your tags up. I am on someone else's metered internet so I cannot check the video clips. You can take one or both tags down if I resolved your issue, or leave them up until another editor checks the vid clip links. :) MBUSHIstory (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the very civil answer. This is quite an important point, which raises civil liberty concerns. I actually missed the video, but the support not in the text, as you see. At the risk of wikilawyering though, isn't video a primary source or original research? I'll go look at it thostugh, since I have a little time and no bandwidth concerns. This actually raises sort of a technical issue -- in a lot of venues the video is considered sort of a gold standard of proof. Whereas Wikipedia wants secondary sources. I have actually criticized this standard before bur at we appear to be stuck with it. I think I will open a RS question about this. They may insist on a link to edits but I'll try to do without first, since we really don't have a dispute here that needs to be resolved at the moment. It is just not clear to me that even if the video support the edit, this is sufficient. My current thought, which is open to discussion, is that Mr Trump has a way of making statements and then "clarifying" them after there is a public outcry. On the matter of the Daily Beast, they are meh but on a factual matter that is not breaking news they are relatively reliable, is my impression. In other words, I am prepared to believe that if it's in quotes in a Daily Beast article it came out of Donald Trump's mouth. Thank you for that.Elinruby (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @ELinruby - I'm sticking this response to your comment above with an indent, because there was an edit conflict with it and your comment below, which I have not yet read. Good questions. Off the cuff, I would say that an unedited video of a lengthy interview or speech, posted by itself without comment, even on a news website, is an unusable primary source. Moreover, it would violate WP:OR for an editor to pick out quotes from it. Once a reliable source comments on, or edits out parts of, the primary source video, those comments or that edited down video is a secondary source. So a video of a news broadcast, which is highly edited, is always a secondary source. If a different source picks out, or summarizes quotes from, the first source's video, this different source is a secondary source. The more other sources comment on portions of the video, the more the WP:WEIGHT for those portions. MBUSHIstory (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Alriiiitee then I have recovered enough brain cells to type (I'm sorry did I say that out loud?) I did listen to the first part of the video and in the phone call to George Stephanopoulos which was I believe edited into the abc clip which was linked to by the story on the The Hill website, whew, Donald Trump did, yes, say that's different, if they are citizens they can come in, or something very close to that. But I had to listen to a whole bunch of stupid stuff first which was debunked weeks ago and before the campaign even started about 9-ll and no-go zones in Paris and when the man asks him a moral question he answers by pointing out how much approval he is getting. He talks about the Japanese and the German and Italian Americans (what about them?) then says no of course I am not suggesting internment. He Just randomly brings them up though. That is just the content problem. This is totally not relable source for anything but "Donald Trump said" but even allowing it as that could start world war three. That is the audio itself, assuming I know what his voice sounds like. George Stephanopolos has his own show right? Find the web page for the episode on THAT show. Or CAIR I am sure is following this point with very careful interest and probably issuing summary papers lol. If you can get RS for him saying this you really should. Once you have him saying of course Muslim Americans can enter their own country (assuming this is correct) then you don't need the one about Muslim members of the military. That just confuses the issue. You don't need to be in the military to travel if you are Muslim. The article as currently written says that Muslims would be able to enter the country if they were US citizens or if they were in the military, if I read it right. Is there such a thing as a Muslim non-citizen in the US military? Please kill that before someone in congress forms a subcommittee to investigate. Then there is accessibility. I had to fiddle with my browser to run the video, which most people would not bother to do most likely. It must be out there in quotes somewhere. This is the Republican front runner talking about an issue that affects human rights and national security. Elinruby (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Re "had to listen to a whole bunch of stupid stuff first" - that's what I presumed would be the case when I did not try to watch the vid clips on someone else's metered internet. In re internment, it is actually not Mr. Trump's fault on this. What really happened (from my memory of events) is that someone must have showed Mr. Trump a copy of Roosevelt's Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527 regarding alien immigrants of a government at war with the US. The proclamations were made the same day as, and immediately after, Pearl Harbor was bombed (Dec 7, 1941), most of the existing Pacific fleet was instantaneously wiped out, and if Japan had any agents in the US, they would have been stupid if the agents were not primed to sabotage everything they could in the Continental US, since all out war was certain. So the proclamation, as it reads, looks pretty reasonable as to alien immigrants and agents during an all-out war. Before the ABC News stuff or any other interview I know of, at bout 6:30 am on the day after Mr. Trump's public reading of his ban on Muslim immigrants proposal, Mr. Trump went to the safest place he has on MSNBC, Morning Joe, to be interviewed, and Mr. Trump came armed. He cited Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527. No one has a memory of all the numbers of all the laws and presidential proclamations and executive orders, but Joe Scarborough (like every other talk show host), has a little speaker in his left ear that is turned away from the camera, into which speaks a powerful MSNBC research team with internet access, so he can act like a super genius and respond. The trouble is, at that time, there was no Wikipedia article on the proclamations, with the footnotes to sources to verify that the Wiki content was not bunk, and there were almost no quick summaries of 2525 etc. There was a pause as Joe Scarborough did not know what to say, but I saw his gears turn and think that if he says nothing, Mr. Trump will go on a rant, and no one will notice that Joe Scarborough did not know everything there is to know. Shortly after that, Scarborough's team had found some of the online stuff about the proclamations, which said they led to internment of Japanese. Joe Scarborough asked about internment of Japanese citizens, and instead of looking like he out-intellectualized Joe Scarborough, Mr. Trump looked stymied, then said he was not for internment. Mr. Trump (like the rest of us) likely had very little knowledge of the minute details of internment of citizens and of aliens during WW I. It turns out that many of the first Google search results for 2525 either have errors, or are misleading. Because Proclamation 2525 only applied to alien noncitizens of countries the US is at war with, not citizens, and is explicitly based on the WW I revised un-repealed part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Alien Enemies Act. It was Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066, not Proclamation 2525, that led to the internment of citizens (as far as I can tell from reading primary sources). I presume from all this that the reason the Pentagon chimed in on a presidential primary, is that the acts cited by Mr. Trump apply only to enemy nations or governments, so Mr. Trump's proposed ban on Muslim alien immigrants, coupled with his citation of Proclamations 2525-7, implied Trump was proposing that the US was at war with all of Islam, exactly the narrative ISIS is trying to put forward. (I only know all of this because I was awake at 3:30 am PCT, i.e., 6:30 am EST, heard Trump cite the proclamations, saw for the first time Joe Scarborough look stymied, went online to look up the proclamations, found almost nothing with a quick and coherent summary, and finding nothing at Wikipedia, I registered as an editor, then wrote an article on the presidential proclamations, found a bunch more stuff, so merged it all into Alien and Sedition Acts article, such as the content on Roosevelt, Truman and the Supreme Court.) MBUSHIstory (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Well welcome to the de-dumbification of the universe, we hope. You do seem to have caught on very quickly. One thing. Are you saying it was Joe Scarborough not George Stephanopulos? I may have mixed them up. In any even, it's a fairly important point and hopefully we can get a better reference. I am in favor of leaving the one where the campaign staff said he said everyone, as well, by the way. I did start a reliable sources case and so far they seem to think the video really is not a good source. That's no more than a guide at best and still early of course.Elinruby (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Morning Joe is on from 6-9am weekdays. Joe Scarborough is an openly partisan Republic centrist with his own talk show on MSNBC. George Stephanopoulos is a former top Clinton aid who acts as a neutral journalist on ABC's main Sunday Morning news summary and major interview show. The first clarification I know of, that the proposal did not apply to military Muslims, was on Fox News, which was what the Glen Beck Blaze source cited. MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I realize they are different people but I don't watch television; I recognized the source as mainstreamish is all; I didn't write anything down since I was listening for did he say it.I was just noting my own naming error above in case anyone else comes along to help look for a better source. I guess I can see how there might be something to clarify here in the executive orders but I am concerned that Trump appears to have a pattern of saying things that simply aren't so, and then "clarifying" them. I have done a little research into chinese exclusion laws and japanese internment - afaik -- we never interned either italians or germans -- so I am glancingly familiar with the way the various immigration laws overlap, though. I've had all the Trump I can deal with for now though. I cam going to go deal with something else for the moment. Elinruby (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * wait I just realized you said he "looked" stymied which implies a video. The reference here is an audio clip. In any event, look, a reliable source for this would be text: the Guardian, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CBC, NPR, possibly Al-Jazeera, LA Times, possibly Salon depending, possibly Politico depending, Daily Beast for the quote itself would be fine... does that help? Maybe some others but those would go to the next level of a serious evaluation...Elinruby (talk)

OCAT?
This article is in over 70 categories. Am I the only one here who thinks that's overkill? Maybe remove some of his peripheral involvements, like writing and video games, and focus primarily on his principal business ventures and his current political aspirations? p b  p  23:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

agreed, I thought that was quite startling also. Amma gonna do some light weed whacking. or at least take a look. Elinruby (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * politics and government workgroups?
 * University of Pennsylvania?

off the top of my head seem candidates for pruning

Donald Trump's hair
(This is a serious proposal.) There is nothing in the article about Mr. Trump's hair. It is the frequent subject of jokes and other references all over the media, including by Mr. Trump himself. It is iconic.

A Wikipedia user from a culture that is very different from Mr. Trump's might be mystified by all of the references, come to Wikipedia for information as to what all the hair talk is about, and would not have access to the information, so they can make sense of all of the references to Mr. Trump's hair. There are 250K results in a google search of "Donald Trump's hair", and 26,000 results in a google news search, many of which meet WP:RS. Content should be added as to Mr. Trump's hair. MBUSHIstory (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What content do you propose adding re:Trump's hair? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are there so many discussions on this page about his appearance?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, his hair has inspired independent reporting and is described in detail in the article comb over. That article should probably be linked from his biography. --Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * His hair is so talked about it could almost have it's own page on Wikipedia, there was a cut SNL segment called "Scalp Team Six", he did the ALS ice bucket challenge partially to prove it's real. He has had people verify that it's his hair as he says "It's my hair, I swear!" at his campaign rallies. The White House for whatever reason brought it up of all things recently. I think it deserves a mention.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "His hair is so talked about it could almost have it's own page on Wikipedia" - don't give people ideas, before you know it and  will have created Boris Johnson's hair and passed it through DYK. On a serious note, I think for even a single sentence on his hair to stick, we are going to need some pretty good sources. Tabloids are obviously out, I think broadsheets probably are too as the articles that focus on the hair are too focused on the "gossipy" aspects of news. The best I can come up with is this book which shows him deliberately using his hair as a statement to be noticed. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  12:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Hair counts for a lot these days". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone see the video of the Bald Eagle attacking Donald Trump while dop9ng a photoshoot.... and in one part the eagle handler tries to set Trump's hair after the eagle tried to peck it...it moved like a toupee (i wonder if Trump got the irony of being attacked by a "bald" eagle? lol) ..-- Stemoc 00:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No surprise people are suggesting "a separate article". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Only if some intrepid Wikipedian produces a photo of the hair separated from Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If only he had a mullett. Or maybe the hair could be persuaded to run on its own? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As fond as I am of Trump hair jokes, this is not a forum for discussion. Please keep comments to recommended changes to the article. There are plenty of places on the internet to go to talk politics.12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A thousand apologies. I'll try and not stray into "politics" again here. Your fondness is legendary, I'm sure. "Wikipedia needs more people like yourself", apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's an idea: mention the 'do extensively at combover rather than here. p  b  p  15:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)