Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 8

Values, public persona, Rosie O'Donell feud, the "Trump brand"

 * "For years, Mr. Trump and his company positioned the Trump brand as a symbol of gaudy luxury. And they established a lucrative business licensing his name to real estate developers, hotel owners and other businesses. The Trump brand is used to sell products as wide-ranging as clothing, coffee pods and sofas." - The Tarnished Trump Brand , New York Times Editorial Board, 12-11-2015


 * "Yuppies were the heroes of the age and their BMWs, Ralph Lauren clothes and housewares, and Tiffany jewels made them stand out as such. Donald Trump personified the monetary emphasis of the age and Madonna, "the Material Girl", integrated it into pop culture." - Values, Lifestyles, and Psychographics'', by Lynn R. Kahle, Larry Chiagouris, 2014

There are over 120K google search results for "Trump brand", an entity unto itself. There are over a million hits for "Trump's values", and still more for variants of that expression such as "Trump's persona". Mr. Trump was the icon personifying the materialist values of 1980's and 1990's Yuppies. Trump's hair is the combination of the two, a gaudy and expensive hairdo with so little substance it becomes comic, with even Mr. Trump himself poking self-deprecating fun at it. When Mr. Trump commenting on his female opponent's appearance, no one was surprised, the opposite of the media reaction to when Obama's press secretary did the same, commenting on Mr. Trump's hair. Our article should have content about this, so that a historian in the future, or Wikipedia reader from a very different culture, has information that is so widely known in Trump's culture, that it goes unstated in the media coverage. I suggest content similar to the above two quotes and sources for starters. MBUSHIstory (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Definitely a gaudy self-promoter, but that second source gives him far too much credit for defining an era. I've tried before, without success, to incorporate Spy (magazine)'s period description of him as a "short-fingered vulgarian" but it seems to have fallen foul of NPOV, despite being repeated in many recent RS sources. While it is true that a current generation of supporters doesn't quite seem to realize what a figure of ridicule he's always been, I'm not sure how to give this encyclopedic tone. He didn't seem so important in the 1980s except as a poster child for blind narcissistic self-promotion. How to convey that?  Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (Your link to Spy Magazine took me to Wikipedia. Is there an online version of the article?)
 * Spy archives are online today thanks to Google books. The magazine mocked Trump and his wife relentlessly; Spy was the first to refer to Donald as "The Donald" (quoting Ivana). The "short-fingered vulgarian" moniker was also coined by the magazine and is still a catchphrase for Trump in older circles. Vanity Fair gave us an overview of all this in August. Hope that helps. I was not successful in giving Spy enduring attribution here in Trump's Wikipedia entry for giving us "The Donald" and "short-fingered vulgarian", but my edits did persist for a few weeks early this fall. You might want to explore the editing history for guidelines. Unfortunately, I think much of what you are proposing will meet opposition based on NPOV grounds. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Vesuvius Dogg. I think the suggestions below will not be considered as violating NPOV (presuming good RS), especially since Mr. Trump himself intentionally cultivates the persona (which would need RS to state), does it in a way that it appears to be a self-deprecating joke (again which would need RS to state), and does it to create media hype from which he profits (again needing RS to state). By doing this he is able make outrageous statements that a segment of voters responds positively to, and another segment of voters who would cringe if any other candidate said it, is stuck at best asking "was he serious?", whereby he can make "clarifications" after seeing how the statement is tracking in the polls. (That last sentence is a paraphrase of much analysis made by Chris Matthews et al on MSNBC.) MBUSHIstory (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is proposed content for the lead of a "Values, public persona, and brand" section, based on myriad easily found RS. Violations of WP:SYNTH by having sourced content in the section body which is summarized in the lead, which is not SYNTH.


 * Proposed reliable sources -
 * Iconic general persona -
 * - Fox News "Donald Trump makes fun of his persona and Rosie O'Donnell on 'SNL'"


 * Narcisism -
 * - Psychology Today - "Therapists Confirm Trump's Narcissistic Personality Disorder"
 * - Science section of Huff Post - "Is Donald Trump A Narcissist -- Or A Bully? Here's What Psychologists Say"
 * - Vanity Fair - Is Donald Trump Actually a Narcissist? Therapists


 * "Rosie O'Donell" feud
 * - CNN - The Donald Trump-Rosie O'Donnell feud: A timeline
 * - Newsweek - A Brief History of Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell


 * Other editors are invited to add iconic persona elements, with reliable sources. Then we can pare down into a useful article section, by which a user with no knowledge of Mr. Trump might understand all the unstated presumptions in media coverage of him. MBUSHIstory (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Lede suggestion
Hi. I think the reference to Trump's Muslim immigration prohibition in the populist anti-illegal immigration sentence could be improved by placing it elsewhere in the lede. My suggestion is this:
 * Trump's populist anti-illegal immigrant politics are a defining contrast with establishment Republican positions, earning him support among working class voters amid heavy and frequent controversies in the media. His call to temporarily prohibit Muslim immigration while better security screening is devised has led to widespread notoriety, condemnation from some notable Republican figures, and praise from others.

This'd require a few more sources than we currently have in the lede, although I'll note that none of those currently in the lede mention the Muslim immigration prohibition either. We could also provide some examples of Republican figures which have condemned/praised his statements. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can do it! -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Gosh, thanks mister! PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report
This article was the most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 914,072 views for the week December 6 to 12, 2015. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  23:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And thanks also to the Donald, without whom none of this would be possible.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

More involvement from neutral editors.
I am not much of a copy editor, but this article certainly needs oversight due to the increase POV pushing/editing. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I only really do minor copyediting, but I think I'm neutral in this subject. Would you mind giving specific examples of what you mean by POV pushing in the article? I'll see what I can do. Thanks. Me, Myself &#38; I (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you look at User:Steeletrap's "contributions". Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could I request a pre-emptive topic ban on myself from editing this article, in case I start to compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I hereby give you an unauthorized topic ban from all things Donald Trump! :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dagnabbit! I was at least hoping to be able to edit the hair article. But I salute your noble gesture. Alas, there may be a thousand Philomena Cunks and Barry Shitpeases, who may rush to take my place. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You can take the hair with you.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "we dont wanna mess it up too much" ... Philomena and Barry sincerely thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Donald Trump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150801033902/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-wealth-details-released-federal-regulators-165854286--finance.html to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-wealth-details-released-federal-regulators-165854286--finance.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump in The New York Times
In reporter Jeremy Merrill's On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate, our Talk Page dispute (concerning which Donald Trump image should lead the article) was discussed in The New York Times. All four volunteer Wikipedia photographers got Times image credits. Congratulations! Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

They inadvertently omitted the word "hundred", methinks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "...each article is a palimpsest of added or deleted nuggets, often several in a single day..."


 * They're not all "nuggets".--Jack Upland (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And Sarah Palin is very angry they brought up "palimpsest".--Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Loser.com
Loser.com redirects here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeninventor999 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you smell a lawsuit? Wikipedia does not like to be sued. Actually true if you type 'loser.com' into a Google-search, but not true when you type in the search line of Wikipedia.  When you do that, you are directed to create the page: "You may create the page "Loser.com", but consider checking the search result below to see whether the topic is already covered:  The Biggest Loser Australia (season 1).  -- AstroU (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought he was demanding a recount? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Nothing to see here; MoveOn. -- AstroU (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Cite errors
There are four cite errors in the references section - can someone please fix them? Wammes Waggel (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The citation errors appear to be from the section Donald Trump, which contains text from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. I can certainly fix the web cite and accessdate errors on that page, but I'm not so sure about the broken reference name. Maybe replacement text? Me, Myself &#38; I (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm finding the web cite/accessdate errors rather hard to find. Can you kindly point out the ones you speak of? Me, Myself &#38; I (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right
Discussion on how to relevantly incorporate Alt-right in to the Donald Trump article has began in this link below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-right#Donald_Trump Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes to lead
At RFPP, has proposed some non-trivial changes to the lead, namely replacing the sentence: "Trump's politically incorrect, anti-illegal immigration politics, which also concentrated on terrorism and national security concerns, earned him support among working-class voters, as well as widespread opposition from Hispanics/Latinos, Muslims, business leaders, and other Republicans."

with: "Trump's politically incorrect, anti-illegal immigration politics, which also concentrated on terrorism and national security concerns, earned him support among working-class voters and voters without college educations amid heavy and frequent controversies in the news media."

This is proposed on the basis that sources are not cited in the lead for the longer, more detailed statement, and that it does not mirror the later statement in the article, "...earned him support among working-class voters and voters without college educations amid heavy and frequent controversies in the news media." — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable wording as far as it goes, but not as a blanket replacement. My concern is that there are likely other sources in the the article for "widespread opposition from" various demographics (and if not, some can be found in under 1 minute; there is no question that the statements are correct). It's not that the lead is making a unitary unsourced claim; rather it is doing what a lead is supposed to do, summarizing various material in the article that is sourced lower down. It's a general principle that stuff in the lead does need to be sourced there but only if it's likely to be controversial or challenged. Anything at all like this is controversial and likely to be challenged, so the lead simply needs the sources for those claims added to it, even if WikiUser2244's particular wording tweak is also used as a substitute for part of it. The only danger would be WP:OR, in the form of synthesis that "leads" the reader, e.g. if it said something like "because of his position on national security concerns, he earned the enmity of Hispanic voters", an implication our sources don't make and that we should not draw (they suggest that it was because of his anti-illegal-immigration perspective, which while it relates strongly to national security concern, in Trump's views, to Muslim immigration, it does not to Hispanic immigration).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Donald Trump
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Donald Trump's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA": From Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002481 From Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016:  From The Trump Organization:  From Minimum wage in the United States:  From Satan: Coogan, Michael D.; A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in its context, Oxford University Press, 2009 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

Trump's Standing as Leader of the 2016 Republican Candidates
According to a New York Times and Wall Street Journal poll Ted Cruz is leading the candidates. I'm still a noob, so I'm not totally sure how to go about this edit, but is this viable to edit or at least add as an annotation? Guitargeek98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If it belongs anywhere, it would be on the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article. Frankly, it could be an outlier and could be WP:Recentism. Objective3000 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * I see no argument explaining how my edit makes the article worse. I spent a significant amount of time on it and was very WP:CAREFUL.  If there is a particular problem with my edit, please cite the WP Policy.  Otherwise, the reverts appear to be in violation of the several policies I have cited. Yourmanstan (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument is that by removing Trump's controversial policy positions, this article become very non-neutral. Relative few reader drill down into sub articles. We just went through this at Marco Rubio. I have no objection to a split, as long as we leave a point-by-point summary of all of his major political positions as they are currently presented in this article. The summary needs to be written before content is removed. Major changes to major articles such as this should always be discussed first. It's OK to be bold, as long as you stop being so bold when another editor objects.- MrX 18:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


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


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


 * Stan, try to take a look at what you've done so far and what the effect has been. If you want to split, you need to build consensus. At the moment, you've managed to get three users objecting. The reason is that you are trying to throw a lot of policies at the wall, rather than working with us to satisfy our concerns. Take a deep breath and listen to what people are telling you.CometEncke (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comet, yes there are three users objecting. I'd love to satisfy each of your concerns but so far the only concern raised is by MrX and I addressed it in talk a moment ago.  The WP policies exist specifically to instruct each of you to not revert for the reasons you have given, that is why I cited them.  If there is a WP policy that gives stronger instruction against my edits for being 'too big' or something like that, I'd be happy to know about them so I can do a better job editing.Yourmanstan (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BRD. Also see the warning at the top of this page to be bold, but not reckless. Making this large a change to one of WP's most viewed articles (most viewed 2nd week in Dec) without discussion is reckless. I would also suggest that repeated links to policies instead of discussion doesn't tend to convince most editors. Objective3000 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

The summary should be written into the article before removing the bulk of the political positions material.- MrX 19:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Threaded discussion
 * I agree that a summary must be developed first. But, that does not look like an easy task given the contradictions and shifts, sometimes within hours. Objective3000 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "sometimes within hours". Ok, assuming true, then how does WP:Recentism not apply? IHTS (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It is really hard to know how to approach this since it seems like I'm getting stonewalled. The best I can tell is there seems to be some concern about a POV issue caused by summarization... nothing to do with the split itself. I suspect the particular issue is | this edit in the newly created article. To address this, I have set the Politics of Donald Trump to | to match the content currently on the main Donald Trump page. This way the transclusion will not affect the content on the main Trump page. The purpose of the split is to help organize content so we can start to resolve the sync issues, bring length in line according to WP:SPLIT, reduce the  recentism and have  long term perspective and well done summary of content. You can read about those issues in talk here: talk1 and  talk2 and  talk3 and  talk4. I believe this is already a consensus position, but in an effort to be a good citizen, I'm happy to give some time for others to respond. Yourmanstan (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An idea
 * I'm sorry but that does not represent my concerns at all. Please see my previous comments, which have nothing to do with the content of the sub article and everything to do with keeping a summary of Trump's political positions, candidacies, affiliations and controversies in this article.- MrX 00:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * MrX, please re-read what I wrote. I'm saying the "summary of Trump's political positions, candidacies, affiliations and controversies" will remain in this article. Yourmanstan (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Mr.X. has it exactly right. We need an existing, accurate, consensus summary in place before a split can occur. That is a lot of work, yes. As the person wanting the split, the onus is on you (Stan) to get it done; others may or may not want to help. It's not a tactic; it's just the way things are. I'm not sure exactly where such a summary should be drafted, but it was done on the Rubio article and/or Cruz articles recently, so there must be a place and there must be someone who knows. I've been quite skeptical of your split so far, yes, mainly because you have not made any apparent progress on the relevant process, and instead continue to insist that policy demands we just do it, which is simply not the case.CometEncke (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion is around summaries and not the transclusion. I've submitted an edit and you can see nothing changes in the main article. Yourmanstan (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yourmanstan, that's not how it works. If you have a problem with the current summary then propose an alternative. What I can say is that if you continue blanking you are likely to get blocked. The warning I placed on your talk page should not be taken lightly. Let's work together. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Somedifferentstuff please read the edit. The summary did not change. Yourmanstan (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand how WP:Weight works. The fact that Donald has been the front-runner for a very long time on the GOP ticket means that this article, including what he's done politically, needs to be represented in this article as reported by reliable sources. Completely removing the political content from this article as you did here  and again  and again  is a blatant POV violation.  You then copied and pasted the content into a "new article"  simply because you wanted to.  What are you doing? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You still have not read the edit. Here is the article before my edit .  Here is the article after my edit .  This was not a 'blanking'... the main trump article reads the same. Yourmanstan (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a friendly note. You are going to be blocked if you continue to make very large changes during discussion, particularly given the sensitivity of this article. Keep in mind that discussions can take weeks on substantially smaller edits. Objective3000 (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Link to the Central Park jogger case
Is there anywhere to put this information? I figure it might be worth putting in, since he took out a full page ad essentially advocating for the execution of five innocent men. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * After the fifth paragraph of the 'Business career' section'. But, it happened 27 years ago. I wonder if it's an important event in his overall life. If so, I think you would need several strong sources to establish WP:WEIGHT.- MrX 23:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point about the 27 years. But, when they were released and received a settlement a couple years back, he claimed this was a disgrace and they were still guilty of something saying "what were they doing in the park". There were a bunch of articles at the time. Here are a couple: . Objective3000 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Using The Atlantic article as a cue, perhaps there should be a paragraph under political positions discussing his views about the death penalty, and then this content about the Central Park five can be included there.- MrX 01:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


 * Roy Cohn was Trump's lawyer for a time, a man who did represent Mafia figures and was highly unethical. This is certainly not an overt indictment on Trump, but perhaps not the best lawyer for him to choose out of so many available. He spoke about Cohn recently during an interview. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What I was questioning is his suggestion that all NY business firms are Mafia-associated. Matters not. His POV clearly comes from fringe sites. Objective3000 (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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

Anyone who knows anything about NYC knows that for someone to have as extensive work in construction there as Trump, it is almost inconceivable to not have some run-ins with the mob, and to have to work around and in some cases even work with them. Again, if it is such a big issue, why haven't the other candidates brought it up? There's nothing about Hillary being a lesbian in that WND link I gave, but it hardly makes sense to state that you are unaware of any scandals if you are unwilling to read anything about it. TimMagic (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So? Keep it on the TALK page, not in the Article. -- AstroU (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


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


 * I'm going to tag this article with NPOV issues. I agree that we don't need to be commenting on Trump's hairstyle, nor do we need to be using the words "fodder for comedic remarks". NPOV really does need to be adhered to, especially in cases of politicians - there's an essay which states that as a general rule you should not be able to tell an editor's political stance from reading the article. The whole "hair" thing could be a violation of WP:BLP or even WP:UNDUE. --Ches (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is nonsense. His hair has been a subject of discussion for decades -- a subject which he himself has discussed innumerable times and which he recently lampooned himself on SNL. I don't know what essay you refer to; but is there a single WP article on a politician where the political stances are not discussed? The POV claims by the editor that started this thread all come from WND, a conspiracy site. No one has brought up an actual NPOV violation. Objective3000 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - if I confused you, I meant the editor's political stance, not the politician's. If we're going to talk about Trump's hair, we may as well talk about Hilary Clinton's hair. Or Jeb Bush's. Completely insignificant. --Ches (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


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


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


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

- precisely. The consensus for that discussion seemed to be that it would be silly to add a section on Trump's hair. This article is no place for humour or jokes. It's obvious that whoever added that dislikes Trump (as do the majority of us, but the editor still has a bias). Best, --Ches (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But the editor still has a bias. That is an accusation without evidence. Objective3000 (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - I know it seems like a baseless accusation, but do you think that somebody who would add a section on Trump's hair, which mocks it and claims it is "fodder for comedic remarks", would have a pro-Trump bias? --Ches (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who added the section. So, how could I, or you, know his motivations? You are actually claiming bias of a person that you can't even name. You have failed to respond to the fact that I named a rather large number of RS's that have discussed this. An encyclopedia is based on RS's. Why do you think that an encyclopedia should completely ignore something discussed in, what appears, to be all reliable, relevant sources? Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ches, if your problem is with the hairstyle section, which has been discussed on this Talk page many times, put an NPOV flag on that section and open a new discussion here. An NPOV flag over the whole article is unhelpful and non-specific. Thanks. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thanks - I'll sort that out. Best, --Ches (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A google search for "Donald Trump's hair" yielded 10.4 million results. I have moved the hair section into the 'Public image' section where it is appropriate. If editors think it is too detailed, it can be edited to give it less weight. IP75 (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

political positions
The current version of the political positions section refers to Trump's current positions. It does mention that they have evolved over time. But I think that's insufficient. A biography should not just focus on the present WP:RECENTISM; past times should get considerable weight. But that's a big enough change that I thought I'd get some reactions here first.CometEncke (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed Mk17b (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Actual IQ?
For Donald Trump's IQ score, I see online speculations from a wobbly 90 to a firm 160. In this Washington Examiner item, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-i-have-a-higher-iq-than-george-will/article/2577023, Trump is quoted as saying: ". . .he has a higher IQ than conservative pundits George Will and Karl Rove. . ." For that to be true, however, Trump needs to know the scores of Will and Rove and his own score. He offers no real details, though, so I suspect that this is a blustery speculation as well. He has said over and over at his rallies that he has a very high IQ, perhaps even among the highest. Is there any impartial source that states an actual score or at least an expert observer's ballpark number? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * His net worth claim is $10B. Forbe's estimates it at $4.5B. If he claims an IQ of 160, and we assume the same level of exaggeration, we can estimate his IQ at 72. Joking aside, this is not worthy of discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't want to make the "Personal life" section any denser than it already is. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If those hair-raising figures are true, then he would been an asset to military intelligence if he'd ever put his boots on the ground.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, I'd agree with Objective3000 regarding one's IQ. However, since both Trump and his supporters make such a big deal about it, they have made it a topic of discussion. If the actual number is sourced for real, then it's relevant. Meanwhile, Objective3000's calculation seems to be well thought-out. And I like Martinevans123's pun. Touche! Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump's IQ is claimed to be 156 which would be at the 99.9905490555 percentile and means that Donald Trump is smarter than 99.99 percent of the people on planet earth. Buster Seven   Talk  07:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (Heh heh. You said "hair-raising".) Laodah 04:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove David Duke from Introduction
I believe that including that Trump's campaign is supported by KKK member David Duke in the introduction to this article is not appropriate. From an unbiased perspective, it is slanderous in that it implies that Trump is affiliated with the KKK, which is absolutely is not. This sentenced should be either moved to a later section in this page, to the page Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, or removed altogether. Unless there is a legitimate source which confirms that Trump acknowledges and approves of Duke's support, it does not below on his introduction. While this sentence is there, this page is clearly in violation of Wikipedia rules as it is biased against Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rforb001 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed it pending discussion as it does seem over the top. OTOH, it's true and not surprising given his speeches. Objective3000 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * David Duke is notable as former politician, activist and radio host. Politico is a reliable source. The support itself is a controversial public topic. Duke's support is therefore worth mentioning (maybe not in the introduction, but in the campaign segment).--Cyve (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Somewhere in the body is more reasonable. Objective3000 (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Prob. right. Also worth noting: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/donald-trump-declines-to-disavow-david-duke/?_r=0 Mk17b (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone can also direct me to somewhere in the President Obama article where his ties to the Nation of Islam are discussed. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/farrakhan-obama-islam/2008/11/03/id/326298/. I must have missed it. Frankly, I don't think Obama getting support from the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers is relevant and Trump getting the approval of David Duke or the KKK is relevant either. Ronald Reagan had the approval of the KKK as well yet that's not mentioned. Again, irrelevant unless the person receiving the support declares his approval. Trump has done no such thing. Jtpaladin (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

From Blair (2000), p.11, which was also extensively quoted in this morning's WaPo: "In a sense, Donald Trump had merely polished to the highest of glosses what was already there. 'Trump' is a wonderful word, a marvelous name. A name Dickens would surely have given to a prominent character if only he had thought of it, ‘Trump’ evokes trump card, trump hand, trump suit — all terms associated with winning. Whether Donald Trump could have had the same success with any other name is an intriguing question. How fortunate that 'Drumpf,' the unresonant original version, evolved over the centuries to the current orthography."

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

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

How about a sentence along the following lines:
 * "Commentators have acknowledged that the resonance of the word Trump may have helped in the creation of a brand around the name, particularly in comparison with the family's ancestral name Drumpf."

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


 * Outside of John Oliver and WaPo's article on John Oliver's segment, there's only a couple of passing references to this Drumpf name. That doesn't seem to lend it enough weight to put it in the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've put five sources in my post above, including Trump himself. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a barely notable piece of trivia though... there's very little other than the occasional passing mention. It's gotten some attention because of John Oliver's comedy piece, but would we really be here talking about it if a comedian didn't make a joke about it a couple nights ago? Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe if it should be added it should be added to the Frederick Trump page. However as has been discussed on that page, this does not merit mention due to the time in which it has passed, and the lack of relevance beyond minor trivia.  If there were significant importance for this mention then it might be worth including but it is currently no more important than a distant relative being the first person in a town to build a well.  Names change all the time, and a change from 300 years ago that does not impact anything today (beyond the John Oliver sketch) does not need to be included. Apriestofgix (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Donald Trump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022165435/http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nln7g/Youve_Been_Trumped/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nln7g/Youve_Been_Trumped/

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

but iplayer won't play the clip from my region. Talk to <b style="color:#69793E">SageGreenRider</b> 01:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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

New Jersey Generals
Why no mention of the New Jersey Generals? Trump owned them---twice. He was instrumental in the short history of the USFL. His involvement could be considered his first appearance on the national scene. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  18:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Somebody just tried to give Trump a Sep 11 birthday!
I undo'd it. Is there any basis for this? SocraticOath (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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


 * This made headlines not only in US media, but also internationally:
 * Donald Trump Makes His Penis a Campaign Issue During Debate
 * How Donald Trump's penis is helping his quest for the White House (UK)
 * A new low for the Republican debate: the size of Trump's penis (Australia)
 * Still, I think this should not be in the article. It will be forgotten tomorrow, when we get another Trump quote.
 * Austrian (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump has turned the Republican quest for the White House into a back-alley pissing contest. Boys v. a Man. American politics have never seen this level of crude obnoxious school-yard antics before. His petty attacks regarding menstrual flow, disability, phallus size, "on his knees" and all the rest should definitely be in the article. While Trump forces the other candidates to discuss banal topics during the debates, his tactics prevent real discussions about real issues. I always think of these type of articles in a historic sense. What does the WP reader in 2030 need to know? For Trump to bring the size of his hands related to other body parts back onto the debate floor shows his enormous ego. Our future reader needs that information to evaluate what happened during the campaign so they can make up their own minds as to what happened and why. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  12:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We can all tell you like him, really. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with . This material should be left out of this article. It would probably be appropriate for a brief mention in the campaign article.- MrX 12:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe there could be a section on physical appearance, including information on his hair and spurs...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Spurs? Do you mean bone spurs? As in, "I got a deferment from the Vietnam War because of bone spurs but I forgot which foot". Or do you mean the spurs a cowboy would wear? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Donald Trump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120802060852/http://www.acninc.com:80/acn/us/trump_events.html to http://acninc.com/acn/us/trump_events.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151125105242/http://www.americanprinciplesinaction.org/apia-education/education/school-choice/donald-trump-on-school-choice/ to http://www.americanprinciplesinaction.org/apia-education/education/school-choice/donald-trump-on-school-choice/

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Age
Donald Trump just said he's 67, the article says 69. Which is it? Buffaboy talk 02:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He can't even tell the truth about his own age. Or he forgot. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not trying to turn this into a forum, but with this guy I bet that half of the stuff in this article is reliable but invalid. Buffaboy  talk 02:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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


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

Legal paragraph on 1980s campaign contributions
Another editor removed a single-citation paragraph about Trump's 1980s campaign contributions. The single citation was an investigative article by the Washington Post which gave references, one of which I used in restoring the paragraph. Now it has two citations. The other editor also cited WP:Weight and said that the paragraph didn't fit the subject of this article; unless there's another article somewhere about Trump's legal issues, I think this appropriate for this article. SocraticOath (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked through the Washington Post article and provided the next source for various other claims, and clarified the Wikipedia writing here and there as appropriate. I also showed those other sources, when provided as published books, in the Bibliography. SocraticOath (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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


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

Honorary degree from Liberty University
This:
 * Honorary Doctor of Business (Hon. D.B.), 2012, Liberty University

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


 * but it was so easy to find a third party source. Honestly, you went to the trouble of going to the talk page but couldn't fix it yourself with the third result in a google search? : http://time.com/4143157/trump-stripped-honorary-degree/ VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In my experience, content that is sourced to a press release often has no other available sources. Anyway, thanks for adding the additional source.- MrX 20:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Notable because it has its own article"
Surely this is a fallacy as to why the John Oliver section should be mentioned in the popular culture section? If you look at the article on Barack Obama, the "Cultural and political image" section mentions only two items: his own award-winning audiobook and an award-winning song made in his honour. There's no mention of films about him, either in a positive light or the exceedingly partisan I Want Your Money. On George W. Bush, subject of much satire, this lampooning is summed up, without mentioning any specifics (there was a whole cable series). &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Notable because it has its own article" is quite obvious, so I don't get what the question is. The Last Week Tonight episode (not John Oliver, that's a different story) went viral after it aired. What is obvious, though, is that mentions of Donald Trump in popular culture (as opposed to him being a reality TV star) are missing. epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I also note that Barack Obama has his own article about him in culture: Public image of Barack Obama. GWB also has his own article about cultural mentions of him, Public image of George W. Bush (and everything after that). However, I don't think Public image of Donald Trump exists, so your question itself is fallacious by omission. epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Alleged links between Donald Trump and organized crime
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alleged links between Donald Trump and organized crime could be merged with this article, perhaps in a criticism section. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded. This would also fix many of the WP:WEIGHT issues with the back end of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)VoltaireEditor2016 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Even though Donald Trump is a disgrace for a presidential candidate (and the most conniving businessman I know), this is still inappropriate as a standalone article, especially if we have a whole article about "alleged" (i.e. unproven) links. Not only does this fail WP:WEIGHT, but it also fails WP:SYNTH. epicgenius (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fourthed - "Alleged" article definitely needs some slimming down, too. GABHello! 21:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've noticed that this content already exists in the article, under the "Allegations of business links to organized crime" section - the new page seems to be an exact copy of that page. I'm going to propose speedy deletion of the new page as a duplicate. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to hear from the article author,, before weighing in. If there are plenty of sources and material to support such an article, then I don't see a problem with such a WP:SPINOFF. By the way, I don't think its WP:CSD eligible simply because there is overlapping content between this article and the new article.- MrX 21:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake, I didn't realise CSD A10 was out of scope in cases like this. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I copied the readable text (the edit window) of Donald Trump and saved it as a Notepad file that is 227kb in size. WP:Article size gives a general guideline to split the article when it gets bigger than 100 kb.  Also, many of the recent deletions are because of undue weight rather than other kinds of POV (such as defamatory language and "original research").  As I said elsewhere, Trump is a 69-year-old business mogul who has a long list of public relationships with people, places, projects, TV shows and government entities.  Just because any of the possible lists is long doesn't mean it is not notable, but it does make it seem like a good choice for an article spinoff.  This is why I am proposing the split of this article. SocraticOath (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


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

Please remove the Merge tag from the top of this article page. The title of the article under discussion for merging here (Alleged links between Donald Trump and organized crime) is highly POV. The corresponding section in this article is "Allegations of BUSINESS links to organized crime". This page is getting a lot of traffic. The merge tag, given the title of the article, is inappropriate. In addition all of the content to be merged here already exists in this article. So as far as this article is concerned, the point is moot.CFredkin (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved the merge tag into the relevant section, but I don't believe we can outright remove it while this discussion is going on. Fun  Pika  22:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * WP:SPINOFF doesn't really apply if the article itself is POV. Maybe "Career of Donald Trump" and "Controversies relating to Donald Trump" would be a better split than... um... this. epicgenius (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User: LoudLizard, Please remove the Merge tag from this article. What's being discussed here is not a merge.CFredkin (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge This is not appropriate for a stand alone article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


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


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


 * Comment If we think sections shouldn't get spun off, then weight and POV are going to continue to be contentious issues on this article as the subject gains more and more attention. SocraticOath (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This article appears here in "Special:Longpages":
 * 605.(hist) ‎2014 Los Angeles Dodgers season ‎[233,035 bytes]
 * 606.(hist) ‎History of Poland (1945–89) ‎[233,035 bytes]
 * 607.(hist) ‎Evolution ‎[232,978 bytes]
 * 608.(hist) ‎2012 in arthropod paleontology ‎[232,967 bytes]
 * 609.(hist) ‎Donald Trump ‎[232,841 bytes]
 * 610.(hist) ‎List of cities and towns in Colorado ‎[232,832 bytes]
 * 611.(hist) ‎2015 FIVB Volleyball World League squads ‎[232,773 bytes]
 * 612.(hist) ‎Shooting of Trayvon Martin ‎[232,748 bytes]
 * 613.(hist) ‎Frozen (2013 film) ‎[232,738 bytes]
 * 614.(hist) ‎2011 ATP World Tour ‎[232,626 bytes]

SocraticOath (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just for comparison, here are a few others:
 * 270.(hist) ‎George W. Bush ‎[276,195 bytes]
 * 261.(hist) ‎Barack Obama ‎[278,689 bytes]
 * 47.(hist) ‎List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 ‎[384,228 bytes]
 * 1.(hist) ‎List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States ‎[802,272 bytes]
 * 2.(hist) ‎List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach ‎[672,561 bytes]
 * 3.(hist) ‎List of United States counties and county equivalents ‎[672,282 bytes]
 * 1493.(hist) ‎Bill Clinton ‎[184,541 bytes]
 * 1943.(hist) ‎Napoleon ‎[173,195 bytes]
 * 2501.(hist) ‎Benjamin Franklin ‎[161,304 bytes]
 * SocraticOath (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You forgot some long articles (not lists) and also an opponent's longer page:
 * 15.(hist) ‎Marthandavarma (novel) ‎[487,322 bytes]
 * 24.(hist) ‎East Turkestan independence movement ‎[451,583 bytes]
 * 36.(hist) ‎Electric car use by country ‎[419,076 bytes]
 * 37.(hist) ‎Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ‎[418,580 bytes]
 * 597.(hist) ‎Hillary Clinton ‎[234,246 bytes]
 * So let's split 608 other pages before splitting this. The article doesn't distract the reader as it is. Obviously, 608 other pages need more attention. Why not split ‎Frozen (2013 film) or ‎Shooting of Trayvon Martin before we split this article? It does not need to be split that much. epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump was the most popular article on Wikipedia at least twice in the last few months, and in my opinion, will continue to be a super-popular article either until or through November 2016. And material will keep coming in as serious background checks get underway in the runup to the election. Not to mention anything he would do if he won the Republican nomination.  SocraticOath (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , there's another issue I think you and others are glossing over: a lot of the info in your proposed spinoff article doesn't need to be anywhere on this project. It's non-neutral speculation.  Spinoff articles need not be the only solution to long pages; consolidation and omission of bad content can be used as well.  p  b  p  00:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, I think people are already at work at removing the unneeded or synthesis information. My suggestion to split the pages into "Career" and "Controversy" articles is still available, though. epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe is the only person who objects to the merging of this particular article, so I've redirected that article (it was basically the same content throughout). I am not opposed to a further split, though. epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Weasel words in lawsuit reporting
Another editor removed the description of Rancho Palos Verdes' financials from the paragraph on Trump's lawsuit against the town, saying that it was weasel words. I objected to this weasel words characterization and undo'ed the change. I think it's fair in reporting to give this kind of identifier to the players of a story. SocraticOath (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't mention Trump. Inclusion of the content sourced to it would be WP:original research.CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks, user:CFredkinVoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's better than calling it weasel words... I didn't think weasel words is the right rule for this. And I have less empathy now for Rancho Palos Verdes, having read a little more about the story. SocraticOath (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "And I have less empathy now for Rancho Palos Verdes, having read a little more about the story." You seem to have a lot of biases and political motivations in all of your persistent and lone edits on this page. You really need to back away from such unrelenting edit warring. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will. You are the first other editor to object to any of my edits, and I'm sorry that it seemed like edit warring for me to attempt to keep the old words that you called weasel words.  Have you made up your mind about the lawsuits being notable or not? SocraticOath (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The lawsuits seem notable, but these random details need to be cut. epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: there are over 150 lawsuits involving Trump-named businesses in Broward County, Florida's records. This was easy to find because Trump's name is on the front of the business.  What business lawsuits would involve Trump but not have his name on them? SocraticOath (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)