Talk:Maryanne Trump Barry

Bot-created subpage
A subpage at Maryanne Trump Barry/fjc was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture?
A portait-picture and/or action-picture always improves an article. -- AstroU (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As a Federal judge, might she have a portrait available in the public domain? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about lead picture at Donald Trump
You are invited to participate in an ongoing talk-page discussion about the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy
The lead says she IS a judge. The infobox says her term ended in 2011. Which is correct? 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * See senior status. – Smyth\talk 11:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

contender for SCOTUS nomination
Some additions I researched were deleted.


 * 12:34, 15 Dec 2016‎ 47.222.203.135 (+3,217)‎ . . (insert paragraph about SCOTUS-related campaign issues involving Barry during the 2016 election, the sources also give a lot of useful backstory on her life, if somebody wants to incorporate the details elsewhere in this biography-page)

In August 2015, during the early stages of the Trump'16 campaign, he suggested (when specifically prompted) that his sister Barry would be a good nominee for the Supreme Court, though Trump also said in October 2015 he did not believe Barry would accept such a role. After the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016 opened up a vacancy on the court, the question of whether Barry might be nominated became a campaign issue. Trump said in March 2016 that he would not be able to nominate her, since as his sister such an act would be a conflict of interest. Trump released a list of potential nominees he would consider in May 2016, and expanded it in September 2016. Throughout the campaign, Barry herself had remained characteristically silent in public, as was her long habit.

The reasoning did not seem to refer to a policy-based argument explicitly, but WP:NOT or maybe WP:SINGLEEVENT was possibly intended to be implied (although neither seems applicable as the biography-subject is already notable in her own right).


 * 15:25, 15 Dec 2016‎ User:JFG (-3,217)‎ . . (Irrelevant. This was maybe news for a couple hours during the campaign, tops.)

Disagree. Unless you meant, a couple hours combined consecutive television broadcast coverage, if it was all lumped together. It spanned multiple months, and would almost -- all by itself -- qualify her for WP:GNG, if she was not already notable for other reasons.


 * August 2015 == in-depth coverage by National Review.
 * October 2015 == coverage by WaPo.
 * February 2016 == coverage burst by Reuters, Newsmax, NBC News, USA Today, Politico, Breitbart, Phillymag.com, The Guardian, NYT, Politifact, Weekly Standard.


 * March 2016 == in-depth coverage by WaPo.


 * May 2016 == passing mention in NYT, IBTimes, Politico.


 * June 2016 == in-depth coverage by RealClearPolitics.

Please leave a talkback message on my user-talkpage, if you reply here. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As the reverter, I appreciate your effort but I maintain that the proposed text and myriad cites are overblown for what remains a brief footnote in the presidential campaign. I would respectfully suggest to condense all this into a brief mention such as During the 2016 presidential campaign, media have speculated about her potential appointment as a Supreme Court justice, which Donald Trump quickly ruled out when he released his list of potential appointees. Add two cites and we're done. — JFG talk 18:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with JFG. There has never been any serious discussion of such a nomination going forward. bd2412  T 18:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this article having a shorter paragraph -- it isn't the presidential campaign article, of course, as I'm sure you're aware. If you wanted to scale down my paragragh, sure, that would not have bothered me, although I would have preferred at least dumping the deleted refs here on the talkpage, so that if somebody wanting to expand the rest of this biography someday shows up, they'll have some materials.  No harm since I came back to copy the wikitext for the next place.
 * As for the question of whether Barry has been 'ruled out' my WP:CRYSTAL ball says that Trump has *never* said any such thing. He has said, on the record, that he will only pick Scalia's replacement from the twenty names.  But there are several other justices in their eighties, and there is also the possibility that Clarence Thomas (age 68 now) might wish to voluntarily retire, so as to guarantee that a repub potus will appoint his replacement.  None of that has much to do with Barry's biography, of course, except that I don't think we have heard the last of her now that Trump is taking office, so it makes sense to have *something* in her article about her role during the 2015/2016 portion of the pre-presidency.  On that note, instead of saying "Trump quickly ruled out" her nomination, I would prefer to just spake not, of that which we are not yet positive about, and suggest this variation:
 * During the 2016 presidential campaign, media reports speculated about her potential appointment as a Supreme Court justice. (Trump later stated that Barry was not interested, and that in any case appointing his older sister would be a conflict of interest.)
 * Which is four refs rather than the suggested two, but closer to minimalist than my original 16 refs, which can stay here on the talkpage until somebody wants to work through them for backstory details. As for other articles, my plan was to add Barry's name to the Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates article (probably in a separate section preceding or perhaps following The Twenty), and also stick in Peter Thiel and Ted Cruz, who have received media attention despite also not being on said list.    47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. Yesterday's news and speculation are not encyclopedic material. Think of the WP:10 year test as well. — JFG talk 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be correct, but that conversation we should move over onto Talk:Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates. I would like to retain the list of contenders, as we are presently retaining the list of contenders for cabinet-level roles.  Getting your name in the local paper as a potential mayor of podunk is not worthy of a footnote-to-history ten years later, but getting your name in the the national news repeatedly as potential a SCOTUS judge, on average at least once every other month from August 2015 through August 2016, is worth a footnote.  I just added the footnote, here in the BLP article, obviously, but I think it also belongs over in the potential-nominees article.  Especially since I expect multiple SCOTUS openings. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't think Barry's potential nomination was a big enough campaign issue to need more than a half-sentence in the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article itself... and probably nada in the broader Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 although since Cruz was also involved during the coverage-burst it might get mentioned in Cruz'16... and would likely insert such material at section#7 Relationships with people and groups (which ought to be renamed 'Campaign Issues' and combined with section#10 Controversies methinks) into a new subsection called Supreme Court, or perhaps that could become a paragraph under the existing Relationships with people and groups: Conservative movement subsection. But ridiculously, either there is currently NO mention of the SCOTUS picks in the entire Trump'16 article besides the infobox, or my ctrl+F key must be broken.  Barry's role as a potential scotus nom was brief, but the *issue* that there would be a new scotus nom was pretty damn important during the cycle!  The only stuff wikipedia has about the scotus is the infobox link, the conspiracy theory that scalia was murdered, and the conspiracy theory that potus hillary clinton would repeal the second amendment.  Sheesh.  Presumably the SCOTUS-related material was lost from the main Trump'16 article when the Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump was spun off.  Barry (and Thiel and Cruz) can share a sentence there, as names receiving media attention which were not on the list-of-twenty, and then a summary of the subsection can be restored back to the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article someplace sensible.    47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be relevant to add. Trump put out his list relatively early in the campaign; then he expanded it once. Neither Cruz nor Thiel nor Barry were ever on it. On the other hand, I agree with you that the article should mention the issue of SC nominees other than from a sensationalist angle… Good luck with that :) — JFG talk 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump's first list was in May 2016, his second in September 2016. The repub primaries & caucuses were *over* when he put out the list(s), in other words.  If memory serves, Thiel and Barry were the main speculation during 2015, and Pryor and Sykes were also mentioned heavily in the first four months of 2016 (the latter two made the lists whilst the former two did not).  Scalia's demise was the switchover point from Trump's early namedrops to Trump's later namedrops, but it was not a clean-cut break.  Interestingly, speculation that Cruz might be a SCOTUS nom peaked *after* the lists were announced... because Cruz visited Trump tower one morning, the list-expansion was announced to the public by Trump that afternoon, and Cruz endorsed Trump that evening (roughly speaking).  As also noted, just because Trump has released lists, does not mean he cannot change his mind -- or 'clarify' that he was just being truthfully hyperbolic with the list-thing, down the road.  See also, multiple open seats, and Trump not saying he will stick to the list *other* than for Scalia's seat. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Any objections to these schemes? Also, is the portion explaining Barry's low profile during the campaign, not proper for this article?  Throughout the campaign, Barry herself had remained characteristically silent in public, as was her long habit.  I thought that bit explained both wikipedia's silence on her campaign activities (she had none!) as well as gave some insight into the biographical subject's persona (very distinct from her younger brother).  47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could say a few words about this, yes. Maybe just Barry refrained from public comments during her brother's presidential run. — JFG talk 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. I added some wikilinks and tweaked a few of the specifics, but largely cut-n-pasted from our discussion above.  Feel free to WP:BEBOLD and fix up anything that needs additional improvement, please.  If you reply here and I don't respond promptly please leave a note on my user-talkpage.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Names of ancestors
The last names of some ancestors of Maryanne Trump are spelled differently in this Ahnentafel ("Drumpft") than at Family of Donald Trump ("Trump"). You said in a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump that you have good sources on the Trump branch in Germany. Could you confirm that Maryanne's table is wrong, so we can correct it? Could you also check other names in related articles? If that helps, I could prepare a template to add those tables consistently in all relevant articles from a single source. Thanks, — JFG talk 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There have never been any other spellings besides Trump. When Friedrich Trump, the German grandfather of Maryanne and Donald, arrived in NY at age 16, his last name was incorrectly registered as Trumpf. And then there is the root of the Drumpf hype in the States: kind of a speculation about an ancestor back in the 17th century who was named Drumpf by Gwenda Blair in her book The Trumps. As for Drumpft, there is no basis at all. This is just a fake. I corrected such fakes or well-meaning mistakes in most of the relevant articles, partly more than once. It's like a fight against the mythological Hydra. – I am happy if you call me for advice, but I am not into regular involvement in your part of WP. Even in the German one I needed a handful of clones to do all the important things that nobody else than me is able or willing to do. And I still don't get it why I keep to be the only wikipedian worldwide to use The Trumps and Pozar's Melania biography. And why nobody bothers to grip those Donald biographies. Also worldwide. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming the information. Right, "Drumpft" is not even valid German, "fake news" I guess! — JFG talk 04:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Law school is not graduate school. It is professional school
Law school is not graduate schoo. It is professional school. Does Wikipedia have an editorial policy regarding calling law school “graduate school”? It may be spoken of in that way in a casual sense but it is not correct.2600:1700:F220:B0E0:EC9A:CD4:8EEF:C000 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"sharply critical" statement
The intro to this article currently reads:
 * Maryanne Trump Barry (born April 5, 1937) is an American attorney and a retired United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, appointed by President Bill Clinton. She is the eldest sister of U.S. President Donald Trump and has privately been sharply critical of him.[1]

That last bit is today's headline but is not typically the kind of thing that floats up to the top of a biography. It's certainly worth having a section about it in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the first paragraph. I made that adjustment and User:Cullen328 reverted it, suggesting that consensus should be gained here before it can be removed. Do folks have thoughts?--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that her criticism of her brother will certainly be a significant part of how she is seen by history. As for it being in the first paragraph, the lead currently consists of a single paragraph. Rather than removing her criticism from the lead, a better solution would be to expand the lead to better summarize her life and career. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't ever remember being so certain that the most recent Trump presidency bombshell was going to remain right near the top of the historical picture of Donald Trump. This does indeed belong in the lead.  Cullen has a good idea about how to improve the lead.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with soibangla (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the "sharply critical" statement from the opening paragraph. This page is about Maryanne Trump, and her recent statements do not define her career. As editors we cannot speak to her state of mind about her brother as she has not yet responded to the recording, and neither has her brother. One criticism does not mean that she does not support her brother, and I do not believe this belongs in the opening paragraph. More information is needed and this statement paints an inaccurate picture that feeds a biased political narrative more than it educates the reader on who Maryanne is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.253.245.124 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Err...What??? She did not make "one criticism"--she went all the way back to when he was young and she said he was a brat and a cheater.  He lied to get into college.  He has no "No principles.  None.  None."  He is cruel.  This is just barely scratching the surface.  I'd say that it sounds pretty "sharply critical" to me.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored that to the lead, as there is clearly no consensus to remove it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There was never clear consensus to add it, so I have removed it again. We can further discuss and come to a conclusion, but this is very clearly politically charged and you will see so if you think rationally. Maryanne has criticised Trump, however the phrase "she has been sharply critical of him" carries a negative connotation and implies that she has been critical of him more than twice and to a deeper degree. This implication is magnified when you put this statement in the opening paragraph of her biographical page. Furthermore, a recent media scandal and leaked recording do not present enough evidence to make a claim with these implications. Clarification and response is needed from Maryanne and Donald before anything should be added to this opening paragraph.

In response to Gandydancer, these claims are not "scratching the surface" of anything. All we know for sure comes from.a 60 second recording. You cannot fill in what another person you have never met thinks about someone you seem to dislike and also have never met. Id urge you to reflect on your statement as it does not make rational sense and is not rooted in objective reality. A biographical page is meant to present objective facts on a person. It is not meant to present a politically charged narrative with minimal evidence based on an audio recording released within the past 24 hours with no additional corroboration. That is just bad journalism.
 * First of all, the recording and the trancripts were not "leaked". They were openly released by Mary Trump, one of participants in the conversations, to the Washington Post (which is a reliable source) in accordance with the law of the state of New York. Donald Trump has already responded dismissively, as have White House officials Mark Meadows and Kayleigh McEnany. However, none of them nor anyone else credible have contested the accuracy of the quotations, and therefore the quotes should be considered as factual and accurate. I guess that you consider factual journalism that you do not like to be "bad journalism", but your personal opinion holds no weight. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As a leading participant in WikiProject United States courts and judges, I am dubious about placing this very current event in the lede. It may end up being historically important, but is there any reason we can't wait until after the election to make that decision, to avoid giving the conspiracy-minded the impression that we are promoting this content for reasons unrelated to its merit? BD2412  T 21:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. She's no longer a judge. soibangla (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither are John Marshall or Learned Hand, but we still maintain their articles. Her primary locus of notability was being a federal appellate judge. She would be notable for that even if she was unrelated to Trump, and if she was never a judge, her relationship to Trump wouldn't guarantee her notability at all. BD2412  T 21:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There was never clear consensus to add it Is prior consensus required before making any edit? soibangla (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not, but if the edit is contested, consensus is required to keep it. BD2412  T 21:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , if there anything that I am certain of, it is that we should not make editorial decisions based on catering to the whims of conspiracy-minded readers. That's the path to mediocrity. As for the historic significance, I am convinced that this will be a major part of any future coverage of MBT or the Trump family. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It may well be. However, there is no WP:DEADLINE, so there is no harm to the article in delaying a decision on this point for 72 days and change. The criticism is already recorded in the article, and after the coming election it will probably exist for as long as Wikipedia does for these matters to be addressed. BD2412  T 21:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be "a summary of its most important contents", and the current version of the lead fails that standard, unless you consider her comments about her brother to be "unimportant". If that was the case, why would White House and Trump campaign officials as well as the president be discussing it with reporters? I object to delaying this until after the election, which is not a deadline on Wikipedia. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am merely expressing an opinion here that there is no immediate need to resolve this question. Obviously, if there is a consensus for the material to be included right away, that consensus will be implemented, but we live in an age of bombshells that blow over in the next 24-hour news cycle, and are forgotten. BD2412  T 22:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. My point was not to eliminate this information from the page I simply contested putting it in the lead when the information came out 24 hours ago. If you read my comments I stated that further corroboration is needed. My main concern was with the apparent value judgement made with the phrase "sharply critical". More information and a rewording to stay relevant to the times but at the same time neutral makes the most sense in my view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.253.245.124 (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)