Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 82

Archive 75

←

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

"Racial views" need to be balanced

There were numerous discussions about Trump's purported racial views at Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump. In particular, it was hotly debated whether that article included Trump's views on racism and race relations, or merely perceptions of racism by his critics. The jury is still out. See for example Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 2#The title chosen for the article. The examples chosen in that article tend to imply racist motives, but other examples from Trump's life tend to imply inclusiveness. Strangely enough, when we add a racist-sounding event, it gets vindicated, and when we add a clearly non-racist event, it gets discarded. Examples: Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump#Removal of Palm Beach clubs, Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump#Trump donated Wall Street office space to Jesse Jackson's PUSH Coalition. Compare these:

• Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio (a white man criticized for racist profiling): he's definitely racist!
• Trump pardoned Jack Johnson (a black man convicted on racist grounds): not a word on the "Racial views" page…

Such an attitude does not sound encyclopedic to me. — JFG ^talk 10:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's cherry picking. You want balance? American balance or global balance? By the standards of a majority of people in most countries outside the USA, Trump is, without any doubt at all, a racist himself, and smart enough to use racism as a political tool. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Cherry-picking goes both ways, and that's precisely what we should avoid as Wikipedians. Actually, Trump has attacked people irrespective of race, gender or political party. When he attacks a black politician like Barack Obama he is considered racist, and when he attacks a female politician like Hillary Clinton he is considered misogynist. When he attacks a conservative politician like Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz, he is considered a traitor to Republican values. When he attacks a veteran like John McCain he is considered disrespectful to the military. But when he praises Martin Luther King, when he hires Ben Carson, when he pardons Jack Johnson, is he racist? When he appoints Nikki Haley, Linda McMahon or Gina Haspel, is he a misogynist? When he wants a military parade, is he smearing the military? (Oh right, then he's a childish dictator…) Everything he does is viewed under a lens of evil symbolism, and that is quite puzzling to behold for a dispassionate outside observer of American politics. — JFG ^talk 11:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That reads almost as if you're trying to prove that Trump is inconsistent and hypocritical. Is that your point? HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite the opposite: he seems very consistent in not caring about race, gender or political affiliation. And in my book, that's the exact opposite of a racist, a misogynist or a partisan hack. — JFG ^talk 11:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

JFG, It's helpful that you forthrightly concede that these issues puzzle you. That's much more constructive than saying they do not exist. But the consensus of editors here accepts RS reporting that these issues do indeed exist, and although they are at times complex, cloaked, or controversial, we are past the point of glib denial of any of them. SPECIFICO talk 11:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

JFG, the editors here are by and large well-read and thoughtful. When you promote your POV by claiming, e.g. that Arpaio's problem was "racial profiling" (fuzzy, controversial and political) rather than the serious crime for which a US court sentenced him to prisonconvicted him, it's very unlikely that editors are going to seriously consider whatever parts of your argument may actually have some merit and result in article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 11:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Arpaio was never sentenced to prison. In fact, he was never sentenced at all. And if he had been sentenced to serve time, it would have been to jail, not prison. Facts, and knowledge of them, are important -- as well as being thoughtful and well read. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 11:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is jail better than prison? Weird. Maybe it's some strange American thing. HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Prison and jail are two very different types of incarceration with different legal involvement and government jurisdictions. Nothing weird about it and definitely not just an "American thing". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the arrogant, unhelpful response. They are NOT different things in my country. Why do you think I asked the question? Where in the world DO they differ? Got a formal definition? HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

In the US it is a somewhat loosely defined difference between a local place of incarceration such as one run by a city or municipality where inmates are either awaiting trial or serving short sentences that are usually not felonies whereby prisons are usually run by a state or the federal government and house inmates convicted to serve longer sentences (like more than a year) and/or felonies.[1]--MONGO 04:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's any comfort, this distinction is also nonsense in the USA, where Federal facilities are uniformly called "prisons" and that's where folks chill after criminal contempt of Federal Court. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I will accommodate you by revising to "convicted him" - the meaning is the same and then you can reply to the substance of my remark -- or not. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"Accommodation" was neither requested nor necessary. But, I am glad you accepted the correction in good faith. I saw the substance of your comments to be chastising JFG and reminding him editors are well read and thoughtful before you stated incorrectly the result of Arpaio's trial. Hence, I believe already commented on the substance when I pointed out the misinformation in your retelling of events. Plus, it's important for those reading this to not be mislead by the furthering of bad information, which is why I corrected you. That kind of good faith effort should be the focus and substance of most comments regarding encyclopedic knowledge, don't you think? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I have no personal opinion about Joe Arpaio, never heard of him before his pardon came to the news. I strongly object to your trying to discredit my arguments by accusing me of "promoting my POV" because I wrote that Arpaio was indicted for "racial profiling". I was only reading what is documented in our articles about this man and his pardon, namely: In the case of Melendres v. Arpaio, Arpaio's office was found to be racial profiling Latinos and ordered to stop. Arpaio was found to have violated the court order, resulting in a finding of criminal contempt against him. The article does not mention any other indictment than contempt of court for refusing to answer charges of racial profiling and cease the practice. If there are other charges, please enlighten us and add them to the relevant articles.

Now this deflection is out of the way, I'd love to read comments about my actual point, which compares the pardon of a white man to the pardon of a black man, and wonders why an encyclopedic article or section on Trump's "racial views" should expound on the first and ignore the second. — JFG ^talk 14:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, your deflection is not "out of the way" because if you do not understand that you have again (this time very explicitly) misrepresented the facts and the RS accounts, then you should not be citing that matter in an editing discussion here. Note that this is based on an assumption that you have in good faith misunderstood the issue. As to your second point, the fact that you are holding "white" and "black" out as the relevant issues in a matter relating to US law or the Presidential power to grant a pardon, is itself a fundamentally racist POV and is precisely what we're trying to avoid here. The essence of prejudicial thinking and attitudes is to tag folks with race, religion, creed, or other classes when the actual facts on the table relate to the merits of a specific instance of action, law, or other principle. Again, this is not a disparagement of you or your motives, it's an indictment of the ideas and arguments you are trying to advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 14:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice. I was countering your deflection, and I did not misrepresent anything. I won't argue further; readers of our dialogue can make up their own mind as to who is deflecting and how facts are represented. Plus I take note that you just called me a racist. Cool story, sis. — JFG ^talk 15:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And speaking of "the merits of a specific instance of action", that was exactly my point. Was the pardon of Arpaio morally justified? Probably not. Was the pardon of Johnson morally justified? Definitely, absolutely, unambiguously yes. But we mustn't talk about it in Wikipedia because of the "Trump is a vile racist" trope. Sigh. — JFG ^talk 15:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A good place to start is with multiple reliable sources that cover "other examples from Trump's life tend to imply inclusiveness" in a racial context, and that establish due weight. The case is not made by an editor using original research.- MrX 🖋 12:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. And that Jesse Jackson nonsense has already soaked up plenty of editor time here and been put to bed. It was rejected. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The case is made by applying good editorial judgement and non-partisan views. Trump’s views have been expressed predominantly from a one-sided perspective; i.e., journalistic opinion and publication of the views of Trump’s detractors (biased) which appears to dominate for various reasons, but that does not address the issues of DUE, BALANCE or NPOV overall...the latter of which states that we include all relevant views. Omission of relevant views is noncompliant with policy. We also need to focus less on journalistic opinion and look to more academic opinion. For example, a view that is relevant and encyclopedic was presented by Carol Swain in Campus Reform. Include it using in-text attribution, and that is also how we should include other views per policy instead of lump sum news views that tend to be political in nature. An interesting article that speaks to the latter was published in Psychology Today but I’m sure there are higher quality sources available, although the author of that article is Ruth C. White, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.S.W. who passes the RS source test. Also keep in mind that if we’re going to start labeling people racist, there is hardline evidence in the Congressional record dating back to the 50s and 60s, and some of those people are still in office or public life today - just look to see who voted in opposition of integration and supported segregation. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC) PS: I can’t remember the academic sources Drmies suggested to me a while back or if they were related to racial views but they were also academic, so if relevant here, maybe he will weigh-in.

One of those sources has nothing to do with the subject of this article and the other merely shows that a conservative television analyst and former professor of political science has an opinion which is at odds with the widespread view that Trump makes racially provocative remarks and has taken actions perceived as racially motivated. There are also a few scholars comprising a tiny minority who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. - MrX 🖋 14:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"the other merely shows that a conservative television analyst and former professor of political science has an opinion" Let's be sure we are concise here (because knowledge and facts are important for people writing an encyclopedia) and give an honest perspective: that conservative television analyst and former professor at Vanderbilt is a Black woman with a Ph.D. She grew up in poverty, dropped out of high school, was a single mother of three at age 21 who supported herself and her kids by working at McDonald's while getting her GED. She went to community college while still raising her children and continued on to get her undergrad and graduate degrees, eventually achieving her Ph.D. and after that, a Master's in Legal Studies from Yale Law. All of that background, all of that education, and having her scholarly work cited by two Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court makes her "opinion" on Trump and racism/misogynism quite relevant as well as important. And certainly much more relevant and important than anyone who is not Black, not a woman, wasn't raised impoverished/extremely disadvantaged and has no proof of Trump's alleged racism/misogyny while maintaining he is a racist sexist. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This conversation needs to be closed. It was started by a sock puppet. The consensus and the reliable sources all link birtherism to racism. There was a recent RFC and consensus was reached on some things; no new consensus is reached here. That's not up for dispute. If someone has a concrete point to make make it, otherwise let's discuss real article issues and not abstract stuff. Andrevan@ 18:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the birtherism thread should be closed, both because of the socking and because it's kinda pointless. However, the present thread about Trump's racial views in general should remain open because the conversation is only starting, and the sock is not involved in it; accordingly I have changed it to a level-2 header. — JFG ^talk 20:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• +1 agree with JFG. I started reading the Racial Views section in this article, and the first thing that caught my eye was the 1st sentence in the 3rd paragraph which is clearly spun to support a particular POV as the following will demonstrate:
• First sentence in WP article states:

Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he described Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists.[290][291]

• In the cited sources, Time, and Sky, both quote Trump (the Time quote includes a bit more than the Sky quote) as follows:

“They are not our friend, believe me,” he said, before disparaging Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

• See 2018 report by the Center for Immigration Centers, and this BBC report. I think the paragraph needs to reflect what editors are obligated to include per NPOV (WEIGHT & BALANCE) and BLP. There is far too much omission, even when it's included in the cited sources as what I just demonstrated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Adding New York Times, 2016 ICE stats, USA Today, and whatever else you want to read. 00:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should include, "and some I assume are good people"? I'm all for that. Gandydancer (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You think using a source with a 'study' that has been debunked and labeled an anti-immigrant hate group provides "weight and balance"? You believe listing a story from the BBC about a drug tunnel proves that "Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists"? I have to wonder what kind of thought process one has to have to believe these are NPOV. Dave Dial (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying to cite the sources I included - you're free to skip the ones you don't like or read none at all - but please keep your comments focused on the omission of material that was in the already cited material, and not the thought process of other editors. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you seem to be saying that because there are stories of actual drug trafficking and cartels, and immigration enforcement, that therefore Trump's comment about Mexican immigrants is justified. What I think is important to understand is that Trump's blanket statements about immigrants being rapists or traffickers are racist regardless of the statistics of how many people that statement actually describes. Even if 51% of Mexicans were criminals it would still be racist. Do you disagree? I realize we're veering off-track a bit relative to issues of sourcing or article text, but I'm really shocked that you are offering this material as proof that Trump was making a defensible, and not racially-motivated point. Andrevan@ 00:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"Even if 51% of Mexicans were criminals it would still be racist." Xenophobic, maybe. Racist? No. Talking about criminals who come from other countries is not "racist". If he had mentioned the color of their skin, I could see the racism tag being applied. But commenting on the people coming into a country illegally from another country is not racist. After all, if Trump had commented on anyone coming here from Canada illegally who committed crimes -- that would not be considered racist, would it? Of course not. This is an encyclopedia. The hope is that editors helping to write the encyclopedia would know the difference between racism and possible xenophobia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's the thing - it doesn't matter if you or I can split hairs successfully about whether the true descriptor is "xenophobic" or "racist." It matters what the sources say. If there's a reasonable dispute about what the sources say we can hash that out in depth, and ultimately consensus wins the day. The sources tend to describe Trump and his actions, behaviors, and other stuff as racist. If there's a minority view that it is "xenophobic" only, that may merit a sentence in a sub-section depending on how WP:FRINGE it is. Andrevan@ 01:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What reliable sources (and not opinion pieces) declare Trump's comments as quoted above to be racist? And if the actual term for his comments are xenophobic, who really cares if it's a minority view or not? I know I don't on a personal basis. Right is right, regardless of whether it's accepted by a minority or majority of people overall. And honestly, that's a big part of the problem with consensus decisions in Wikipedia: a consensus borne out of the majority being dead wrong doesn't make the minority view any less correct or true. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be saying you reject NPOV. If so, you should not edit articles where you do not accept the consensus view. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how you got that out what I said, but no -- that's not what I'm saying at all. My editing history should speak for itself in that regard. I go with the consensus view and fight for NPOV constantly, full stop. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that view even rises to the level of FRINGE. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why don't the people that feel the article is biased add some edits to the Analysis section at the Racial views article. There are around 12 comments by recognizable names that say he is a racist. People that are asking for balance could start there by adding equally well-known people who say he's not. Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

True we should be trying to prove a negative. Everyone is racist these days, kind of sad. Similar to a lot of articles about right wing issues transformed into the derogatory alt-right with challenges to find sources that say the subject is not alt-right. PackMecEng (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's my take on it: The part of Trump's quote that gave it proper context - And some, I assume, are good people - was omitted, and it belongs in the article. It is not our job to "justify" anything or RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and we should not be stating opinions as facts or cherrypicking quotes, or stating seriously contested assertions as facts, we state them as opinions. Contentious labels or value-laden labels are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

1. The 1st sentence in that paragraph, which is stated in WikiVoice, omits part of the quote which changed it's context. That needs to be fixed.
2. The 2nd from last sentence in that same paragraph states: "His remarks were condemned as racist worldwide," which is also in WikiVoice, and that needs to be replaced with in-text attribution.
3. The 2nd half of that sentence states "as well as by several members of Congress."

I looked for the quotes in the 3 cited sources and all I found are allegations of racism by Congressional Democrats and the statement issued by the Haitian government. Following is the source breakdown:

• Vox (1st cited source) supports neither the statement "several members of Congress" nor around the world condemnation.
• WaPo (2nd cited source) reported that Gutiérrez (D-ILL) said, "The answer is this racist outburst of the president." That was the only statement about anyone in Congress using that term that I could find in that source. Keep in mind, the statement itself is alleged, and what is considered a seriously contested assertion (by Trump & others who attended that meeting) so it falls under WP:REDFLAG;
• Politico, (the 3rd cited source), reported that the Haitian gvt. issued a statement "that Trump’s remarks reflect a “racist view of the Haitian community”" - referencing an alleged comment that was denied. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tweeted, “I could call @realDonaldTrump’s comments racist, vile and disgusting because that is what they are." Black Caucus chairman Cedric Richmond (D-La.) and Rep. Richard Nadler (D-N.Y.) condemned his racist statement. All I've found so far is partisan-based. Haiti's statement doesn't support "condemned as racist worldwide" to be stated in WikiVoice.

In summary, the aforementioned is why I believe the 3rd paragraph needs to be rewritten to (1) accurately reflect what the cited sources say, (2) be compliant with V regarding WP:REDFLAG challenged claims "with an apparent conflict of interest". Per the Neutrality section in V, (and NPOV) ...use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed and support the change. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose rewriting para, because there are a zillion more reliable sources that we can add to support the description of that sentence as racist. But if what you're asking is to add that "and some I assume..." part, fine, go ahead. Andrevan@ 02:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Here is a link for There's no other word but racist': Trump's global rebuke for 'shithole' remark[2] Are you sure that it's a good idea to include the names of all of the (many) congress members that commented on the shithole remark? I have no prob adding the "and I'm sure..." wording. Gandydancer (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Gandy, an example (very rough) could be something like...several Congressional Democrats responded to Trump's alleged *&%@* remark, including Gutiérrez (D-ILL) who said, "The answer is this racist outburst of the president" (putting it in the context of whatever his comment was in response to) or something along that line - or...instead of Gutiérrez go with Black Caucus chairman Cedric Richmond (D-La.) and Rep. Richard Nadler (D-N.Y.) condemned Trump's racist statement ....(quote) yada yada." Remember when Obama said Libya was a *&#@ show? It was downplayed pretty quickly before it became an issue - media defended it. All forgotten today. Anyway, I would not venture into trying to make Trump's alleged comment appear to be more than what it is as far as long term encyclopedic material goes. We still have a few more years left to add content. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, re the remarks from Congress, other than changing "several" to "many", which is more accurate (we list nine at the racial views article but many were trimmed when the list grew too long), I see no reason to changes the wording. However if you feel that it would be more balanced to add a name I'd suggest John Lewis. As for comparing Trump's remarks to one that Obama made, there is no comparison IMO. Obama condemned rich white nations for the mess/shitstorm in Libya while Trump called several black nations shitholes which resulted in worldwide condemnation. Gandydancer (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Fact: Democrats are the ones calling Trump's alleged statement racist and that's what we are obligated to keep in perspective and out of WikiVoice. We can simply say "several Congressional Democrats responded to Trump's alleged *&%@* remark as being racist" which complies with NPOV and BLP policy. While there may be no perceived comparison between the two statements, the facts I attempted to make known are (1) Obama actually said those words, he never denied saying them, and the media agreed with him, regardless of his reasons, excuses or whether or not anyone believed it and (2) in Trump's case, the statement was repeatedly denied, the allegations were made by his opponents, and there is no factual evidence that he actually said those words, much less in the context his opposition believes they were said. We are discussing the inclusion of racist allegations against a BLP based on allegations made by his opponents. Let's at least try to get this BLP right by attributing the bias per policy. I'm not arguing for exclusion, I'm arguing for DUE and BALANCE because like it or not, we're still dealing with an unsupported allegation that lacks evidence - it's a he said/she said allegation - and the denials are as equal in weight as the allegations. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, To add Democrat's congressional reaction would be fine with me as it is more accurate. As for your memory of the incident, it is far from accurate. Here is an overview of it: [3] If you are calling the incident a lie made up to harm Trump you are calling an awful lot of people liars, including people who are not known for lying. Whereas Trump is famous for his lies. Perhaps there were some who saw it as a he said/she said incident but by and large the world did not. The heads of nations responded; even a UN spokesperson responded with condemnation. This incident in no way even comes close to a comparison to the Obama's statement. Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: "And some, I assume, are good people." If anything, that makes Trump sound even more of a racist, so add it by all means. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Since we’re now continuing the discussion as if it hadn’t been started by a sockpuppet and as if this former subsection were a new and separate discussion, and since - with references to the closed discussion in the mix - it got too convoluted to tell who was responding to whom or what, just adding this opinion below what's here right now.

• JFG: This is not the Racial views of Donald Trump article, so you may want to move your arguments concerning that page over there. Also: "…Joe Arpaio, never heard of him before his pardon came to the news." So the Stephen Colbert persona was right: "Wikipedia - the encyclopedia where you can be an authority even if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about." (Let me help: CNN, NPR, in case you want to continue this on the other page. Arpaio wasn’t just criticized for racist profiling, a court ordered him to stop racial profiling practices, and he was convicted of contempt of court because he ignored the orders (he just can't be punished for it). BTW, having been pardoned doesn’t make Arpaio innocent, and it doesn’t wipe his conviction off the records.)
• There is an archived discussion from four months ago; this looks very much like a continuation of it so it should be unarchived and continued properly.
• Balance? As in, "OK, so he makes racist remarks all the time, but we need to balance that by adding that he doesn’t mean it because it’s just Trump-speak, and we all know he’s not racist because he says so." I had a good laugh at was a bit puzzled by the proposed "balancing" of the first sentence by adding "And some, I assume, are good people." That sentence just drove home what Trump was doing, i.e., generalizing (Mexicans in general are this and that), and that’s exactly what the current sentence expresses; Trump didn’t say ALL, and Wikipedia doesn’t say that he did. The added sentence (saying he’s guessing based on little or no evidence that some may not be) makes it worse, so go for it. Nah, just kidding; it’s fine the way it reads now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

To your first point, that's exactly what I said after reading all the Arpaio articles we have: he was indicted convicted (not sentenced as somebody pointed out above) for contempt of court after refusing to answer charges of racial profiling and stopping the practice. Some other editors mentioned unspecified "serious crimes" and I invited them to bring those to the relevant articles if any. Now, once again, why do y'all only talk about Arpaio's pardon and not about Jack Johnson's pardon? (third time I'm asking, and all I hear is crickets). — JFG ^talk 13:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sylvester Stallone recommended the pardon to him, a pardon is not an annulment of the conviction, and the dead man probably doesn't care. Maybe Trump would apologize for his very public condemnation of the Central Park Five if Sylvester Stallone were to tell him that that was the right thing to do. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Arpaio was convicted, not merely indicted. The case did not enter the sentencing phase because of the presidential pardon, but the conviction still stands. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up "indicted" with "convicted". While editing this comment, I had initially written "sentenced" but noticed that was wrong, and changed it to "indicted"; convicted it is. This should assuage SPECIFICO's concerns as well. — JFG ^talk 19:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

To your second point, this discussion is legitimate here because the "Racial views" section takes up a significant amount of real estate on Trump's main bio, and it looks slanted because it only mentions accusations of racism citing various incidents, while deliberately ignoring other events that would speak against racial animus in Trump's actions. Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I'd rather have a proper discussion of bias on this talk page rather than fighting over NPOV tags in the article text. — JFG ^talk 13:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Not discussing article improvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG (talk • contribs) 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
JFG, we can presume you've read and understood everything in this thread prior to your most recent comments. So why -- after it's clear that in the matter of Arpaio we are discussing a person convicted of criminal contempt of court, a felony under US Federal law -- do you misrepresent the facts by stating that Arpaio was merely "indicted"? This misrepresentation confuses and biases the conversation, deflecting discussion away from the core issues raised above that might lead to constructive improvement of article text. A felony is by definition a serious crime. Did you not know that when -- after reading this entire thread you referred to "unspecified serious crimes"? SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "This misrepresentation confuses and biases the conversation, deflecting discussion away from the core issues raised above that might lead to constructive improvement of article text" It doesn't misrepresent or bias the discussion any more than your misrepresentation of Arpaio as convicted and sentenced to prison. Was what you said in error because you were ignorant of the facts surrounding Arpaio's case or was it intentional to bias a reader/commenting editor who was themselves ignorant of the facts? Could JFG have merely misstated the facts here innocently? Let's give them the chance to correct the record rather than accuse them of intentional and calculated dishonesty, just as you were given an opportunity without accusation to correct what you said, yes? WP:AGF is still policy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Wink, I didn't accuse JFG of anything. In fact I asked him what happened. There are many possible explanations and I assumed none of them. BTW, as you know, I immediately corrected my slip of the tongue when I said sentenced instead of convicted, so bringing this up over and over will only confuse editors who arrive now to assist with this question. Not constructive, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC) It's good to know you aren't accusing JFG of intentionally misrepresenting the truth and attempting to bias readers via that alleged misrepresentation. Your comments to him above, however, convey something else. Glad to have the record on that cleared up. In regard to the next part of your comment, "bringing this up over and over will only confuse editors who arrive now to assist with this question", allow me to point out your assessment of our editing community as stated yesterday: "the editors here are by and large well-read and thoughtful". [4] Considering your analysis of the average Wikipedia editor, I truly doubt anyone is going to be seriously confused by reading JFG's comments. Wouldn't you agree? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Sorry, Wink, but my words conveyed absolutely none of the accusation you imputed to them, and so I did not clear anything up -- I simply reminded you not to make false accusations that have no basis in fact. You are welcome to visit my user talk page if you wish to complaint about anything you want, but it's not helpful to publish that kind of stuff on widely-read article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "Sorry, Wink, but my words conveyed absolutely none of the accusation you imputed to them. As I stated above, "It's good to know you aren't accusing JFG of intentionally misrepresenting the truth and attempting to bias readers via that alleged misrepresentation." -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC) @Winklevi: This talk page is littered with your accusations against other editors, where you've made some big mountains out of some little molehills. Lots of WP:CRYBLP stuff and claims people are editing in bad faith, when they simply aren't. Keep your guns holstered and whip them out only when there's really something worth complaining about, because boy is this getting tiresome. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Selective reading, Scjessey? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC) @Winklevi: Yeah, also comments just like that. ::: kisses fingers ::: -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC) I concur with Scjessey, Winkelvi. You're being disruptive with all the confrontational off-the-mark commentary about other editors. Having said that, I won't be sucked into the vortex of one of your interminable "debates" about it, so the last word is all yours bud. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:, to resume the editing discussion, now that you've hatted various editors' remarks, let's get back to what is on the table, given that you've read everything in this thread prior to your inexplicable comment about nobody demonstrating a "serious crime". Now that you have conceded that, in the matter of Arpaio, we are discussing a person convicted of criminal contempt of court, a felony under US Federal law -- do you deny that this is a "serious crime"? If so, this confuses and biases the conversation, deflecting discussion away from the core issues raised above that might lead to constructive improvement of article text. A felony is by definition a serious crime. Did you not know that when -- after reading this entire thread you referred to "unspecified serious crimes"? Thanks SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem more astute than I am regarding criminal vocabulary of the U.S. judicial system; I'll defer to your expertise. In your prior remarks, I had the impression that you alluded to other "serious crimes" that I would have failed to notice. That does not seem to be the case, thanks for the clarification. — JFG ^talk 20:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Note that in my oft-stated concern about your use of English to insinuate POV in politics articles, I have not said this was an intentional deception. I have noted that the bias always seems to align with a particular pro-Trump viewpoint, but by itself this would not prove malicious intent. I do think that it would be helpful if you would try to be more receptive to the comments you get about such issues here. Small twists of language and sentence structure can make a huge difference in these American Politics articles, whereas the wording is not anywhere near as critical in most other topic areas on WP. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm always receptive to polite and good-faith commentary. Let's not see POV insinuation where we all wish to improve article quality, tone and balance. — JFG ^talk 21:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Add note about House & Senate investigations

"Similar investigations were begun in the House Intelligence Committee, which closed concluding there was no collusion, and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is ongoing." Andrevan@ 18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That would need to be more like, "The House Intelligence Committee opened a similar investigation, but it was terminated by the Republican majority, who stated that there was no collusion. A parallel Senate Intelligence Committee investigation is ongoing as of May, 2018." SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good Andrevan@ 18:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

OK with me. May as well insert. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at what Time reported - they quoted the HIC: “While the committee found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian government, the investigation did find poor judgment and ill-considered actions by the Trump and Clinton campaigns.” Of course, it's no surprise the Democrats would object and call foul - the same would happen in reverse - but we have to ask ourselves, where is the evidence? If they have it, turn it over to Mueller because he doesn't have any, either. The articles of our past presidents are excellent guidelines - especially Barrack Obama which was promoted to FA. It wouldn't hurt to refer to it every now and then, and I would think it would be quite helpful to review the discussions that took place during the FARs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing on the table about the Clinton campaign, Obama, Jefferson, or others for this brief addition to the article. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, could you elaborate as to the nature of your objection to this text? Andrevan@ 19:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if I left you with the impression I objected. APPROVE <--- does that help? I should have stated that first but for good measure I added that the HIC admonished both sides, and would not object to using their conclusion as in-text attribution with the added material. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Where do you suggest to insert this? — JFG ^talk 19:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

In the lead, directly after Trump's claim of "no collusion." Andrevan@ 20:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Would look a bit overly detailed there, wouldn't you say? Surely can be mentioned in the "Investigations" section, which needs some update and text improvement anyway. — JFG ^talk 21:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Not the lede. The investigations section. And I do favor using something like SPECIFICO's version, making it clear that the House Intelligence Committee report came only from the Republican members and not from the full committee. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously over-detailed for the lead. The investigations section is reasonable (I did create it for a reason :)). Agree with more using SPECIFICO's version, though it could be better phrased. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

White supremacist support

In August 2016, he appointed Steve Bannon—the executive chairman of Breitbart News—as his campaign CEO; the website was described by Bannon as "the platform for the alt-right."[424]

This seems like WP:OR. The citation makes no mention of white supremacy. Those words don't even appear in the linked article. 24.51.215.40 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No, not OR.[5] Andrevan@ 03:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Then the Bannon quote should be moved elsewhere or the citation changed. The citation as it stands doesn't support the claim in the heading. 24.51.215.40 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope - it's already in Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016 which is actually where it belongs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The material should remain here as it is. Andrevan@ 19:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump's inspiration (Early life and education)

Context: [6][7] ―Mandruss ☎ 18:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Dane Suggest you revert your reinstatement and take it to this Talk page, per warning of active arbitration remedies. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Was the content you removed added recently? I don't believe so (the remedies apply to reinstating edits not material) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

From what I see Space4Time3Continuum2x removed longstanding material here and Dana challanged the removal here. The material appears to have been in the article since at least March 8th. If that is the case it is not a DS violation. PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That's correct, and bullet 1 of the restrictions is quite clear on that point. Dane disputed an edit by S4T3C2x and S4T3C2x has to seek consensus for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Space4Time3Continuum2x for raising your concern here. At this time, I stand by my revert. The information is sourced and relevant to the section in my opinion and removing it creates a fractured section that doesn't flow as smoothly. I am aware of the discretionary sanctions that apply to this article and I have not violated those and will not violate them. -- Dane ^talk 18:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support first sentence as fairly standard bio information. No opinion on second sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Dane,Mandruss,Galobtter I hadn't noticed that I removed the sentence preceding the one about Trump being inspired. Sorry about that, it was unintentional. The second sentence is unencyclopedic and IMO misquotes the source. So how do I remove it? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You seek consensus to remove it, right here. If you get said consensus, you or anybody else removes it. If not, not. As I indicated, I have no opinion on that sentence, so I'm useless here. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Well, after a closer look I'll agree that it misrepresents the source, significantly spinning it in the Trump-favorable direction. On the other hand, if you represent the source accurately in wiki voice, you're cherry-picking the Trump-unfavorable. I think Dane's concern about fracturing and flow might well be different now that you've clarified that you only seek to remove the second sentence. I think I would either remove the sentence as relatively unimportant, or replace it with a quote attributed to the authors of the book. In the end it's just their opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Mandruss. Also, I would shorten "After two years, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, because it offered one of the few real-estate studies departments in United States academia at the time." to After two years, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, the only Ivy League undergraduate business school." (per Kranish & Fisher, p47 "the sole Ivy League school with an undergraduate business school", or paraphrase differently if necessary). Also, since Trump has boasted of being the top student at Wharton, perhaps the section should mention that there is no evidence of that. zzz (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC) + 20:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• The reference to William Zeckendorf is meaningful in this bio, as one of the precious few hints about Trump's drive to become "big in Manhattan" instead of just managing his father's ventures. About Wharton, I'd remove the mention of "because it offered… at the time", that sounds more like an ad for Wharton and the causation is probably a matter of opinion or hearsay only. — JFG ^talk 19:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Seems to me that we have consensus to remove the sentence, with three editors agreeing, one opposed, and one, Dane, having left the discussion (has been editing since Mandruss's notification). Other editors have removed other parts of the two sentences Dane reinserted, and nobody has objected. Aside from that, there's also the egregious mispresentation of the source. The pages cited in the article are 47,50,104,105. 47 & 50 mention Zeckendorf, but not Trump's father. The preview doesn't show 104 & 105, so I got ahold of the book. Talk about cherry-picked, out of context, and - I believe - intentional misrepresentation because how could anyone overlook one of three men mentioned, the third one being Roy Cohn. Quoting from page 104: "In his book, Trump: The Art of the Deal, Trump plainly spelled out his media philosophy, the product of three men who influenced him and New York's unique media environment in the 1970s and 1980s–his father, Fred; developer William Zeckendorf; and Donald's lawyer, Roy Cohn". And on page 105, finally the word inspiration: "Fred Trump knew the value of good publicity. As a young developer, he routinely sent out press releases promoting his latest projects, somethimes referring to himself as "Brooklyn's Largest Builder." Donald's touch for the dramatic probably drew more inspiration, however, from another developer. Zeckendorf employed a press agent to keep his name in the papers, ideally in stories emphasizing his lavish lifestyle, or announcing outlandish building plans that never came to fruition. As Donald started getting press in the late sententies, some reporters referred to him as a young Zeckendorf. Trump was flattered, even if Zeckendorf's company did end up in bankrupty." So, there you go, JFG, another hint about Trump's drive: vanity. (I'm also adding copycat to Trump's resume.) The NYT article mentioned on page 105 is available online. Good read; the earliest mention I've found so far of some of his recurring themes: Swedish, graduated first in his class at Wharton. Quote: "Mr. Trump, who says he is publicity shy, allowed a reporter to accompany him on what he described as a typical work day." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wharton teaching real estate seems relevant and a dtermining factor, Ivy League does not. Inspiration by father or others seems a bit WP:PEACOCK but not horrible.Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Praise of Roseanne Barr's Show

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.

---

Why no mention of all his praise for Roseanne Barr and her show? 24.51.215.40 (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably because nobody is surprised by Trump supporting a racist. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Has he done so since it became obvious she was? Maybe you read The Onion? [8]--MONGO 13:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hardly a major part of his life. O3000 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's your one warning re: BLP TPG, HiLo48. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48 did not call him a racist. He said nobody is surprised by him supporting a racist. You could call this snarky. You could also call it a valid argument for non-inclusion. Up to you if you want to AGF. O3000 (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The article already does anyway.--MONGO 13:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the article already does in regard to Trump. Roseanne Barr, however, is still a BLP article subject. Just because HiLo48 didn't call her a racist on the Roseanne Barr talk page doesn't mean doing so here is not a BLP talkpage vio. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winklevi: You're doing it again. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Here we go:

“ Bob Iger of ABC called Valerie Jarrett to let her know that “ABC does not tolerate comments like those” made by Roseanne Barr. Gee, he never called President Donald J. Trump to apologize for the HORRIBLE statements made and said about me on ABC. Maybe I just didn’t get the call? ”

Donald J. Trump

- MrX 🖋 15:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

So? You can't honestly be saying this latest news should be in the article right? PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Let's see what else he says or does, and proceed accordingly.- MrX 🖋 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's just say I wouldn't be super surprised if something like that happened. PackMecEng (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh ffs. I mean, still well away from being notable enough for here; but comparing a racist tweet to news coverage about himself - oooof. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

He's not endorsing her tweet with that tweet. Not even close.--MONGO 16:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended content
References

Leave it out. This is Trump's biography. His response to a flash-in-the-pan news report about someone else is way, way UNDUE. (P.S. I have no idea what Winklevi's archiving comment means.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I closed the discussion as it was generally generating unhelpful/uncivil discussion not leading to any article content (the subsequent discussion here confirms that was pretty much a good idea; this discussion, and I'll have to admit, my comment above on Trump's tweet, are not really constructive). Winkelvi added a reply after my close and reclosed it with that comment Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop with the revert war. All of you. Hatting or not hatting - who cares, really? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be added. But, I also don't think the discussion should be closed by what appears to be vandalism. O3000 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. There is no edit being discussed. Let's see what else he says or does, and proceed accordingly. is a crystal ball and comparing a racist tweet to news coverage about himself - oooof. is FORUM material. Propose an edit we can discuss or STFU. This isn't the place for that nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:3d30:5e3:ff9d:d55f (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've warned the user about 3RR. As for whether to hat or not, I prefer to wait until a discussion has had no new entries for at least 24 hours before hatting. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:FORUM are policies. I was reverted after being falsely accused of being a banned editor and/or sock puppet. There is no basis for reverting a policy based hat. See WP:TPG for hatting. There is no edit being discussed and the comments are entirely inappropriate. I am not involved in the discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:3d30:5e3:ff9d:d55f (talk • contribs) (UTC)

You have a knowledge of policies and wiki-talk that the casual IP editor wouldn't have. If you have edited as an IP before and have never had an account here (you claim you aren't a sock), what other articles have you edited as an IP that would geolocate to where you are now (which is Chandler, AZ)? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Don’t believe every site that claims to locate IPs. Not sure where this originates, but I’d guess Georgia – and that’s just a guess. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, that question is out of line. People do not have to account for themselves or identify what other accounts they have used. It's clear this is not a new user, but people are allowed to edit anonymously. The only point here is that it is inappropriate to hat a discussion that is still getting comments and has not yet run its course. Also that since this user has hatted it four different times (already violating 3RR), any further hatting will result in a block. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a professional encyclopedia article about the president of the United States. Does anyone really believe that World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica would include stuff like this in their article on Donald Trump? Rreagan007 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we mention the Forbes 400 tapes in the 'wealth' section of the article?

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.

---

Since it seems like everyone has presented their arguments and there are requests for an RFC... this discussion led to debates over whether we should include this edit, which covers tapes by reporter Jonathan Greenberg that he says shows Trump lying in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. The main argument seems to be over whether the topic is WP:DUE (and, therefore, whether it would be a WP:BALANCE issue to include or exclude it.

Some relevant sources: [9], the initial article; secondary coverage in these: [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Include as proposer. The heavy coverage more than adequately demonstrates that a single sentence devoted to this is not WP:UNDUE; beyond that, we already mention that Trump was on this list, and covering that without at least noting a high-profile controversy related to that inclusion is clearly a WP:BALANCE issue. The existence of the tapes is not in doubt (Greenberg has produced them), and their interpretation with regards to Trump lying about his wealth to get on the Forbes 400 does not seem to be particularly controversial, in the sense that no sources have contradicted Greenberg's interpretations and several have unambiguously reported it as fact. This is a high-profile controversy related to Trump's wealth that must be mentioned in the appropriate section of this article to ensure proper balance with the (sometimes primary-sourced) figures already there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include per what I said above. Notable controversy, there isn't a "old stuff" relating to events 30 years ago clause in NPOV for disinclusion, and by the same token would disinclude all his old net worths. As Aquillon says, noting that he is on the list without the doubts/controversies associated is contrary to NPOV, representing all the significant viewpoints there. We should also include all the other doubts about Forbes's figures, which we currently present without comment. E.g, in 1982 his net worth was actually 5 million$ not 100 million$, according to this same article. Doubts about forbes figures were also reported in the 2005 nytimes source which we use the in the article. There is also a lot more coverage about his..very high, ludricuous..claims, as in Trump Revealed, "Yet his claims were questioned, time and again.". We do include the claims, but not how they are questioned - we mostly present the point of view of that of forbes estimates and himself without all the questions about them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include This should be included we but only if we keep it an appropriate size and mention that it is just an allegation so far. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include - as noted earlier => definitely of public interest and reliably sourced - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include: WP:RS. Would be a WP:POV decision not to include.Casprings (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include The proposer's first sentence hits the nail on the head. Greg L (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - edited audio tapes, no proof of dates or authenticity, purportedly dating back 36 34 years when the reporter was in his early 20s. He was an ex-writer for Forbes, so I guess he moved up the ladder 40 years later to become a blogger for HuffPo? Nah. It's just another allegation scraped up from the bottom of the barrel. It has no encyclopedic value. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, can you at least provide a reliable source to back up the claim that these audio tapes have been edited in misleading way? (Also not sure what the reporter's age has to do with anything) Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sound editorial judgment is all that's required - tape 1 clearly isn't the full conversation - it's a 1:47 sound bite - no proof of who called whom, there's no recorded date only Greenberg's word, no way to confirm what the conversation was actually about much less in what context it was taken, it ended as abruptly as it began. The same with the 2nd tape - a 1:07 sound bite - all you know is what Greenberg reported. As for Greenberg's age - he brought it up in the WaPo article: I was a determined 25-year-old reporter, and I thought that, by reeling Trump back from some of his more outrageous claims, I’d done a public service and exposed the truth. I must've missed his exposé while reading his online resumé. In the WaPo report he claims innocence - that he and his Forbes colleagues thought of it as "vain embellishments on the truth"...until 34+/- years later? Meh! And where does his story show up? Front page? No - it's in a Perspective column (opinion piece) that WaPo defines as: Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences. Poorly sourced for contentious material about a BLP (circular reporting counts as one source, and the opinion piece is the primary). He's barely getting any baitclick mileage out of it in the anti-Trump markets - zero lasting encyclopedic value - poof, the buzz is already gone. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. So, razor sharp acumen and unassailable logic of some select wikipedians could be used when the RSs don’t seem to catch on to these drop-dead obvious truths, Atsme. I suppose I might be able to go along with that. Moreover, your proposal seems to actually embrace the last of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars (Wikipedia has no firm rules), though this concept of yours seems to run afoul with the second Pillar (pertaining to citing reliable, authoritative sources) as flawed as the RSs can be at times. Greg L (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As long as observers realize that my razor sharp acumen and logic ^*lol* is also supported by policy including NOTNEWS, V and NPOV, and the guideline that defines RS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include - notable and reliably sourced. Also, including the fact that he was on the list, while deliberately ignoring the controversy about how he got there is a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So you think this comment should be included because an ex-Forbes reporter is a more reliable source than the President of the United States? Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)g

That is a terrible argument, on multiple counts. 1. We're not excluding Trump's viewpoint, nor saying that the report is more reliable than POTUS (strawman), but merely including all significant viewpoints per NPOV 2. Trump's history of exaggeration and falsehoods is well documented and yuge. The ex-forbes reporter, meanwhile, is a investigative journalist who would be fired if he repeatedly lied etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude. This seems extremely trivial. Everyone already knows that Trump puffs himself up at every opportunity. His buildings are the greatest, his TV ratings are the highest, his poll numbers are the best, etc. This is just more of the same thing. This is useless trivia at best. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that it is so common mean we have to address it in his biography? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include - notable and reliably sourced. Trump's primary claim regarding his qualifications for becoming president was that his wealth was proof of his competency. Each and every lie he told that is subsequently exposed is therefore notable. 71.46.56.59 (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

^{^^^NOTE: 3 edits total.^^^ Atsme📞📧 03:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)}

• Exclude - trivia lightly covered tabloid piece, simply not a major action by Trump or significant effect to his life that would make it suitable for BLP. Out of 10 M google for trump I got 39 on this and they mostly seem listed above. Most of those cites are tabloids or unknowns -- skipping past all those kgw, zeenews india, gq, esquire, ktla, hugoobserver, uproxx, pasemagazine, ... whats left? Seems a USAtoday CNN and CNBS is all thats left, 'Greenberg says in a 20 April WaPo piece', so apparently not significant effect or coverage. Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: We should be nice to Donald Trump because if he likes what he reads about himself on Wikipedia, he will be more likely to be nice to Wikipedia. Therefore I believe this unreliable personal attack on Donald Trump should be strong exclude. This unreliable personal attack accomplishes nothing. Brian Everlasting (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if this comment is meant as a joke or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Unconstructive. Off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You already have a grudge against me because I disagree with your opinion to include this personal attack against Donald Trump. It's clear to me from looking at this talk page that you also have a grudge against User:Atsme because she disagrees with your views. Brian Everlasting (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC) I have no idea who you are, so it's sort of hard for me to have a grudge against you. Do we know each other from some other article or something? And... I'm still not sure if the last two comments are meant as a joke or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Once again, you resort to personal attacks instead of discussing the issue. Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I wouldn't include it in the form presented in Special:Diff/837621017, but I'd support including it as a caveat to the sentence He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 list of wealthy individuals in 1982 with an estimated $200 million fortune, including an "undefined" share of his parents' estate. The WaPo reference [24] claims that he was reported to have a $100 million fortune at that time. The NYTimes reference says Forbes gave him an undefined share of a family fortune that the magazine estimated at $200 million. The fact that Trump attempted to inflate his reported wealth in Forbes magazine shouldn't be controversial, and if we're including those numbers, we should mention it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the tapes are relevant but there are other portions even more relevant, as you say, as a caveat. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude 30+ old allegations are encyclopedic or relevant to this article. Sovietmessiah (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Obviously good content about a notable situation. Properly sourced documentation of one more of the deceptions he used to create an undeserved reputation. That it reflects poorly on him is not the fault of the sources or editors, but of Trump himself. The fact that it's a combination of deceptive acts makes it even more notable, and not a passing, insignificant, and trivial factoid. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Fascinating insight that speaks to the kind of person Trump is. Well-sourced, interesting content that is relevant and notable. What's not to love? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include Sources show that it is relevant and notable. LK (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude per UNDUE. Secondary coverage only repeats claims from the original reporting. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thereby proving it's worth mentioning... Drmies (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude as this isn't suppose to be a tabloid newspaper. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Could you explain the relevance of that statement to the sourcing and significance of this content? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include This content is well-referenced and the fact that the incident is 30 years old is actually a good thing for a BLP prone to problems of recentism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include Heavy coverage in RS. Puts the net worth claims already in the article in context. Certainly doesn’t run afoul of recentism/notnews. O3000 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude – Undue old story, apparently unearthed only to smear the BLP subject. Who cares how rich he ever pretended to be? I remember him stating his net worth was "over 10 billion dollars" when he started his campaign. The whole world laughed it off, and professional estimates oscillated between 3 and 4.5 billion. I guess that's "over 10 billion" in typical Trump-speak… — JFG ^talk 10:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Properly sourced documentation of one more of the deceptions he used to create an undeserved reputation. That it reflects poorly on him is not the fault of the sources or editors, but of Trump himself. The fact that it's a combination of deceptive acts makes it even more notable, and not a passing, insignificant, and trivial factoid. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: You already voted above, on May 2nd here. You should strike one of your votes. PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include in this article, or add in here or here. However, the place in the main article in an ideal place to put it. I change my !vote for exclude to include. Emass100 (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• But in that case, how do we let readers know that the wealth figure in this article is a fabrication? SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• If you are referring to the wealth figure he fabricated 30 years ago, I think it is not important that it be included in the main article. Emass100 (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• There's no factual basis for any of the estimates of his wealth. What do you suggest? I would be OK just omitting any estimate of his wealth from all the articles or any other articles where the wealth is privately held and unverifiable. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Exclude as presented. The edit made was deceptive, as its location and wording imply that the ranking he manipulated is the current one when it's actually one from 30 years ago. The information, however, is not unwarranted. I could support something more along the lines of Power~enwiki's proposal, which would be useful for establishing some context to disputes over his exact wealth. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include, preferably in the False statements section. Another important whopper that precedes his presidential tenure. He lied – both as himself and as the fictitious "John Barron" – to get on the list and then lied to the banks with the list as proof of his creditworthyness? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC) And a sentence to the Wealth section, citing Greenberg's WaPO article, e.g.: He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 a list of wealthy individuals in 1982 with an estimated $100 million fortune; for real estate wealth, the list "relied disproportionately on what people told" Forbes because most of the relevant records were not public. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment if I analyze this by the main purpose of why Wikipedia exists and its policies, indeed, we have a WP:POV issue if RS are ignored. Yet, we all know how news like these spread and this is a topic many newspapers we trust would pick up easily. Robertgombos (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: The challenge resulting in removal said that it was "WaPo opinion piece (including 2 other sources citing that same piece) by ex-employee of Forbes...UNDUE, poorly sourced." It is not an opinion when a reporter reports what happened to him in 1982 and has tapes to back up his story. However, another journalist, Timothy L. O’Brien, had already reported 13 years earlier - without naming anyone on Forbes staff - that Trump had bamboozled Forbes into putting him on the lists from the very first one published in 1982 and on through 2004. Trump sued O’Brien for $5 billion for defaming him by contradicting Trump’s claims of being a multi-billionaire. After he lost, he appealed the case and lost the appeal, (too). Also, Forbes has admitted that people have lied to them about their wealth "occasionally" while a Forbes editor said in an interview that it was "not unusual to catch billionaires lying about their net worth — and Trump has a long history of exaggerating his numbers". Since the Forbes 400 figures prominently in the Wealth section, I think the text and the reliable sources I added under the subheading are WP:DUE. Greenberg’s article is merely additional confirmation of stuff other journalists found out years ago, so also WP:DUE. I just added a subsection to Wealth and used Greenberg's recent report as additional confirmation of O'Brien and other sources' reporting. I don't believe that that's a violation of the active arbitration remedies. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - insignificant details based on he said-she said allegations over inclusion on the Forbes list is just plain silly and UNDUE. If memory serves, they had just started that list so it's not issues with a new anything is not unusual. Summaries of major issues/accomplishments are what belongs in the article, not the details of an insignificant alleged screw-up by Forbes. What we need requires long-lasting encyclopedic value, verifiable statements of fact in high quality sources...(1) the alleged Forbes screw-up fails in that regard; (2) Space, we currently have 86 kB (14003 words) "readable prose size", and the material you added made it 88 kB (14244 words) "readable prose size". Considering WP:Article size suggests > 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material) and that >100 kB almost certainly should be divided we should be trimming this article to make room for the important summaries of his life, not all the little details and after-the-fact he said-she said allegations which are so obviously UNDUE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: All of that stuff provides important context. The fact is, the most notable fact of Trump's entire life is that he is a person who exaggerates his wealth, his sexual prowess (and related organs), his importance, his crowd sizes, his effectiveness, the size of his hands, the height of his buildings, and a whole host of other things. In fact, using UNDUE as an argument against inclusion is so deliciously ironic it made me laugh out loud. Anyway, this discussion is nearing its scheduled end with a significant majority of editors in favor of inclusion. I would prefer nobody edits (either to add or remove) content until the discussion has been closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood, but the Wealth section was not well-written and it did not reflect what the sources say. I fixed some of it - cited the NYTimes article which included their analysis of the actual required financial disclosure that Trump submitted, not the "predicted one". I fixed the Forbes statement and why they actually reduced their evaluation. I think you'll find that it reflects what the sources actually say, and flows a little better. We really don't have to tell readers that he exaggerates - the sources do that for us if you'll let them. Read the paragraph and you'll see what I mean. It is better not to beat our readers over the head with a specific POV, just report the facts and they'll get the message loud and clear - that's what I've tried to explain from the beginning...and I do hope one day y'all will find that my copyedit skills are an asset, not a liability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody should be editing a section currently under discussion, and particularly a section that has been "challenged" by editors, regardless of how much of an "asset" any editor thinks they are. You're making content changes, not just innocently copyediting. Please stop and self revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, what I did was copyedit material that was already there, which has nothing to do with adding those potentially "edited" tapes to that section which is what this survey is about. If you still don't understand how DS sanctions work, ask an admin to clarify it for you. Your Nobody outburst was unwarranted, and foolish. I suggest striking your comment because it comes across as BATTLEGROUND when I was trying to have a meaningful discussion with you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include - The article already discusses Trump's wealth and Forbes 400 status, so it would be absurd to omit this aspect, which is supported by numerous sources. In fact, the mere 24 words proposed is probably insufficient considering how it relates to the overall theme of Trump's character.- MrX 🖋 20:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include no more than a single cited sentence. Any more weight given to this factoid would be undue. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude per Atsme and leaning toward Compassionate727's proposal. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• I've requested a close at ANRFC Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

Lollypopkitty11 (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

to write about the wall

•  Not done - Please specify what, exactly, you want written in the article. Thanks, Nanophosis (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Minor Syntax Error, Needs Fixing

In the section titled "Election to the presidency", there is a syntax error/type-o in the second sentence of the second paragraph. The word "observes" should be replaced with "observers". Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by January1614 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)