Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jørgen88 (talk | contribs) at 00:58, 23 February 2016 (→A picture of the back of Trump's hair? Really?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeDonald Trump was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Donald Trump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Donald Trump in The New York Times

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

"...each article is a palimpsest of added or deleted nuggets, often several in a single day..."
They inadvertently omitted the word "hundred", methinks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're not all "nuggets".--Jack Upland (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Sarah Palin is very angry they brought up "palimpsest".--Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loser.com

Loser.com redirects here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeninventor999 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cite errors

There are four cite errors in the references section - can someone please fix them? Wammes Waggel (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citation errors appear to be from the section [[Donald Trump#Presidential campaign, 2016|]], which contains text from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. I can certainly fix the web cite and accessdate errors on that page, but I'm not so sure about the broken reference name. Maybe replacement text? Me, Myself & I (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm finding the web cite/accessdate errors rather hard to find. Can you kindly point out the ones you speak of? Me, Myself & I (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-right

Discussion on how to relevantly incorporate Alt-right in to the Donald Trump article has began in this link below. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-right#Donald_Trump Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to lead

At RFPP [1], WikiUser2244 has proposed some non-trivial changes to the lead, namely replacing the sentence:

Trump's politically incorrect, anti-illegal immigration politics, which also concentrated on terrorism and national security concerns, earned him support among working-class voters, as well as widespread opposition from Hispanics/Latinos, Muslims, business leaders, and other Republicans.

with:

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

This is proposed on the basis that sources are not cited in the lead for the longer, more detailed statement, and that it does not mirror the later statement in the article, "...earned him support among working-class voters and voters without college educations amid heavy and frequent controversies in the news media."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems reasonable wording as far as it goes, but not as a blanket replacement. My concern is that there are likely other sources in the the article for "widespread opposition from" various demographics (and if not, some can be found in under 1 minute; there is no question that the statements are correct). It's not that the lead is making a unitary unsourced claim; rather it is doing what a lead is supposed to do, summarizing various material in the article that is sourced lower down. It's a general principle that stuff in the lead does need to be sourced there but only if it's likely to be controversial or challenged. Anything at all like this is controversial and likely to be challenged, so the lead simply needs the sources for those claims added to it, even if WikiUser2244's particular wording tweak is also used as a substitute for part of it. The only danger would be WP:OR, in the form of synthesis that "leads" the reader, e.g. if it said something like "because of his position on national security concerns, he earned the enmity of Hispanic voters", an implication our sources don't make and that we should not draw (they suggest that it was because of his anti-illegal-immigration perspective, which while it relates strongly to national security concern, in Trump's views, to Muslim immigration, it does not to Hispanic immigration).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Donald Trump

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

Reference named "ReferenceA":

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

Bone spurs?

Is this all just a quaint story or is it the actual real reason he didn't serve in the Vietnam War? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC) [2][reply]

The lead picture in the "Bone spurs" article was even worse than the one here. If I was a Knight Templar, I would respond to you with the appropriate template. WP:EYESORE? With regard to your question, we in the World of Wikipedia do not speculate and we do not make unsubstantiated claims against living people or orang-utans. For example, if you said that Trump was cowardly, unpatriotic, or dishonest, you would have to provide reliable sources. Personally, having worked in real estate, my faith in Trump's veracity is as boundless as a dead kangaroo. Even if he hadn't been spurred out of action, clearly his hair would disqualify him. In closing, can I remind all editors that this is not a forum to discuss Wikipedia policies.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes EYESORE certainly springs to mind, sorry. But plenty of other sources, which don't have the gall to label him a "cowardly draft dodger": Washingtom Post, NY Daily News, Pundit Fact, Politico, even UK's glorious Daily Mail. Take your pick. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop providing links to websites with offensive images, please! I've had to take an overload of eyewash. But, yes, there are reliable sources that suggest that Trump's explanation might be spurious, but clearly this remains a bone of contention. If only Trump had had the foresight to join the (h)air force like George W Bush, he would have been able to serve his country with distinction like Douglas Bader rather than having to resort to limp excuses.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actual IQ?

For Donald Trump's IQ score, I see online speculations from a wobbly 90 to a firm 160. In this Washington Examiner item, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-i-have-a-higher-iq-than-george-will/article/2577023, Trump is quoted as saying: ". . .he has a higher IQ than conservative pundits George Will and Karl Rove. . ." For that to be true, however, Trump needs to know the scores of Will and Rove and his own score. He offers no real details, though, so I suspect that this is a blustery speculation as well. He has said over and over at his rallies that he has a very high IQ, perhaps even among the highest. Is there any impartial source that states an actual score or at least an expert observer's ballpark number? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His net worth claim is $10B. Forbe's estimates it at $4.5B. If he claims an IQ of 160, and we assume the same level of exaggeration, we can estimate his IQ at 72. Joking aside, this is not worthy of discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't want to make the "Personal life" section any denser than it already is. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If those hair-raising figures are true, then he would been an asset to military intelligence if he'd ever put his boots on the ground.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, I'd agree with Objective3000 regarding one's IQ. However, since both Trump and his supporters make such a big deal about it, they have made it a topic of discussion. If the actual number is sourced for real, then it's relevant. Meanwhile, Objective3000's calculation seems to be well thought-out. And I like Martinevans123's pun. Touche! Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I notice a very long section on "Allegations of business with firms linked to organized crime" in Trump's entry. I suppose such ties would be a given for anyone doing business with New York firms What? Objective3000 (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Roy Cohn was Trump's lawyer for a time, a man who did represent Mafia figures and was highly unethical. This is certainly not an overt indictment on Trump, but perhaps not the best lawyer for him to choose out of so many available. He spoke about Cohn recently during an interview. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I was questioning is his suggestion that all NY business firms are Mafia-associated. Matters not. His POV clearly comes from fringe sites. Objective3000 (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

People previously made a similar point in comparison with John F Kennedy: why are his mafia ties not mentioned? That's a valid point, but my response is that they should be mentioned. The American people need to know whether their Presidents were crooks. Similarly, maybe there is something missing from Hillary Clinton's article. I think there's been a surge of interest in Trump, who has not been seen as a serious political contender until comparatively recently. The page information shows that this page has had twice as many recent edits.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not on his presidential campaign. It is on Trump. As he is known as a builder, and two Mafia families were involved in the construction of his signature building, that would seem appropriate material. As far as Ms. Clinton, I am not aware of any "scandals". And, I am not going to follow a WND link. WND has been publishing that she is a lesbian for over a decade. Objective3000 (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

So? Keep it on the TALK page, not in the Article. -- AstroU (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about New York Jewish Mafia lesbians? Why is there not an article about them? Liberal bias!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to tag this article with NPOV issues. I agree that we don't need to be commenting on Trump's hairstyle, nor do we need to be using the words "fodder for comedic remarks". NPOV really does need to be adhered to, especially in cases of politicians - there's an essay which states that as a general rule you should not be able to tell an editor's political stance from reading the article. The whole "hair" thing could be a violation of WP:BLP or even WP:UNDUE. --Ches (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is nonsense. His hair has been a subject of discussion for decades -- a subject which he himself has discussed innumerable times and which he recently lampooned himself on SNL. I don't know what essay you refer to; but is there a single WP article on a politician where the political stances are not discussed? The POV claims by the editor that started this thread all come from WND, a conspiracy site. No one has brought up an actual NPOV violation. Objective3000 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Objective3000 - if I confused you, I meant the editor's political stance, not the politician's. If we're going to talk about Trump's hair, we may as well talk about Hilary Clinton's hair. Or Jeb Bush's. Completely insignificant. --Ches (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"If we're going to talk about Trump's hair, we may as well talk about Hilary Clinton's hair [..]", I'm not so sure.. as said here, his hair has been discussed much, even by him. I'm trying to be impartial here (does NPOV apply to an article, or across all candidates, or possibly an unbounded number of other articles?), I'm not even a US citizen, so I can not vote there. Shouldn't each article be considered on it's own by NPOV, or BLP-issues concerning the target person only, without looking at (possibly all) others? He was already known before, can we erase someone's past (what's already in an article, considered, ok at some point), just because you later run for office? comp.arch (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood. But, no one has pointed out how any of this article shows any editor's POV. As for hair, I think you are missing the fact that his hair has been a matter of massive discussion for decades. It has been mentioned many times by The NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, CNBC, NPR, Forbes, the gamut of reliable sources. He talks about it himself on a regular basis. This is not true with Clinton or Bush. Objective3000 (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone interested in the hair should read this before rerunning the same issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Upland - precisely. The consensus for that discussion seemed to be that it would be silly to add a section on Trump's hair. This article is no place for humour or jokes. It's obvious that whoever added that dislikes Trump (as do the majority of us, but the editor still has a bias). Best, --Ches (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ches, if your problem is with the hairstyle section, which has been discussed on this Talk page many times, put an NPOV flag on that section and open a new discussion here. An NPOV flag over the whole article is unhelpful and non-specific. Thanks. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks Vesuvius Dogg - I'll sort that out. Best, --Ches (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's Standing as Leader of the 2016 Republican Candidates

According to a New York Times and Wall Street Journal poll [3] Ted Cruz is leading the candidates. I'm still a noob, so I'm not totally sure how to go about this edit, but is this viable to edit or at least add as an annotation? Guitargeek98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it belongs anywhere, it would be on the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article. Frankly, it could be an outlier and could be WP:Recentism. Objective3000 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

political positions

The current version of the political positions section [4] refers to Trump's current positions. It does mention that they have evolved over time. But I think that's insufficient. A biography should not just focus on the present WP:RECENTISM; past times should get considerable weight. But that's a big enough change that I thought I'd get some reactions here first.CometEncke (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed split

An editor appears to be quite insistent about splitting this article.[5] But as a simple matter of process, such a major change needs to be discussed here first.CometEncke (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand where the unease is coming from; it is a big change. During the Political positions of Donald Trump split, I viewed the changes as more negative than positive and I made the case against the change in talk and worked for consensus with WP:DONTREVERT in mind. However, the reversions from CometEncke and MrX seem to be solely that the change is big and not specifically discussed in a particular format in talk. Again, I understand the concern, but I'm not aware of any policy supporting that. If there is a WP Policy, please cite it. On the other side of that, I can readily point to several policies that support my edit: WP:BOLD WP:EDITCONSENSUS WP:DONTREVERT and WP:DRNC
I see no argument explaining how my edit makes the article worse. I spent a significant amount of time on it and was very WP:CAREFUL. If there is a particular problem with my edit, please cite the WP Policy. Otherwise, the reverts appear to be in violation of the several policies I have cited. Yourmanstan (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that by removing Trump's controversial policy positions, this article become very non-neutral. Relative few reader drill down into sub articles. We just went through this at Marco Rubio. I have no objection to a split, as long as we leave a point-by-point summary of all of his major political positions as they are currently presented in this article. The summary needs to be written before content is removed. Major changes to major articles such as this should always be discussed first. It's OK to be bold, as long as you stop being so bold when another editor objects.- MrX 18:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't see how you can possibly justify such a large change to such a sensitive article at such a sensitive time without any discussion. Discussion is obviously required. Forgive me, but linking to numerous policies instead of discussing obvious concerns looks like WP:Wikilawyering. Objective3000 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MrX for trying to bring up a specific concern and fair point. I do completely welcome legitimate criticism. But to address MrX's concern, MrX or anyone is welcome to further edit, such as transcluding Trump's major political positions. Reversion of my edit remains in violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR in addition to the other policies I have cited. It is not WP:Wikilawyering, and even if it were, that is an essay, not a policy. This was a good faith edit and is exactly the spirit of the wp policies Yourmanstan (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stan, try to take a look at what you've done so far and what the effect has been. If you want to split, you need to build consensus. At the moment, you've managed to get three users objecting. The reason is that you are trying to throw a lot of policies at the wall, rather than working with us to satisfy our concerns. Take a deep breath and listen to what people are telling you.CometEncke (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comet, yes there are three users objecting. I'd love to satisfy each of your concerns but so far the only concern raised is by MrX and I addressed it in talk a moment ago. The WP policies exist specifically to instruct each of you to not revert for the reasons you have given, that is why I cited them. If there is a WP policy that gives stronger instruction against my edits for being 'too big' or something like that, I'd be happy to know about them so I can do a better job editing.Yourmanstan (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BRD. Also see the warning at the top of this page to be bold, but not reckless. Making this large a change to one of WP's most viewed articles (most viewed 2nd week in Dec) without discussion is reckless. I would also suggest that repeated links to policies instead of discussion doesn't tend to convince most editors. Objective3000 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Straw poll

Indicate whether you support or oppose splitting out the political positions, provided that we leave a robust summary in this article.

Threaded discussion

The summary should be written into the article before removing the bulk of the political positions material.- MrX 19:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a summary must be developed first. But, that does not look like an easy task given the contradictions and shifts, sometimes within hours. Objective3000 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"sometimes within hours". Ok, assuming true, then how does WP:Recentism not apply? IHTS (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An idea

It is really hard to know how to approach this since it seems like I'm getting stonewalled. The best I can tell is there seems to be some concern about a POV issue caused by summarization... nothing to do with the split itself. I suspect the particular issue is this edit in the newly created article. To address this, I have set the Politics of Donald Trump to to match the content currently on the main Donald Trump page. This way the transclusion will not affect the content on the main Trump page. The purpose of the split is to help organize content so we can start to resolve the sync issues, bring length in line according to WP:SPLIT, reduce the recentism and have long term perspective and well done summary of content. You can read about those issues in talk here: talk1 and talk2 and talk3 and talk4. I believe this is already a consensus position, but in an effort to be a good citizen, I'm happy to give some time for others to respond. Yourmanstan (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that does not represent my concerns at all. Please see my previous comments, which have nothing to do with the content of the sub article and everything to do with keeping a summary of Trump's political positions, candidacies, affiliations and controversies in this article.- MrX 00:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, please re-read what I wrote. I'm saying the "summary of Trump's political positions, candidacies, affiliations and controversies" will remain in this article. Yourmanstan (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Mr.X. has it exactly right. We need an existing, accurate, consensus summary in place before a split can occur. That is a lot of work, yes. As the person wanting the split, the onus is on you (Stan) to get it done; others may or may not want to help. It's not a tactic; it's just the way things are. I'm not sure exactly where such a summary should be drafted, but it was done on the Rubio article and/or Cruz articles recently, so there must be a place and there must be someone who knows. I've been quite skeptical of your split so far, yes, mainly because you have not made any apparent progress on the relevant process, and instead continue to insist that policy demands we just do it, which is simply not the case.CometEncke (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is around summaries and not the transclusion. I've submitted an edit and you can see nothing changes in the main article. Yourmanstan (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yourmanstan, that's not how it works. If you have a problem with the current summary then propose an alternative. What I can say is that if you continue blanking you are likely to get blocked. The warning I placed on your talk page should not be taken lightly. Let's work together. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somedifferentstuff please read the edit. The summary did not change. Yourmanstan (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand how WP:Weight works. The fact that Donald has been the front-runner for a very long time on the GOP ticket means that this article, including what he's done politically, needs to be represented in this article as reported by reliable sources. Completely removing the political content from this article as you did here [6] and again [7] and again [8] is a blatant POV violation. You then copied and pasted the content into a "new article" [9] simply because you wanted to. What are you doing? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not read the edit. Here is the article before my edit [10]. Here is the article after my edit [11]. This was not a 'blanking'... the main trump article reads the same. Yourmanstan (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a friendly note. You are going to be blocked if you continue to make very large changes during discussion, particularly given the sensitivity of this article. Keep in mind that discussions can take weeks on substantially smaller edits. Objective3000 (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of the back of Trump's hair? Really?

Is that how Wikipedia wants to be taken as, a joke? Why don't we put up a picture of Obama's fat negro lips while were at it LOL Jørgen88 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=706384403"