Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Further reading

User:Graham11, I don't think it's necessary to put a huge tag atop this high-traffic BLP, given that you haven't elaborated here at the talk page as to what you think is wrong with the "Further reading" section. Editors often have ideas about how to improve this BLP, but they don't always tag the top of the article. A couple months ago, I expanded the "further reading" section; I simply went to WorldCat and added what I found there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant,

Surely the level of traffic shouldn't affect whether an article has a maintenance tag placed on it – it's not a 'tag of shame', after all. But anyway, I placed the template in line with its documentation:

Add this to the top of the "Further reading" section whenever:

• There are too many publications listed for this article. (Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications, but the best number for a given article depends on the specific circumstances, and may range from zero to more than a dozen.)
• One or more of the publications in the list duplicates a citation in the references or notes sections.
• One or more of the publications present (regardless of number) is inappropriate for any reason.

Naturally, it was added because of the first criterion, but now that I check, the second applies as well. Regarding the first, the template documentation notes "Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications, but the best number for a given article depends on the specific circumstances, and may range from zero to more than a dozen." The further reading section isn't intended to be a comprehensive bibliography, so the tag was added to suggest that the section be pruned by someone more familiar with these publications than I am. Cheers, Graham (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does the tag need to appear at the top of the article instead of at the Further Reading section?CFredkin (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Also, User:Graham11, can you please provide a link to the policies you pasted above?CFredkin (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a link. Notice it says "Add this to the top of the Further reading section whenever...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the tag doesn't need to be at the top of the article. I certainly have no objection to it being moved to the further reading section provided that the "section" parameter is used. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, really.

Regarding the second bullet, MOS:LAYOUT is clear that that further reading sections should not normally duplicate reference sections.

On the first bullet, the same guideline provides that further reading sections should include "a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" (emphasis added). That makes it clear that these sections are not intended to be comprehensive. Rather, they are curated selections of publications that would be of interest, not a list of everything that can be found on WorldCat. The general consensus as to what that looks like is well-described by the documentation of {{further reading cleanup}}: "Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications, but the best number for a given article depends on the specific circumstances, and may range from zero to more than a dozen." In this case, we have 22, if I recall correctly from when I added the tag. In order for the section to be as useful as possible and comply with MOS:LAYOUT, it would be best to prune through the list to end up with a curated selection of high-quality, relevant material. Graham (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Not that it matters, but as I tried moving the tag, I discovered that there is no section parameter. I'm pretty sure there used to be – or maybe I'm just going crazy. Graham (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines and policies probably take precedence over template documentation. Here's the pertinent guideline, and it advises a "reasonable" number of items instead of any particular number. In this case, 22 books strikes me as reasonable. Also, per the guideline, the list of references is too long to serve as a reading list, so some duplication is okay. Another possibility is to simply re-name the section to "Bibliography" instead of "Further reading" since different guidelines then apply (and we would not be over-burdening readers with too much reading).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, per the guideline, the list of references is too long to serve as a reading list, so some duplication is okay.

I definitely take your point there. We probably oughtn't take duplication into account, in that case.

Another possibility is to simply re-name the section to "Bibliography" instead of "Further reading" since different guidelines then apply (and we would not be over-burdening readers with too much reading).

Hmm, I've never known Wikipedia to have biographies with a bibliography section (as distinct from a separate bibliography article) that includes works that are neither authored by the article subject nor are being used as references in the article (assuming I'm correct in understanding that that's what you're suggesting). Are there any examples of that that you know of?

Wikipedia guidelines and policies probably take precedence over template documentation. Here's the pertinent guideline, and it advises a "reasonable" number of items instead of any particular number. In this case, 22 books strikes me as reasonable.

There's no doubt that guidelines take precedence, but it seems that we disagree over our interpretation of the guideline. And while not formally a guideline, I have anyways understood there to be a general consensus in favour of that provision of the documentation. If you believe otherwise, it would probably be best to start a discussion on its talk page to have that corrected.

Specifically on the issue of reasonableness, I disagree that 22 works is reasonable on a topic as specific as one living individual. (I might contrast that with a much broader topic such as politics of the United States, biochemistry, or Plato.) You noted that "[you] simply went to WorldCat and added what [you] found there." Even if 22 were a reasonable number in this context, given that a further reading section is to be a list of selected works, it is clear that we shouldn't have them in the article simply because we know of their existence through a bibliographic database. Graham (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Graham11, items in the "Further reading" section either support material in the article, or could do so. A bibliography can be defined as "a complete or selective list of works compiled upon some common principle, as authorship, subject, place of publication, or printer." So I think re-naming this section to "Bibliography" would be appropriate. If the list becomes too long, then we can start a separate article, analogous to List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton. Okay?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I still have the same question as before:

Hmm, I've never known Wikipedia to have biographies with a bibliography section (as distinct from a separate bibliography article) that includes works that are neither authored by the article subject nor are being used as references in the article (assuming I'm correct in understanding that that's what you're suggesting). Are there any examples of that that you know of?

Graham (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I could go look, but I don't think it's really relevant. If a separate article about a facet of someone is acceptable, then invariably such material can go in the main BLP of that person if there's not yet enough material to justify a separate article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification

Are you serious?Ernio48 (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Atiru, this BLP has 589 footnotes. Tagging the top of the article with a big notice declaring insufficiency of footnotes is inappropriate. If you think a particular section lacks footnotes then put the tag there, and come discuss here at the talk page. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing "Investments" section?

I'm trying to figure out whether the "Investments" section fails the WP:UNDUE test. For example, reading this:

"Trump also has US$9 million invested in hedge funds.[146] He earned US$6.7 million from selling shares in Bank of America and an additional US$3.9 million from selling Facebook in 2014"

or this:

"Trump also has US$9 million invested in hedge funds"

I'm struck by how little money - for a billionaire - appears to be involved. Investments totaling (say) $30 million dollars would be 1% of his net worth if that net worth were $3 billion - and even then, Trump could well have borrowed (on margin, for example) in buying that (hypothetical) $30 million dollars of investments.

More importantly, compare the sources cited in that section, versus (for example) the sources available on the topic of the Trump Shuttle, which gets far less coverage in this article. (It almost certainly involved losses to Trump, personally, in the tens of millions of dollars, but that's not the point - the point is that media coverage was far, far greater for the shuttle than for Trump's investments, while this Wikipedia article has them reversed.)

In short, unless someone can show that there are a lot more reliable sources that have discussed Trump's (meager?) investments than are listed, currently (it's telling that the section starts with citing a press release, which absolutely fails WP:RS), I suggest deleting this entire section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, especially as it doesn't seem supported by reliable sources and this is a BLP. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Stuff like this makes sense in an article on Carl Icahn. Seems trivial here. Objective3000 (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually I think it is quite significant because some politicians might speak against private prisons and own shares in CCA for example. But I am not sure if political candidates have to disclose this. It would be useful if an expert here could let us know what the legal requirements are for presidential candidates.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It also raises the concern that HRC has not disclosed her own investments, as far as I know. But are presidential candidates required by law to disclose which companies they own shares in and how many? (I don't know.) To answer your question about Trump more directly, he owns a lot of buildings and a lot of land. It might make sense to create an article called List of buildings owned by Donald J. Trump, actually. But is the information public?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps List of properties owned by Donald J. Trump, to include golf courses etc. --Hordaland (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I have found Category:Assets owned by the Trump Organization. This raises the question, is he the sole proprietor (100%) of the Trump Organization? Or do his children (and possibly others) own a share of it? Are all his buildings owned by the Trump Organization, or some by himself separately? What about the buildings developed by his father--does he co-own them with his siblings? Do they still collect rent from those buildings?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

To answer some of your questions, I believe once elected president, a candidate is expected to put their holdings in a trust and not have anything to do with the transactions due to conflict of interest. I assume, as his children are running his business now, they would simply continue to do so but without his input. On his income, I know he collects rents on buildings. He owns 40 Wall Street, for example, where he collects rents and has a 200 year lease on the land under the building from the Hinneberg family of Germany. On who owns his buildings. All property is in pubic records of the city or town where they are located. The ownership would be listed in each. He owns certain properties personally, like his penthouse in Trump Tower. As for ownership of Trump Tower, it's likely the Trump Organization. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be useful if a New York-based Wikipedian could take some pictures of his buildings for us and upload them on Wikimedia Commons. For example Trump Village, developed by his father.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump has no interest in Trump Village. Objective3000 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Objective3000: Who owns it? Either way, it would be useful to have pictures of his buildings and his father's buildings on Wikimedia Commons.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

As it's a co-op and co-op's are owned by the share-holder residents, it would be owned by the share-holders, nearly all of whom are residents. I don't see any reason to include images of things his father once partially owned. I live directly across the street from a Manhattan Trump building. I have no idea what part he owns and don't care. Anyhow, most buildings that are named after him are not owned by him. It would require an ongoing effort to determine what complex relationships he has with each building as these relationships change over time. Objective3000 (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, Wikipedia does not promote obscurantism. The buildings are not hidden in gated communities; we should have pictures on Wikimedia Commons to improve related articles.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the section - no one has indicated that this isn't a WP:UNDUE problem. The legal questions discussed above are interesting, but (a) the information in the section isn't relevant to those questions, and (b) Wikipedia content isn't supposed to be put into articles in anticipation that it could, at some time in the future, be relevant. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Citations in lead

I would contend that this article requires some citations in the lead. The statement, "[...]he also believes that the quick defeat of ISIS is mandatory" is not actually cited in the article. Trump's statements and positions on ISIS are noted with good references. I would also suggest that statements like this do not belong in the lead.

WP:CITELEAD

"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.

The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

Atiru (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Age

Someone inserted at the end of the lead that Trump would be the oldest president. I fixed this to say that he'd be the oldest person to become president, and I added a tag because nowhere in the BLP is there a cite for that. Anyway, I don't think this should be in the lead at all. A similar passage was removed from the Hillary Clinton lead today on the basis that actual history should be favored over potential history. Moreover, we're tailoring potential history in a way that disfavors Trump, because we could instead say that he would be younger than Reagan was when Reagan was inaugurated in 1985.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on removing it from lede. I'm neutral on whether it belongs in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I must support removing it from the article, per WP:CRYSTAL policy. "An expected future event should be included only if the event is almost certain to take place." At the moment, Trump is not "almost certain" to become president.

Moreover, if the incumbent President were to be removed from Office before Inauguration, or to die, resign, or become unable to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, Trump would never become the oldest person to become president. Rather, Biden would. See job description, U.S. Const. art. II. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it does not belong in the lede.CFredkin (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Nor does the other passage (in § 'Presidential campaign, 2016') that begins "If elected, Trump would become..." See generally WP:CRYSTAL.

Wikipedia does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere. An expected future event should be included only if the event is almost certain to take place.

Trump isn't almost certain to get elected. I'm removing both passages for the duration. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

In rev 733324122, I removed some material from § 'Presidential campaign, 2016', explaining, "rm 'If elected, Trump would... If elected, Trump would...' per WP:FUTURE (include future event only if almost certain to take place); Trump is NOT almost certain to be elected, so no need to mention; see Talk § Age)". In rev 733444723, Gouncbeatduke restored the material, explaining, "Please bring to talk page, this does not appear to be a real WP:FUTURE problem".

WP:FUTURE policy says, "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified", but "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is almost certain to take place". Someone is indeed certain to get elected November 8, but Trump in particular is not certain or almost certain to get elected then. No source has been found that supports such a claim; several sources have been found that contradict it. So this does actually appear to be a real FUTURE problem. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Colleagues Calton & Wikidea: Can you propose a compromise text per WP:EDITCONSENSUS? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I must say that Dervorguilla makes a persuasive argument that the age material deals with a speculative event, contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. I don't mind it in the body of the article, except that it does seem to run afoul of the rules. Ditto any material about potentially being the first president who is whatever. If someone wants to find out if Trump is the oldest non-incumbent GOP presidential nominee then we could include that, except I doubt any reliable source has addressed that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I too will support the addition of such a fact to the encyclopedia (if it's true, which it likely is, and if we find a source, which we haven't.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

So, Anythingyouwant, are you suggesting that if Donald Trump is elected President, there's a chance he WON'T be the oldest? Because that's the only way your "speculative" term makes sense, and I don't think time is as flexible as that. ---- Calton (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The binding authority here is paragraph 6 of section 1 of article II, Calton. And the actual point of this discussion is that U.S. has already chosen to elect a candidate (for vice president) who is certain to become the oldest president if any of the events foreseen in paragraph 6 come to pass during this election cycle (as they have during some previous cycles). In which case, Trump would be certain not to become the oldest president. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Calton: Your summary for rev 733482398 explains, "'Certainty' isn't required for 'if' statements, pretty much by definition." In some philosophical sense, perhaps, but not in the sense clearly intended by the authors of the WP:FUTURE policy.

The 'reasonable editor' would understand the question here to be whether the restrictive clause is almost certain — not whether the main clause is almost certain if the restrictive clause is true. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A "reasonable editor" would note your abuse of the WP:FUTURE guidelines -- which are about presuming predicted events coming true -- with a simple future conditional statement, which bears no relationship -- zip, zero, nada, bupkis, goose egg -- as to its likelihood. "If I were to be hit by a 100-kg meteor, I would be killed instantly" is a true statement that has no dependence -- zip, zero, nada, bupkis, goose egg -- on its likelihood. Your gassing on about restrictive clauses has nothing to do with the probability aspects of WP:FUTURE. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's what the policy says, Calton.

1. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."

Trump's becoming president would indeed be notable. But it's not almost certain to take place. At this time, it's not even expected to take place.

Trump's becoming the oldest president would be notable, too. But it isn't expected to take place, either.

Both events would be notable; at this time, neither one is expected. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggested edits

1. Quote from article: "In 1981, Trump purchased and renovated a building that would become the Trump Plaza. The Plaza later became the home of Dick Clark and Martina Navratilova.[35]" The claims to fame of those two people should be stated, if they are to be mentioned in the article, and any relationship between them should be clarified. (If the two are/were not sharing a home, it should say "became the homes of..." -- or the sentence could be rewritten) I have wikilinked Navratilova as there is only one of her. Does the Dick Clark in the article have a wikipedia article? If so it should be linked; otherwise his "fame" should be clarified.
2. It should probably be sufficient to explain the $2.9 billion just once in the article. It's there twice:

a.) "Trump has claimed that his net worth is over ten billion dollars, whereas in 2015 Forbes estimated his net worth at 4.5 billion, and Bloomberg estimated it at 2.9 billion, with the discrepancies due in part to the uncertainty of appraised property values.[164] Bloomberg raised its estimate of Trump's net worth to $3.0 billion in 2016, ..."

b.) "Estimates of Trump's net worth have fluctuated along with real estate valuations: in 2015, Forbes pegged it as $4 billion,[174] while the Bloomberg Billionaires Index (which scrutinized Trump's FEC filings) estimated a net worth of $2.9 billion,[175] raising its estimate to $3.0 billion the following year.[165]"

I'm just making these suggestions here as I assume that involved editors who are keeping the article up-to-date would prefer to make the edits. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I wikilinked Dick Clark. I cannot fix the other problem yet because each editor is only allowed one revert per day, so feel free to fix it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried to address the rest of your suggestions. Please review to see if it looks okay. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Nicely done, thank you. It leaves me with just one question.

The first sentence, "Trump has claimed that his net worth is over ten billion dollars, whereas in 2015 Forbes estimated his net worth at $4.5 billion, and Bloomberg estimated it at $2.9 billion,[163][164] with the discrepancies due in part to the uncertainty of appraised property values.[165]" has 3 refs. The second one (presently #164) reports Forbes' "Real Time Net Worth As of 8/9/16" while we claim to have retrieved it in September 2014. Perhaps just a typo. --Hordaland (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll just remove the 'retrieved' date & be done with Mr. T. --Hordaland (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Populism sidebar

Removing Populism sidebar (Portal:Right-wing populism) to undo unexplained revision 733614912 by Gouncbeatduke, per WP:BLPREMOVE; unsourced at portal; potentially defamatory; clear BLP vio; apparent POV (see esp. WP:STRUCTURE) (portal doesn't mention US, Republican Party, or Trump; Right-wing populism does mention Tea Party, but Donald Trump doesn't). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I would just like to see some consistency in how this sidebar is used across Wikipedia. It appears on the George Wallace article. Trump is certainly a more successful populist that Wallace; Wallace never got the nomination of one of the two major parties. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Why on earth isn't the fascism side-bar being used, if anything? Wikidea 20:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe because there's no consensus among reliable sources that Trump is fascist? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump's alleged racism

@Gouncbeatduke has put forward an excellent starting proposal to stop the white wash of Trump's racism: "Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism."

One simple word can be added to this sentence: "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist" and racist.

There's two proposals. Let's do both. By the way, administrators have a special responsibility, and especially need to stop the continuation of the "Fox and Friends" state of this page. Wikidea 18:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Admins enforce BLP and discourage unacceptable behavior. Editors resolve WEIGHT and NPOV issues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't we at least put a NPOV tag on this article? Maybe a few NPOV editors will then join the mix? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we please cool off on the accusations? That goes not just for Gounc but for everyone. Everyone has their own personal biases. Labeling and name-calling isn't productive. And a POV tag strikes me as overkill just because some of the editors here want to add a single sentence to the lead (or two words). An {{pov-inline}} tag for the "populist" sentence seems much more appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

He's obviously not a "racist". Ask Dr Ben Carson. This is getting tedious. Can we please refocus on his plan to bring high-paying jobs back to America?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could just rename Wikipedia to Fox&Friendsipedia, at least then people would know that they are reading articles where NPOV editing has been completely abandoned. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I find this a very odd statement. Why should we ask Carson if he is a racist? Why should we focus the article on one aspect? We report. We do not draw conclusions or focus on whatever he would like us to focus on. Objective3000 (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Accusations of "racism" are very damaging, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a tabloid. We simply relay NPOV information from reliable third-party sources. If you want to rant, please find a forum. We are trying to do serious work here.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And yet many of the editors on this article just spend their time removing references such as these

References

Look, first of all, we should always be saying allegedly, unless this is a direct quote. The subhead is not a direct quote, so please don't keep removing the word alleged; that makes Wikipedia look bad. Now, Ryan was trying to distract the media from his picture with all-Caucasian interns. Trump highlighted the judge's ancestry, not his "race" (sic). This is a silly debate because we all know there is only one human race anyway. Finally, his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish; the EVP at the Trump Organization is Jewish; he wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. If you want to look for traces of "racism", please head over there. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The sentence removed today with these references said "Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism". It didn't say he was racist or claim to know what is in his heart. Maybe he is just saying these things to get elected and doesn't believe them, it would not be the first time. George Wallace never spoke about race until after lost his 1958 gubernatorial bid. Then he said "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor." and went on to get elected governor for four terms. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I generally believe that this sort of inflammatory, subjective labeling doesn't belong in a WP article, much less in the lede.CFredkin (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I also find the POV tag overkill, and a {{pov-inline}} tag for the "populist" sentence would be less inappropriate. I also oppose any blanket statement in the lead that Trump is a racist or appeals to racism. Most such claims are based on his opposition to illegal immigration, and his desire to strictly limit immigration from countries with a proven history of terrorism, and both of those are in the lead so 'nuf said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the line removed from the lede today did not say Trump is racist, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim that it did. It said that there are many, many NPOV references for the fact that he has repeated said things that appeal explicitly to racists. He may just say them because he wants to get elected, not because he believes them. I also think the NPOV tag is useful for the lede section, because I think User:Wikidea is correct that it is not currently NPOV, and the current crop of editors is getting nowhere in fixing it, so maybe the tag will help attract some new editors to help fix it. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've edited my last comment accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Allegedly racist and fascist

Can someone explain why these obvious characterizations have not already been put into this article? I just added after "Trump's political positions are widely described by the media as "populist"... - the obvious additions that he is widely described as - "racist",[295] and "fascist".

I expect some people might object to this, because they think it is an insult. No, it's just actually what people are describing him as, and that should be in an encyclopedic article. If it fails to do so, it is utterly bias. This is also important given that the American Nazi party today sees Donald Trump as presenting a 'real opportunity'.

If you want statistics, just google "Donald Trump" and "racist" or "fascist". "Populism" isn't even half of what people are "widely describing". Wikidea 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You forgot "bully", Wik. Citation [295](2): "Editor’s note: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully..."

Citation [295](1) lost me at "COMMENTARY". --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

As for citation [296]: Newsweek ("Is Donald Trump a Fascist?") lost me at "OPINION"; New Statesman at the headline ("Is Donald Trump a Fascist? It Doesn't Matter"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Challenged, poorly sourced, removing immediately per WP:BLPREMOVE. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 03:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." Saying Trump is widely considered to be a racist fascist is an overstatement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I see you removed quite a bit more than the disputed content in your edit, which is poor form at best, and slow edit warring at worst, considering this. Please don't use removing BLP violations as an opportunity to further other disputes. ~Awilley (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for using clear edit summaries.

I understand your concern, Awilley. To (further) clarify: I removed part of the material per FUTURE, part per FUTURE and BLPREMOVE, and part per BLPREMOVE only.

I'm willing to remove each part as a separate edit. But this would likely exacerbate the edit-warring problem; my colleague would understandably feel that he had to revert two of my edits, not just one.

What would you propose instead? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 06:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

My advice would be to revert the BLP violation, and then try to resolve the other matter without reverting at all. Try to understand your colleague's argument and point of view, then try to come up with a creative solution that both can agree on. If that fails, there are plenty of people here willing to weigh in and offer a 3rd opinion. ~Awilley (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Awilley: Thank you for removing ("per WP:BLP") material that had been added by Wikidea, removed by me, and reinstated by Calton against consensus. I think it was reinstated contrary to WP:BLPREMOVE policy and the ARBAPDS decision. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Awilley: You have appropriately advised me (per WP:CON) to "try to resolve the other matter without reverting at all" and "try to come up with a creative solution that both can agree on". Here's a creative compromise solution which doesn't revert.

'Trump is the second major-party presidential nominee in American history whose experience comes principally from running a business (Wendell Willkie was the first). If elected, Trump would become the first U.S. President without prior government or military experience.'

->

'Trump is the second major-party presidential nominee whose experience comes from running a business rather than from government or military service. (Wendell Willkie was the first.)'

More concise, no conflict with WP:FUTURE policy, no actual loss of information. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

While they may seem obvious to you, articles are supposed to represent mainstream opinions. Most consider it unlikely that Trump will jail political opponents or ban future elections. TFD (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you heard the phrase "lock her up" - and (on racism) "build that wall"? Wikidea 16:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't change the talk page heading will you? Are the editors above suggesting that people aren't widely describing Trump as EITHER racist OR fascist? If so, maybe they can explain their thinking with evidence? Google search shows that hit rates for ""Donald Trump is a racist" (over 5m) and "fascist" are significantly higher in each case than "populist". Wikidea 16:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

He's neither. Ask Dr Ben Carson. Unless you can prove it, we need to say "allegedly". There is no proof because he's not. He's opposed to illegal immigration, which simply means he is in favor of the rule of law. He supports legal immigration!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The American Conservative has a new article entitled When Trump Fought the Racists.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

20:54, 9 August 2016

Can someone please review this edit by Jasonanaggie and make changes as appropriate? Portions need to be reverted, as Trump didn't graduate from Fordham, and his degree was a B.S., not a B.A. I would make these changes but I'm limited by 1RR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed this, thanks. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jasonanaggie:, you also need to restore the Wharton School in the lede.SW3 5DL (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wharton School bit is currently being discussed here on the talk page in the thread above named "Wharton School." We haven't had any movement in a little while. Editors are encouraged to participate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I find it lucky for you that an editor who has never edited the article before August 6, would turn up yesterday and delete one of the very bits you were complaining about without even mentioning it in his edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool off please. If you are going to accuse me of socking then start an SPI. Otherwise, and the meantime, please try to be nice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD applies here. This edit has been stable for years. I went back to February 2011. The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania has been in the lede in every iteration from then until you changed it August 6, without discussion, without consensus. Bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, I reverted, we've discussed. Someone came along and removed it again without discussion and without responding to a request to revert himself. Someone who has never edited the page before.

We've discussed it at length with all your concerns about the sources not agreeing he went to Wharton and perhaps he was just a general studies student at the University. Nearly every article, if not all, about Trump and his education mention Wharton. I added the Wharton School Alumni Magazine source, and even the commencement program, both of which also recognize Trump as a Wharton graduate. I added the Boston Globe, which you don't think is a reliable source, showing Trump wearing his gown with the Wharton academic hood. Then you said, well it wasn't concise for the lede. You keep changing your argument. It seems to me this is really about you just don't like it. I am going to restore it. It is sourced, it is stable, it is not bothering anybody. Since this is BRD, it is up to you to discover that Trump did not go to Wharton and that he only graduated from the University with a general degree or whatever you now object to. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't restore it, as that would be disruptive. As it stands we have 2 editors making statements in favor of having this content removed from the lead section and 1 editor in favor of having it restored. If you want the content restored then gain consensus for it first. You have put attributed arguments to be that I have never made. In any case I will respond on the merits above, in the appropriate section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, I agree that this should be put to rest. This source [1] makes it clear to me that the Wharton material should stay: "...after his Wharton graduation in 1968." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff:, thank you. I agree. More sources have also been provided in the thread above Wharton School. Appreciate your comment. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This education sidebar is already far more detailed than Clinton's. There is no mention of any of Clinton's degrees on her sidebar (She has a Juris Doctor degree from Yale, I have no idea what her undergrad was). This sounds like just more POV-pushing to puff up an empty suit. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see | Wharton school on this page. Sources have been provided that show Trump did indeed attend and graduate from The Wharton School. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump University

The following was deleted from the Trump University section with a "doesn't appear to have long-term notability" comment:

During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican." Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have alarmed legal experts, who have expressed concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence.

From what I have read, this is pretty historic. We have never had a Presidential nominee of a major party using his public position to trash the judge in one of his civil cases. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

At this point in the previous discussion, User:Anythingyouwant stated the following: "I would add this."

Mentioning the HNBA boycott without mentioning the reasons for the boycott would not be NPOV, and all that seems like a lot of detail to go into this article. There is no mention of the HNBA boycott in the Trump University Wikipedia article. I would expect to see the HNBA boycott there if it were noteworthy, which I don't think it is. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, you are merely repeating stuff that you said before, because you didn't like the replies before. See the old section that Gouncbeatduke just misleadingly re-named.[2]. Gounc also made it appear that I have already commented in this new section, but I did not, and have removed the duplicated comment of mine from this section.[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears the thread GoUNC started before about Judge Curiel was hijacked and turned into a discussion about Vietnam. So although I probably wouldn't have renamed the thread and started a new one, I don't blame GoUNC for doing that. Can you work with them? Just a word of well-intentioned advice, the two of you need to start working together a bit more productively or I wouldn't be surprised to come back in a month to see an interaction ban or a couple of topic bans. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It was kind of hijacked when Another editor decided to copy and paste[4] a conversation that he and I were having at his user talk page, and then a subheader was removed.. I will try to insert better headers in that old section so that all conversations can continue there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:, excuse me, I didn't hijack anything and I would appreciate you striking that. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I am still trying to get some comment on Trump University. Anythingyouwant recommended including the HNBA boycott in his only-visible-by-following-links edits above. I think mentioning the HNBA boycott without mentioning the reasons for the boycott would not be NPOV, and all that seems like a lot of detail to go into this article. There is no mention of the HNBA boycott in the Trump University Wikipedia article. I would expect to see the HNBA boycott there if it were noteworthy, which I don't think it is. I keep repeating this because I have never seen ANY reply to it, just stuff about Vietnam. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I support inclusion. It is highly significant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the material (with the boycott info) too. Gounc, please stop pasting comments with my signature.[5]. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Question - kinda: Was the judge directly involved in the HNBA boycott (other than simply being a member) and did Trump know (and mentioned) anything about it when he started bashing the judge for his ethnic? Is there any other connection other than a coincidence?--TMCk (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

None of the well-publicized accusations about the judge's memberships (in "La Raza" etc.) have suggested any involvement beyond being a member, probably because membership itself suggests a degree of agreement and support. Most people don't say, "Joe may be a member of the KKK (or ISIS or the communist party) but it's insignificant without more evidence".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No and no. The boycott was in response to the bashing by Trump, not the other way around. And no reliable source has suggested that Curiel has had any connection to the boycott beyond being a member of the HNBA. Regardless, the HNBA issue shouldn't hold up reinclusion of the content about Trump's comments about Curiel. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I would hold it up, because I think it's very pertinent. Much more pertinent than information about organizations that the judge does not belong to. Moreover, even if the judge did not belong to this organization, still it's an organization that has boycotted Trump, which seems notable in itself. BTW, the boycott preceded Trump's comments about the judge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You are so right about the timing, my mistake. As for the notability of the boycott as distinct from the comments about Curiel, I'm inclined to disagree, as the coverage of the boycott by reliable sources has been minimal and only in connection with the Curiel comments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the connection is made by the fact that it is mentioned in the sources.CFredkin (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• So the answer to my question above is no and no and thus unrelated to the bashing. We don't include highly misleading coincidences and any suggestion to the contrary would be a quite extreme POV not suitable outside partisan attack media and sure not in compliance with NPOV.--TMCk (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The Hispanic National Bar Association boycott was in response to the bashing by Trump. This statement is 100% true. It was in response to Donald Trump's comments regarding Mexico sending rapists and criminals to the United States, which the Hispanic National Bar Association termed "divisive and racist". The claim that the judge was ever a member in "La Raza" is 100% false. It was as claim made by Fox News and was documented as false in both the NYT and Washington Post. Like the majority of Hispanic lawyers in the US, the judge is a member of the Hispanic National Bar Association, but he has never commented publicly on the HNBA boycott or if he supports it. I have to say, comparing the Hispanic National Bar Association to the "KKK (or ISIS or the communist party)" is one of the most explicitly racist comments I have ever seen on a Wikipedia talk page. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The HNBA is very different from the KKK or ISIS or the communist party, and I never remotely suggested otherwise. They are all organizations to which people belong, but that does make them similar in all other respects, obviously. I favor restoring this edit. Falsely accusing other editors of making racist comments is outrageous, almost as outrageous as if you were to grossly distort comments by a presidential candidate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think the incident is probably notable enough to warrant a mention, though there must be a better way to phrase it. "Alarmed" and "expressed concern" is a fairly WEASELly wording. Who are these legal experts, and what concern did they specifically express? Getting specific here and attributing a statement would be better than speaking in vague generalities about "concerns". The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"Alam" is the term used in the title of the WP reference given, so I would stick with alarmed. "Horrified" might be more accurate. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• I believe it's notable for the campaign article, but not Trump's bio. Unlike some other Trump statements, this one has already faded from the media's and the public's discourse. However if consensus is that it should be included, it should definitely be cleaned up to remove the POV verbiage and the boycott should also be mentioned for balance.CFredkin (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, Trump's comments about Curiel have hardly faded. They keep coming back over and over again as prominent Republicans keep mentioning them as a reason why they're not supporting him. Susan Collins just yesterday, for instance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

But it's not Trump churning the waters on that. It's others who may be in trouble and want some political cover. That said, it does seem due weight to allow that para here for now, so long as it doesn't turn in to an undue litigation of the case here on his bio. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

More than one reliable source has mentioned Curiel's ties to the Hispanic National Bar Assn., which is boycotting Trump's businesses. It seems incredibly POV to me that we would mention Trump's comments without mentioning his stated rationale for them.

Curiel is a lifetime member of the National Hispanic Bar Association, which last year called for a boycott of all Trump business ventures -- although it is not clear whether Curiel personally agrees with the boycott. (CNN)

Curiel’s membership was disclosed in the questionnaire he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he was nominated for a seat on the federal bench in 2012. He also listed several other organizations, including a life membership in the Hispanic National Bar Assn. That group, which describes itself as a nonpartisan professional organization representing the interests of Latino legal professionals, last year in a news release called for a boycott of “of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels and restaurants.” (LA Times)

CFredkin (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd have to reluctantly agree. Some Rule of the California Bar Association most likely prohibits an judge from personally supporting a boycott in public (though not in private); so all we know is that because Judge Curiel is paying his membership fees, he is indeed (passively) supporting it financially.

But the Rules also likely require a judge to examine his conscience and determine whether he is indeed significantly biased in a given case -- and whether he believes he can set aside his bias while acting as judge in that case. We have some reason to think the judge has done so. Evidence: He's acknowledged that he did make one error adverse to Trump's interests; but he promptly acted to mitigate the harm to Trump.

So both Trump and Judge Curiel may be correct. The judge may well have some personal bias yet be acting in a more-or-less unbiased manner.

Also, Trump (perhaps at advice of counsel) hasn't acknowledged the real possibility that the judge may also feel a bias against at least "some" illegal aliens from Mexico who've been "pushed here" by the Mexican government (to quote Trump) because they were narcotraficantes. Remember that at least 20% of Hispanic-American citizens do support Trump -- in part for such reasons. And the judge has likely had to deal with some of the most repugnant alleged criminals in the category vilified by Trump. I would reasonably presume that Judge Curiel is biased in part against Trump and in part for Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I still think this belongs on the campaign page. My concern is that the section will grow and become undue. It would need to be paraphrased, both his comments and the response. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to include Trump's "stated rationale" for the reason the judge is biased, then you should stick with Trump's statements, and not some WP:SYNTH theory for why he said it. The only reason Trump ever stated for the reason he thinks the Judge is bias is "He's Mexican". Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan (not exactly a Democratic partisan) said Trump's rationale about the judge's bias were "the textbook definition of racist comments". Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump and his campaign have referenced Curiel's membership in the associations, and this is mentioned in the sources. That's not SYNTH.CFredkin (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: this is not perfect, nor does it have sources, but I will of course get them. My point is to get the gist of this while the house is quiet for a few minutes. Here's what I've found so far, apparently sometime around the start of the year, 2016, Trump's lawyers tried to get one of the cases, I think it was the California case, dismissed, because the class action law suit plaintiff was dismissed from the case on motion from her lawyers because she wasn't going along with their narrative. That's a problem when your plaintiff agrees with the defendant and sinks your legal boat. The judge dismissed the plaintiff. Trump's lawyers filed a motion to for summary judgment/dismiss the case since the plaintiff was no longer involved. However, the judge allowed the case to go forward. Whereupon, Trump apparently said, either at a rally or a Sunday show, very soon thereafter, that the judge should have dismissed the case and was being "very, very, very, unfair" and biased against him because he wanted to build the wall with Mexico and the judge and/or his parents is/areMexican. That was the first questioning of the judge. The second one appears to have come later in June, 2016 came when somebody wanted the release of sealed information. Trump's lawyers opposed it, and the judge said, Why yes, let's let everybody see it. Apparently, Trump again came out with his comments, except this time the judge took a second look and realized there was a legal reason for not releasing all that sealed stuff and ordered it resealed, but maybe that train had left the station, so. . .oops.Those appear to be the reasons Trump believes the judge is unfair because he's biased against him because Trump wants to build a wall with Mexico. If I have that not exactly right, it is not due to POV. It's parent brain.As to the question of should the section show what prompted Trump. Yes, if we are going to keep this here, then what I've written here, if it meets RS, can just be used with the RS. That's not a lot and I think it would calm down this argument. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. She wanted to be dismissed from the case because of personal attacks by Trump (as well as a lawsuit by Trump which she won) Gaas99 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect / misleading. The judge decided that there was now a compelling public interest in seeing the data due to Trump's running for President. Further, although Trump claimed that the data constituted "trade secrets" this claim was invalid since Trump University was no longer in operation Gaas99 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you do show POV and I don't believe that Trump's professed reasons should be shown Gaas99 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a proposed edit?

@CFredkin: But the quote from the L.A. Times, that's not the proposed edit is it? Has anybody written an edit that would work? This going round and round is not productive at all. Somebody needs to write a proposed edit. Then we can decide, include or exclude. And give a WP rationale. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL:Here's what I would propose:

During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican." Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence. In response to the criticism, Trump and his campaign have pointed out that the judge belongs to the Hispanic National Bar Association which has called for a boycott of all Trump's businesses.

CFredkin (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@CFredkin:The context doesn't seem quite there. I had the impression he thought the judge was biased because he wants to build a wall with Mexico and the judge's parents are from there, though he was born in Indiana. And then he also mentioned the judge's affiliations including this one. If the context is there, then yes. I don't have a problem with it. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Does this address your point above?:

During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican." Trump initially stated that he believed the judge, who was born in Indiana, was biased against him because of his controversial immigration proposals. Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence. In response to the criticism, Trump and his campaign have pointed out that the judge belongs to the Hispanic National Bar Association which has called for a boycott of all Trump's businesses.

References

@CFredkin: Yes, brilliant. Cover's it all. I think you can post it Thread's gone stale. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, mentioning the HNBA boycott without mentioning the reasons for the boycott would not be NPOV, and all that seems like a lot of detail to go into this article. There is no mention of the HNBA boycott in the Trump University Wikipedia article. I would expect to see the HNBA boycott there if it were noteworthy, which I don't think it is. Multiple editors have previously stated they are not in consensus with this, so posting it would not be with firm consensus. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

While the RfC on the proposal above is in progress, I think we should address the issues with some of the wording raised by User:The Wordsmith above. I propose the revised version of the second sentence below:

During campaign speeches, Trump has repeatedly called the judge currently hearing one Trump University case a "hater" and described him as "Spanish" or "Mexican."[10] Trump's references to the judge's ethnicity, as well as his comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have led some legal experts to express concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence.[11][3]

CFredkin (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Wharton School

Donald Trump did graduate from the Wharton School. The University of Pennsylvania is made up of schools. There's the Wharton School of Business, the Towne School of Engineering, the School of Nursing, the School of Allied Sciences, the School of Liberal Arts, and the Annenberg School of Communications. All schools have undergraduate and graduate programs. When you are admitted to the University you then choose the school. Trump did indeed receive his undergraduate degree from the Wharton School. I am going to restore the edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm concerned about the sourcing around the claim that Trump transferred to or graduated from Wharton, as opposed to the University of Pennsylvania. This Washington Post source says: He did well there, and then went to Fordham University, a Jesuit school in the Bronx, for two years, before transferring to the University of Pennsylvania and studied economics for two years, graduating in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree. He took undergraduate classes at Penn’s famed Wharton School of Business. Though he was not enrolled in Wharton’s prestigious MBA program, the Spring 2007 Wharton Alumni Magazine featured Trump, with this headline, “The Best Brand Name in Real Estate.” So was Trump actually enrolled at Wharton or did he just take classes there? The sources currently cited in the article don't support enrollment at Wharton, so at a minimum they need to be sharpened up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted that and left the talk page note above. We should probably combine these sections. There's no such thing as graduating from UPenn. If someone told you they were a Penn graduate, you would ask them, which school? Even at graduation, you first go to the ceremony at your school where you receive your diploma, and then if you feel like it, you can attend the university wide commencement, where you receive a cardboard tube for your diploma. Also, please note that the MBA is the graduate program degree, Masters in Business Administration. It is also possible to receive a Bachelor's in Business Administration. The WashPo writer seems to not have done his/her homework. He is an alum of the school so certainly he'll be featured in the school's alum magazine. All the schools at Penn have their own alum magazines. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll add this source from the Boston Globe. It shows him wearing Wharton's colors. [6]. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, Penn graduates in May, not June. The WashPo has it all wrong. Trump graduated in May, 1968, That needs to be changed, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we need reliable sourcing for your statements (which may or may not be true, I don't know) before dismissing a usually reliable media outlet such as the Washington Post as unreliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, if Wharton undergrad is just another school of many at Penn, then does it have its own special admissions process or higher admissions standard? If not, is it misleading or undue emphasis to mention Wharton in the lead section? (Just because Trump himself loves to talk about his Wharton degree doesn't mean we have to.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You have to meet prerequisites to successfully enter the school. Apparently, his record at Fordham satisfied those requirements. There's nothing misleading about the Boston Globe article. The WashPo article is misleading, either deliberately obfuscating, or just plain sloppy work. The Boston Globe also has a photo of Trump wearing Wharton's undergraduate academic regalia. And since I'm not inserting the facts about Penn's organization of schools, I don't need to source that. But certainly, you could source their school admissions catalogue or email them for how things work there. The first two years are spent meeting prerequisties for your school. If you have satisfactorily met the prereq, you are admitted. It is extremely competitive. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me. Do the WaPo and Globe sources conflict? If so, and if both sources are reliable, then the conflict must be described neutrally. On the other hand, if you're saying the WaPo source is unreliable, then you need to provide more compelling arguments than those based on your personal knowledge. What I mean is, please provide links for your assertions. As for my comment about "misleading," I didn't suggest the Globe source was misleading; I suggested that our article might be misleading if it says that Trump went to Wharton and Wharton was just one of many schools at Penn, no different than the others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the Boston Globe article makes it plain that Trump went to and graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat yourself. Please listen to my arguments and respond. I make them in good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by, "just one of many schools at Penn." If you are saying that there is not distinction from graduating from one of the schools and that all degrees are from UPenn, then that is not the distinction that UPenn makes. They distinquish the schools. I'm sorry, I can't explain it any better than that except to say that it appears The Boston Globe has correctly stated where Trump graduated from. The WashPo appears to have skipped over the Wharton part. Yes, he graduated from Penn; from the Wharton School at Penn. I hope that helps. I'm trying my best here. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Most RS say that Trump went to the Wharton School. Even the DP [7]. Not sure what the issue is, but.--Malerooster (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, I feel like we're not oommunicating well. I'm trying to understand your perspective here. How do we know that the Boston Globe got it right and the Washington Post got it wrong? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Malerooster:. @DrFleischman:, I've made it as clear as I can. Try this link: Undergraduate Admissions at the Wharton School. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That link is broken. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Try it now. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok so my question isn't whether Wharton has an admissions process but whether it's different than Penn's other undergraduate schools. Or, more generally, why mention in an encyclopedia article that someone went to Wharton vs. Penn? If Trump had gone to Penn School of Arts and Sciences would we be saying that? Lots of universities have separate schools (often with separate admissions programs) but we don't mention what school the person went to. For example Barack Obama attended Columbia College but Barack Obama only says he attended Columbia University. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania offers an undergraduate Bachelor of Science in Economics degree. Typically most professional schools offer undergraduate degrees: law, medicine, dentistry, music, physed, education, engineering. The Hillary Clinton article says she "earned a J.D. from Yale Law School," not Yale University, although she was an undergraduate at the Yale Law School of Yale University. There are no hard and fast rules whether someone mentions the school or the university, but we should follow ordinary usage. TFD (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Re Clinton--what? I thought she went to Wellesley for undergrad and Yale for law school? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You are right. Yale law degrees were considered undergraduate until 1971, and since then are considered graduate degrees. (The name of the degree was changed from Bachelor of Law to Doctor of Jurisprudence.) But we would not say that people who graduated before 1971 did not graduate from Yale Law School. TFD (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

At least the infobox is straighforward. We can adopt the style used at Barack Obama ("[[Columbia College, Columbia University|Columbia University]]", "[[Harvard Law School|Harvard University]]"), at Hillary Clinton ("[[Yale Law School|Yale University]]"), and by the US Department of Education ("Wharton" = "University of Pennsylvania" or "Wharton County Junior College", not Wharton School). As for the article body, we could conveniently use "the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania", since that's what UPenn calls it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I'm primarily concerned about the lead section, where concision is king and there isn't space to explain finer nuances. Should the lead say "the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania" (as it currently does), or "the Wharton School", or "the University of Pennsylvania"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well put, Dr. Fleischman. The Obama article says (in the lead) "Columbia University"; Johnson says "University of New Mexico"; Stein says "Harvard University". So we probably shouldn't say "Wharton School" (or "Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania") in the lead. I'd be good with University of Pennsylvania ("[[Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania|University of Pennsylvania]]"), which is analogical enough, and more helpful than "[[University of Pennsylvania]]". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not well put at all. What the other schools are doing, what Obama's page is doing, are not relevant here. I've added sources that clearly identify Donald Trump as a Wharton graduate. I've even included the commencement program that shows Donald John Trump graduating from Wharton. Yes, it is belongs in the lead. Stop. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, there are other policies and guidelines beyond WP:V. In this case we're talking about WP:LEAD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

DrFleischman, you appear to be determined to sanitize the article of all mention to the Wharton School. First, you preferred a source that was slightly vague and seemed to suggest he wasn't really a student there but had merely taken a few courses. Then when I made an edit that shows clearly he was a student, he graduated from there, and in fact was wearing Wharton's academia hood at commencement, you then switched to wanting to be concise in the lede. The majority, if not all, sources do acknowledge that Donald Trump did indeed graduate from the Wharton School. Yet you want to obfuscate and make it appear he was merely some general studies major at Penn. He was not. What other school at Penn would give him a Bachelor of Science in Economics? If you want concise as you now claim, then you should be thrilled with having Wharton in the lede and eliminate mention of the University of Pennsylvania, since the link will in fact show the University. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Your assumptions about my motives are way off, but it doesn't matter. Focus on the edit, not the editor, and try to obtain consensus for your position. I had multiple concerns about the references to Wharton. I'm rather satisfied on my verifiability concern and therefore I'm no longer contesting mention of Wharton in the body; but I still have concerns about neutrality which is why I'm contesting mention of Wharton in the lead section. You have not addressed these concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This issue came up in a campaign for the presidency of the Philippines. Here is a link to an article that has images of the grad and undergrad diplomas.[8] Apparently the undergrad degree is awarded by UPenn and the grad degree by Wharton. This made me check my own undergraduate business degree (not from Wharton btw) and it says it is a awarded by the chancellor of the university on the authority of the business school. So techically it is neither from the university nor from the business school. TFD (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Not according to UPenn. He is officially listed as graduating from Wharton. It is not an issue of neutrality. Yes, he went to Wharton. Dr. Fleischmann has changed his argument each time it's been found wanting. He simply doesn't like it. And the source you're citing does not apply to Donald Trump, so it's WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources are what we use and that is not a reliable source. Sorry, but that is a ridiculous claim, and the so-called Wharton degree in the photo looks like an obvious fake. Reliable sources say Trump went to Wharton. Wharton says he went to Wharton. Trump says he went to Wharton. Just because Dr. Fleischmann says he didn't doesn't make it so. And btw, Dr. Fleischmann never mentioned this source you've presented. We use reliable sources. We go with what the majority say. They say Trump went to Wharton. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Donald Trump, Wharton Alumnus '68
• Donald John Trump, Commencement, Wharton School, May, 1968
• Donald Trump wearing gown w/Wharton academic hood

Donald Trump went to Wharton. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not know how you determined that the picture of the Wharton MBA diploma is an obvious fake. It looks a lot like the MBA diploma pictured on the UPenn bookstore website.[9] So does the undergrad diploma.

UPenn has four undergrad schools: the College of Arts and Sciences, Penn Engineering, the School of Nursing, and the Wharton School. Transfer students may apply to any one.[10] Note that there is a link "Transferring into the Wharton School."

TFD (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this not definitive?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. TFD (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Anythingyouwant: and @The Four Deuces: TFD. I had planned to call the Registrar today. Appreciate your efforts.btw, I had already provided a Wharton admissions link earlier to no avail here SW3 5DL (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3 5DL you are fighting straw men rather than listening to me. I never suggested that we remove Wharton from the article, and I am no longer questioning whether Trump transferred to or graduated from Wharton. I, and I believe Dervorguilla, are saying that even though the fact that Trump went to Wharton is verifiable, it doesn't belong in the lead section because it takes up a fair amount of real estate and the distinction between Wharton and Penn isn't sufficiently important to merit inclusion in the lead section per the guideline that says the lead should be a concise summary of the article's most important contents. I prefer mentioning Penn vs. Wharton because of the continued widespread misconception that Trump got an MBA from Wharton. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I support keeping it in the lead. The sentence says: "Born and raised in New York City, Trump is a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's degree in economics". So it's clear about it being a bachelor's degree. Removing it would seem to imply that he's less a graduate of Wharton than he is of UPenn, which would be inaccurate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with DrFleischman. A further argument for just saying UPenn instead of Wharton is that in common usage if someone says "I graduated from Wharton" they mean that they got an MBA from Wharton, not an undergrad degree. That's what Wharton is known for. Especially since it may very well be the case that an undergrad degree in econ from its School of Arts & Sciences is seen as more prestigious than an undergrad degree in econ from its Wharton School. This is arguable but especially if you're an economist you tend to view any econ BSs granted by business oriented institutions as "tainted", even if that business institution is Wharton.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, please show RS for that claim. Dr. Fleichman, you appear to be to be unable to let this go and now appear to be editing in a very disruptive manner. Please stop. The "taking up too much real estate" is your most ridiculous argument yet. As for your new claim that you are concerned readers will think he has an MBA, the lede clearly states he has a bachelor's degree in economics from Wharton. So, I would say, that's even more reason to keep it in the lede. Wipes out all confusion immediately for the reader, especially as many readers will only read the lede. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a clarification. Anyway, I agree DrFleischman and I don't see them doing anything disruptive at all. Quite the opposite in fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)