The best road to progress is freedom's road. - JFK
Texas
Donald Trump was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida.
If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Place the {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=}} banner into United States presidential elections related articles and assess
University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania articles
@Stemoc:@Ihardlythinkso:@AdventurousSquirrel:@William S. Saturn: I'm notifying you because you were involved in the most recent discussion of this sort. Personally, I believe the current image is fine (but not great) however the issue was brought to my attention by Stemoc, who recently changed the current image to a retouched version of the same one. So, a discussion ought to be held. MB298 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
please make any further votes from the six below. MB298 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please feel free to add more as you see fit.
Image #1: The current infobox image, August 2015
Image #2: Another version of the current image, August 2015
Image #3: Previously used in the infobox, March 2015
Image #4: Las Vegas, February 2016
Image #5: Washington D.C., February 2011
Image#6: close up of Image#5
Image #7: May 2014
Image #8: Trump at CPAC
Image #9: Nevada, February 2016
Image #10: Edited version of the current
Image #11: Signing GOP pledge at Trump Tower, 2015
Image #12; April 2015 at Marine Corps event
Image #13; January 2016 in Ames, Iowa
Image #14; September 2015
Image #15; March 2013
Image #16; May 2015
Image #17; February 2011
Image #18; January 2016
Image #19; January 2016
Image #20; Edited version of the current
Image #21: Nevada, February 2016
Image #20Image 1 still looks good to me, with Image 1 or 10 being close seconds. Image 2 is far lighter than reality, as far as I can tell.- MrX 04:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I edited the first image to achieve a look between the current version and #10 by William S. Saturn.- MrX 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I added Image 8 for consideration which I happen to like. My second choice is Image #7. Doorzki (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The main issue with 5, 6 and 8 is that they are from 2011, thats 5 years ago and for someone who has been in the limelight for the last 5 years, its not good..It ok to use older images of people who rarely make public appearance but for someone like Trump, surely, its best if we limit it to 2014 at the very least? anyways i added 9 because its one of the few images which depicts his 'original skin color' (lol) [pinkish face, yellow hair].. most of his images, its usually orange face, yellow hair..I recommend Image 3 and MrX, Image 2 can be fixed, thats the good thing about it because its of a higher quality to Image 1 which cannot be fixed because touching it might make it worse....--Stemoc 05:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
They can all be fixed to a degree, but the fixing should always start with the original image, not a copy of copy. The main problem with #1 is the harsh lighting, soft focus, and over saturation. The image can be improved somewhat by starting with a calibrated display, and then reducing saturation, increasing overall luma slightly, increasing shadow levels, and decreasing magenta levels slightly. Unfortunately, Mr. Trump has an unusual complexion and speaking events frequently have harsh lighting. I saw an interview of on CNN where it looked like he had orange skin but his eye sockets and lips were bluish-purple.- MrX 12:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment #10 now looks best to me tonality-wise, and I don't mind the crop, but why was the resolution reduced? This makes it nearly impossible to use in print.- MrX 14:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I did it several months ago. Admittedly, I'm not a very good image editor so I'm not sure what caused the resolution reduction.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Support image #13. Image #1 is currently in the series box, so for the sake of variety I support #13 which is recent (2016) and smiling.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Support Image #1. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
As the creator of this discussion, I support Image #7. Image #1 should continue to be used on the election pages and in the templates. MB298 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Support Image #1. There are others that are more flattering, but it is fairly current, and I don't think I can say with any degree of confidence that any other photo is objectively better or more true-to-life than Image #1. I don't think that we need to concern ourselves too much with making the color his skin more "average" or "normal", because I think he's known for genuinely having a markedly orange-ish hue in real life. If there's some evidence that the color displays more orange than it should, then certainly we should attempt to fix it. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Support Image #13 - shows subject in a comparatively flattering light (smiling, shows upper body), very recent. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you serious? That image is awful. His face is bright red, he has a strange expression on his face because he's in the middle of speech, his eyes are only slightly open, and he's looking off to the side.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm being asked to compare a number of images of Donald Trump. They may not be nice pictures individually, but I think #13 is better than the other options. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You picked the worst possible option. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you picked one of the worst, William. Image #13 is standard for Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It is not standard to use a very unflattering image of a subject. Image #13 is very unflattering and objectively the worst of the options above for reasons stated above and below.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Support image #5 - this is the best available option. It should not matter that it is 2011. Why insist on always using the most recent photo rather than the best photo? If we did this throughout history (presuming photography has existed forever), the lead image for most bios would show the subject in a geriatric state. Hillary Clinton currently uses a photo from 2009 because that is the best available option. That is all that should be considered. Images #4, #9, #13 are completely unacceptable because of the irregular expression on the subject's face. Image #12 is unacceptable because the clothing item shown (bow tie) is not a common feature of the subject's attire. I see merit in all the others but I strongly believe Image #5 is the best.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Please try to be objective. Image #5 is objectively much older, and the subject's mouth is objectively closed and downturned, which is the opposite of a smile. And you already acknowledged that image #5 looks pompous and smug.[1] I don't think top images are a good venue for making a candidate look bad; if the candidate is bad then the facts stated in the text can adequately reveal that badness. Everyone looks bad in one image or another; see HRC image at right, for example. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You're being dishonest by taking what I said about the image in a previous discussion out of context. I don't believe you're being objective. Any reasonable observer can see that Image #5 is not the opposite of a smile. It is a neutral expression. On the other hand, objectively, Image #13 shows the subject objectively with an open mouth in the middle of speech, objectively with a complexion redder than any other image above, and objectively with his eyes slanted and looking off to the side. I ask that you take your own advice and stop trying to place the objectively worst photo available in the infobox for candidates you do not like. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Number 5 is a very flattering photo, with the exception the shadow over his black X-Files eyes that become more unsettling the more I look at them, and I'm not sure it's the most true-to-life, which I think should be the intent of a photo used here. This is, of course, pretty subjective. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Support Image #1.CFredkin (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Support Image #5 - Has the most neutral and professional look of all the selections. Image#6 as second choice.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Support Image #17, which in my opinion has better quality appearance-wise. He also looks proud in that one - not really smiling as such, but it almost looks as if he is. Image 9 made me laugh - he does not look particularly happy within that one! I do, however, support 1 as my second choice. --Ches(talk) 20:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Support image #14, because his expression is neutral and it's a recent photo. I realize that the exact same thing could be said about #1 (and the edited versions of it), but I prefer #14 because he is looking towards the camera more so than he is in #1. However, #1 (or any of the edits of it) would be my second choice, for the reasons I stated in my first sentence. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Support Image #15 - Though not perfect, it at least shows Trump in a favorable light, smiling, and not too close up. There are some images included above that are awful i.e. crooked tie, terrible facial expression, caught off guard, etc. #15 at least has decent lighting and quality. Meatsgains (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment I think Image #1 is a bad choice, because apparently he looks so fierce, plus with a microphone in the foreground makes him look unprofessional. #2, #9, #11, #14, #16, #20 not good choices either, Support #18, neutral on the rest. It's a disgrace, other delegates such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz have more photogenic poses, complete with a formal pose to use as lead images in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. What a shame, we have so many other more decent pictures to select from Commons when we have to stick with a picture of Trump looking like a monster just because of "Consensus deadlock". It seems to me than Consensus is leading us to make a worse decision compared to us using simple common senses to see which picture is more formal or photogenic. Mr Tan (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
In #10 the microphone has been removed. In #18 his eyes are nearly closed so that will never get consensus. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Then anything goes. I can propose #19. #1 is simply won't do, because that picture of him is simply too fierce. I'm comfortable with any picture that shows him with at least a smile:) I'm really wondering for those who choose #1, frankly this shows a perversion of plain common sense. Just go and take a look at Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016, all other candidates have smiles on their faces. I don't think that my argument is in anyway unreasonable. Mr Tan (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Support Image #1. Agree w/ user MB298's comment when he opened this new discussion: "I believe the current image is fine (but not great)". (I stated the same in the previous discussion when preferring #15 or #17. Some of the new photo additions are interesting [#8, #11, #16], but any/all have their own drawback[s].) Again re image #1, it's misleading to remove the mic or spin the orig since either/both those modifications remove orig meaningful context (Trump listening to a person's comment/question prior to responding). I understand the impulse to "make a photo better" but there are negative unintended consequences in this case. Changing color saturation/density/focus/etc. is fine as those mods don't mess w/ said orig context. IHTS (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Godsy: I've narrowed it down to the top six images. I don't really have any personal favorite anymore. MB298 (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Image #1: The current infobox image, August 2015
Image #5: Washington D.C., February 2011
Image #7: May 2014
Image #13; January 2016 in Ames, Iowa
Image #17; February 2011
Image #20; Edited version of the current
Image #1. There's nothing especially wrong with it, and the others don't look like a big improvement to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment Honestly, this is a fruitless discussion, and any picture, save for the edited ones, would be okay. Picking out a picture that looked "flattering" for Trump would indicate a bias, as would picking out a picture that looked "unflattering". The current picture, Image #1, suits him well, and does not portray him in an overly positive or negative light.
Support Image #9 Note that many above posters justify their choice because the image is "flattering," "fierce," "happen to like," less "pompous and smug," etc. I support image #9 because it suitably reflects the candidate for lay-readers, and would sit well both in the minds of his supporters and his detractors. It is neither flattering nor unflattering. While we have a responsibility to portray this figure in a respectable way, I don't think we are in a position to decide what a "flattering" picture would look like in this case. And yes, this is a fruitless discussion. Would somebody in their right minds please close it? Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Support #1 This image is easily the most flattering, and most representative image we have thus far. Neutral expression, good coloring, good view of his face, hair, etc. Spartan7W§ 15:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Image 1 is certainly the clearest and best lit of the images, and is thus appropriate. This is also a rather odd RfC; why is there even a dispute over this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Support Image #1. Agree this RfC is odd, but is more than that too: it's been preemptively (and questionably) defined & controlled by user MB298, apparently according to her/his own whim, running over recent RfC & discussions as though roadkill. IHTS (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: This subject has been raised time and again since last August (if not before). How many times does it need to be discussed?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Oh yeah guys elect him and then use official photo of POTUS from the White House. The current picture is okay but the best is Image #5. We have been discussing this since he entered the race, look into archives it always ended up same. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Support Image #1. Time to put this to bed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment -- If, and when, Donald J. Trump is in the White House, I vote for Image#12 but not until then; wait till November and Thanksgiving. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
"Proposed ban on Muslims entering the U.S." subsection
The subsection in the article's 2016 election section seems unnecessary, as this is not the only major point Donald Trump has made during his candidacy. I propose this content is merged into the section entitled "Presidential campaign, 2016", as a separate paragraph, as none of Donald Trump's other statements during the campaign have been highlighted in the article as this one has. Sheepythemouse (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. It doesn't need its own section.- MrX 22:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Third. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a political position, doesn't need it's own section outside the page on his political positions, paragraph is okay.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed per above. MB298 (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
It is the one of the most (if not the most) notable point in his campaign or agenda, so it does merit a separate section. In many places outside the US, Trump is known solely for his proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the US. --Engineering Guy (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are plenty of sources, but very little of substance that could not easily be covered in 2-3 sentences in the main bio. Alternatively, it could just be deleted under WP:NOTSCANDAL. - MrX 03:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Merge or delete It is important enough to mention in this article, but the standalone article is a smorgasbord of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Not sure if I think it's a valid redirect for any reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Why is the merge tag being removed? The Short-Fingered Vulgarian article was specifically created about Trump. A merger has been proposed. Per WP:MERGEPROP a tag should be placed on the target article. Why is this being removed contrary to policy and precedent? Perhaps @Floquenbeam: can explain the double standards? AusLondonder (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
We are not going to have an article about a public figure with an extraordinarily prominent tag at the top tying him to the insult "Short Fingered Vulgarian". I'm only removing the tag, I'm not making any comment about the merge itself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
No credible reason exists for uniquely removing the tag contrary to both the spirit and letter of policy. You are making editors less aware of the proposal. AusLondonder (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLP is the credible reason, duh. IHTS (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
There is the BLP issue that clearly overrides procedural issues however, this is what the WikiProject has concluded from the various consensus discussions and merge articles we have;
"A merge is listed once atagis placed on the article, such as {{Merge}} or {{Merge to}}.Removing the tag, delists the article. Never remove a proposed merge tag unless you are intending to delist the article and only do so when all issues have been addressed. If the proposer of the merge did not start a discussion for the merge, and it is not obvious why the articles should be merged, it is acceptable to remove the tags. If the reason for the merge is obvious, you can either merge the articles boldly, or start a new discussion."
For this proposal a tag was placed to list the articles for merge. Someone else removed the tag intending to de-list it. It is acceptable for any editor to object to the merge for any reason but as long as they have addressed the issues involved the tag can be removed. The justification for removal was;
Editing and merging during disputes
"Editors should not merge content during an AFD. AfD participants should not work "around" consensus by beginning a merge process on their own, before discussion. While preservation of content is a good consideration, copying may be contentious and may create additional steps and administrative work if undoing any copying is necessary. Such a merge also causes an attribution dependency breakage between articles that may require the merging of article history that would be lost if the source page is deleted. AFD participants may offer proposals and negotiate with the other participants during the discussion. If needed, editors may ask the closing admin how to rescue the content or what additional steps that need to be taken."
It was really all within the procedure. The actual merge discussion should be closed as there is a current AFD for the article that was suggested to be merged. It is there that any merge suggestions should be made and is the consensus discussion that will determine the outcome.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Merge: Could be mentioned here, but not worthy of its own article.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Do not merge here maybe merge into the spy magazine if notable enough. --Malerooster (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC). Nevermind, already there. --Malerooster (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Do not merge. The material is suitable for the Urban Dictionary (the dictionary not the article), not a BLP. IHTS (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Proposed selective merge of only one sentence from Short-Fingered Vulgarian: "Short-fingered Vulgarian is a phrase that originated in Spy Magazine in the 1980s as a description of Donald Trump.[1]"
Support - well sourced, some historicity to it, and a notable term for Trump. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is 30 years old satire unearthed for political attack. BLP trumps it :) — JFGtalk 22:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - The sentence doesn't fit into the over context of the biography. It strikes me as little more than a trivial epithet, unworthy of space in a respected encyclopedia.- MrX 01:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose as trivia. If we merged in every bit of name calling to every candidate, that's all we would have. NPOV and Encyclopedic are necessary for inclusion and this is neither. --DHeyward (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Not justifiable for a BLP. IHTS (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Not appropriate for a BLP. –Davey2010Talk 13:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No merge Wikipedia is not a political battleground. It's a shame some folks use it that way.--v/r - TP 02:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Middle initial in header to infobox
Article name follows wp:Common name however the infobox header follows journalists' guidelines to follow when possible a subject's own generally preffered form of full-name address such as in their signature. See Template:Infobox person: " If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the birth_name field, include them here."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Proposal: Get rid of the 10,000 character essay on Trump's Muslim plan
There is a pretty clear consensus here to prune the paragraphs discussing Trump's proposal to stop Muslims from entering the US. Hopefully this formal closure will allow some of you capable editors to do just that. MrX seems to have proposed a logical path forward (get rid of name dropping and comment from Pentagon in paragraph 6, most of paragraph 7, parenthetical in paragraph 8). I personally would suggest that it could be written in a more encyclopedic tone and would benefit from restructuring the paragraphs. ~Awilley (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Under the section Presidential campaign, 2016, there's a 10,000 character essay (In response to recent...on the matter) that goes into detail about his Muslim ban, including international reactions, online polls, and a bunch of celebrities' reactions. Can we please just get rid of this part. It shouldn't be in his main life page at all, and if people really want to know more about it, they should go to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was removed previously, i'm not sure why it is back. Sheepythemouse (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to have to Oppose - Trump's views on Muslims are what many people know him for - it is also what makes him a controversial figure. Taking this out would go against WP's neutrality policy - it therefore needs to stay. --Ches(talk)(contribs) 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Support This page is more about his personal life, there is a separate page on his political positions for that. Oppose getting rid of a couple sentence summary of it as it is notable.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - It's 537 words about a subject that he has become notorious for. I'm not opposed to trimming it though. For example the name dropping and the comment from the Pentagon in the 6th paragraph; most of the 7th paragraph; and the parenthetical in the 8th paragraph.- MrX 23:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - People coming to the Trump article now are not coming to read his life story. They are coming to see what his views are in relation to his run for the Presidency of the United States. If they don't find them here I doubt they'll be digging up the 2016 campaign article. The section is thoughtfully written without violating NPOV or BLP rules and is very well sourced. The article is about a very important policy proposal of his and credible source criticism of it. There is precedent for including policy on pages of people running for office. Jackhammer111 (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
You say "I doubt they'll be digging up" the 2016 campaign article as though that represents a lot of work, when in fact that article is a click away (wlink'd in the lead). And the first time I went to the Barack Obama article it was to find anything re his birth certificate controversy. (There was nothing at all, not even a "See also". So that indeed involved some doing to find elsewhere.) IHTS (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Although, it could be more concise. His problem with people unlike him (Muslims, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, immigrants, women, the disabled) go back to his consent decrees over keeping Blacks out of his buildings. Appears to be a significant part of his life that started well before his campaign. Objective3000 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Support. Some organization, please? Trump's 2016 run is a blink is his life-story, since only June. Specific campaign platform issues belong elsewhere. IHTS (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Strong Oppose It seems some editors are determined to turn this article into some sort of glowing, promotional puff piece. The Muslim ban proposal attracted strong international attention and criticism. It clearly belongs in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder (talk • contribs)
@AusLondonder: The overstated ad-hominem isn't terribly helpful. I don't see any comments here aimed at trying to turn the article into a "glowing, promotional puff piece". The second half of your comment is more relevant. ~Awilley (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Support this article is about Trump and should have a little bit about his campaign. The main article to discuss this though, should be the Presidential Campaign article. No other candidate, that I'm aware of, has such a large campaign sub-article within the main article. Sir Joseph(talk) 20:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Neutral. It is something of controversy but i don't think thats the only thing that he is known for. But I lean to oppose. Winterysteppe (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose (as another editor mentioned it's 537 words) but support trimming off 1/3. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose but support trimming per MrX. Politrukki (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Support I believe the issue warrants a brief mention of ~2 sentences at most.CFredkin (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Support in theory - can be trimmed to a single paragraph, it shouldn't span over 3. -- Callinus (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment The trend indicates a strong preference for keep with a reduction in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs)
COMMENT! There is a separate page for the CAMPAIGN, which has a separate page for Trump's POSITIONS. This article is about TRUMP himself. Hence, I think your conclusion is wise (and correct). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed as per above, Merge most of this section into the Political Positions article, and Delete the rest Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.