Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 57
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
Survey about being controversial or false
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.
The lead currently says: "Many of the statements he made at rallies, in interviews, or on social media were controversial or false." Given that news reports say Trump made false statements in many other forums too, which of the following would be best:
- A shorten the sentence in the lead so that it says, "Many of his public statements were controversial or false", and discuss particular forums like social media in the body of the BLP;
- B leave the lead as-is, despite the concern that listing only some forums (like interviews and rallies) might suggest that Trump was
honestaccurate and uncontroversial in the many forums that we do not list; - C list all of the forums in the lead where Trump was reportedly controversial or false.
- D same as A but say "Relatively many" instead of "many".
- E same as A but say "An unusual number" instead of "many".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- F revise to "He made an extraordinary number of false or controversial statements."
Fixed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
!Votes about being controversial or false
- Support A as proposer. The lead ought to be concise, details about particular forums can be given in the body of the BLP, and listing only some of the forums implies that he was reportedly noncontroversial and truthful in the other forums. I would also be okay with D or E because Trump was not the only one fibbing during that campaign.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support
DA, which is more informative.(I would also be happy with F: "He made an extraordinary number of false or controversial statements.")Withdrawing support for F. “Germany’s justice minister is proposing fines of up to 50 million euros for social networking sites that fail to swiftly remove illegal content, such as hate speech or defamatory ‘fake news’… Maas cit[ed] research that he said showed Twitter deletes just 1 percent of illegal content flagged by users.” German Official Wants $53M Fines for Social Media Hate Posts. An appropriately worded sentence might be added to Hillary Clinton, so both his and her German followers will know not to assume they can legally retweet either politician's posts. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC) - Support A or D. This generic statement will never need to be changed. There are abundant RS to back it up. The most official and accurate are fact checking websites. This comparison between Trump and Clinton is well-known. Fact checkers are all agreed that all people, including politicians, lie, but that they have never encountered a politician who lies as much as Trump. They place him in a category of his own. He also does it in all venues, so it's pointless to try to examine each venue. Professor Robert Prentice summarized the views of many fact checkers:
- "Here's the problem: As fact checker Glenn Kessler noted in August, whereas Clinton lies as much as the average politician, President Donald Trump's lying is "off the charts." No prominent politician in memory bests Trump for spouting spectacular, egregious, easily disproved lies. The birther claim. The vote fraud claim. The attendance at the inauguration claim. And on and on and on. Every fact checker — Kessler, Factcheck.org, Snopes.com, PolitiFact — finds a level of mendacity unequaled by any politician ever scrutinized. For instance, 70 percent of his campaign statements checked by PolitiFact were mostly false, totally false, or "pants on fire" false."[1]
- Support A – Clear, short and timeless. I would also support "Many of his campaign statements" instead of "Many of his public statements", but the key idea is to shorten the phrase to the essence. — JFG talk 10:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support A - Now I think about it, this is the way to go. We can use the body of the article to go into specifics. If we are honest, he made false/controversial statements on every platform or venue during the campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Scjessey, you're exactly right. Details go in the body. This applies to every public and private venue, both before, during, and after the campaign, so a generic, non-specific, statement serves the purpose best. In the body one can mention the situation, if necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support A or F (Dervorguilla's suggestion) – JFG is right that this clear, short and timeless is the way to go. I agree fully with BullRangifer there is no need to enumerate particular statements or sources, since every fact-checker concurs. (WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice..."). Neutralitytalk 20:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not sure "relatively many" is a thing. Please don't make it a thing. Also, "extraordinary" (while true) is a characterization best not made in Wikipedia's voice, in my opinion. "Many" is sufficiently vague to avoid the need for a reference and let the body of the article take care of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. We should try to stay in an encyclopedic tone. WP:PEACOCK and WP:WHATPLACE. I Support C, as I believe it is the best choice here. However, A is a good enough alternative for that. Ceosad (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion about being controversial or false
Here's a source for false material at Facebook.
Here's a source for false material at Instagram.
Here's a source for false material at a press conference.
Here's a source for false material at a debate.
Here's a source for false material at his website.
Here's a source for false material in a press release.
Here's a source for false material in a speech to an interest group.
Here's a source for false material at a rally.
Here's a source for false material in an interview.
Here's a source for false material on a tweet
Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have added a section for the 250+ references I have collected. Many are straight factual, especially the fact checkers, so no attribution is needed. Many others are opinion, so attribution is necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- This article about a remarkable Time magazine article, doesn't show any tendency to be more honest (or "presidential"). -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer: I think you mean, 'According to WaPo, it doesn't...' --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Dervorguilla, thanks for catching that. Yes, that source is WaPo, one of many which commented on the remarkable interview in Time magazine. I got them mixed up. This was the fact checkers' commentary: "President Trump’s cascade of false claims in Time’s interview on his falsehoods." The original article is here: "Can President Trump Handle the Truth?" The transcript is here: "Read President Trump's Interview With TIME on Truth and Falsehoods." -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer: I think you mean, 'According to WaPo, it doesn't...' --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
250+ references dealing with Trump's relationship to truth -- BullRangifer
See next section |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
Discussion 4
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it. |
OMG, BullRangifer, what an impressive job!! Were you maintaining a dossier on Trump all along his campaign? — JFG talk 10:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
|
Getting ready to implement this
I plan to implement this later today unless there are further comments. I also plan to move the "wealth" subsection out of the "early life" section, because very little of its contents pertain to early life.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Do it. Looks like a near unanimous approval for your suggestion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
False statements
Superseded by consensus at #Survey about being controversial or false — JFG talk 19:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
| ||
---|---|---|
Dervorguilla suggested minor changes to improve the grammar on our famous sentence about Trump's "many false statements".
Does the community approve this change? Please support, oppose or comment. Note this is not an RfC. — JFG talk 03:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Short and to the point. Until somebody comes along claiming "oh, are you saying he's more honest in private?" ![]()
I would pick D. What do people think? JFG talk 09:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh no you don't. Show diffs of me calling anybody stupid. Or am I suggesting we stop the stupid merry go round of getting permission from the two of you for copyedits. Who died and left you both king? In case you haven't notice, you both write long winded sentences often in the passive voice that need copyediting. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
D seems like an improvement. It's more concise, and doesn't imply that he was uncontroversial and truthful in venues other than rallies, interviews, and social media.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Her edit is best especially as it covers rallies, interviews, and social media. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not about C or D. It's about Stopping the Stupid and allowing Dervorguilla's edit to stand. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem:, you're right. But I'm not the only one way past AGF on the question of ownership of this page. This must be addressed. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
|
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2017
![]() | This edit request to Donald Trump (the grinch) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Raybaida362 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
BLPVIO, lead, 'social media'
Superseded by consensus at #Survey about being controversial or false — JFG talk 19:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
I'm substituting "Many of the statements he made at rallies ... or on Twitter were controversial or false", for "Many of the statements he made at rallies ... or on social media were controversial or false." See social media (plural noun), also WP:BLPSTYLE (present the material conservatively) and WP:BLPSOURCES (re unsourced material). --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Anything, Twitter is what he is known for. Not Instagram. And Facebook had live streaming during the campaign. Twitter is where he put out controversial comments. Dervorguilla is using reliable sources that show Twitter, not Instagram, not Facebook.145,000,000 Google hits for Donald Trump and Twitter can't be wrong. It's Twitter. Not Instagram. Not Facebook. That's what the sentence should say. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Why not just use a generic statement which never needs to be tweaked?: "Many of the statements he has made are controversial or false." If you wish, I can provide over 250 very nicely formatted RS on the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
|
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2017
![]() | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-is-richer-than-all-the-presidents-combined-172249313.html I think we should add this as a interesting fact in this article or in the wealth of US presidents Westeros77 (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- We probably should, but again the source itself says the number is quite uncertain... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- The source is 24wallst.com. Wikipedia doesn’t appear to have an article on them and their business address is a PO Box. Sounds a bit iffy. Objective3000 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done We already say he is the wealthiest president in history and we link to the detailed List of Presidents of the United States by net worth. Saying that Trump is "richer than all presidents combined" makes little sense because that would add up wealth of various people over two centuries. Besides, it's trivia. — JFG talk 20:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
No political party relations.
Some people I talk to, even Donald Trump himself said that he was only running under the Republicans and the first president not to have any political party relations when the presidents became them. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Gary "Roach" Sanderson: I can't really make sense of what you mean. Are you requesting a particular change to the text? In that case, please follow the process for edit requests. — JFG talk 20:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I almost have the things for the 30/500 around 100 or more edits. So im making the change when I get to the point, thanks for the offer though :) Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Donald Trump is a Republican. Any attempt to alter that in this article will likely be reverted swiftly. "Stuff that people tell me" is not exactly solid sourcing for an assertion like this. TheValeyard (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Bernie Sanders is an independent who ran in the Democratic primaries. Although it's true Trump ran for the Republicans, and I would be the first to say he's one, the lack of prior political experience and involvement means we should maybe do just a bit of research to find some sources that confirm he wasn't just running under the banner of the Republican Party. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Donald Trump is a Republican. Any attempt to alter that in this article will likely be reverted swiftly. "Stuff that people tell me" is not exactly solid sourcing for an assertion like this. TheValeyard (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Unprecedent negative campaign coverage?
Is it OK to make this claim in the lead?
His campaign received an unprecedented volume of negative media coverage.
Here's some pertinent information from a related article, Presidential campaign: Media coverage. "Politico says, 'Blaming the press for the Trump surge neglects the salient fact that so much of the coverage of him has been darkly negative.'" Other pertinent material:
- "The small number of endorsements received by Trump was unprecedented in American history for a candidate from a major party." (US presidential election: Newspaper endorsements.)
- "This is The Atlantic’s third presidential endorsement in the magazine's 159-year history. Their two previous endorsements were for ... Lincoln in 1860 and ... Johnson in 1964... This is Vogue’s first political endorsement for any candidate in its 123-year history... 'For the first time in its 111-year history, Variety is endorsing a presidential candidate.'" (Endorsements by magazines.)
- "USA Today, which never had endorsed any candidate in its 34-year history, broke the tradition..." (Presidential campaign: Endorsements.)
I've yet to find a WP article or a reputable mainstream source that says his campaign coverage was less negative than even one other historically significant candidate's. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- The claim sounds fair. Indeed, you would be hard pressed to find any press or TV outlet endorsing Trump, and a cursory review of campaign coverage shows overwhelming criticism, mockery or outright hatred (see HuffPost's notice appended to all their articles during the campaign:
Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.
). — JFG talk 06:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC) - It would have to be altered to specify it was mainstream media coverage, because Trump received plenty of positive media coverage from fringe sources that was magnified by the right wing media echo chamber. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: The Newspaper endorsements list does include endorsements by right-wing "fringe sources" -- for example, the KKK's official newspaper, The Crusader ("The Premier Voice of the White Resistance"). Yet we still say, "The small number of endorsements received by Trump was unprecedented". --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Now I come to think about it, I don't think Trump received more negative coverage than any other presidential nominee has in recent years. Trump's may have seemed worse because the media called him out for all his lies. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: The media may well have "called him out for all his lies". But the sentence doesn't suggest that the coverage was inaccurate or unfair. It just indicates that the coverage expressed an unprecedented volume of disapproval.
- negative. Expressing dislike or disapproval. <The reviews were mostly negative. (=unfavorable)>.
- Your comment does appear to suggest that Trump's coverage may have "seemed worse". ("coverage. The activity of reporting about a ... subject in [the press]".) That's the point: It seemed worse. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Scjessey: The media may well have "called him out for all his lies". But the sentence doesn't suggest that the coverage was inaccurate or unfair. It just indicates that the coverage expressed an unprecedented volume of disapproval.
- We need to be careful not to conflate news coverage with endorsements. The examples relate to endorsements. There was plenty of negative news coverage for both candidates. Objective3000 (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Objective3000: Perhaps for good reason? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- That seems a stretch considering all Obama went through since 2008 all Hillary went through since 1992. pbp 13:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Among the United States' 100 largest newspapers ... 57 endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton ... while only 2 ... endorsed Trump... Clinton won support from not only traditionally Democratic-leaning newspapers, but also traditionally non-political and conservative newspapers." (Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016.) Her coverage, and Obama's, may indeed have been negative. But the data seem show that they were not as negative as Trump's. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Dervorguilla: Getting an unprecedented low number of newspaper endorsements a) isn't exactly the same thing as getting unprecedented negative campaign coverage, and b) is a much more precise statement. You would have a much better case arguing for a statement noting his lack of newspaper endorsements. pbp 00:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Among the United States' 100 largest newspapers ... 57 endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton ... while only 2 ... endorsed Trump... Clinton won support from not only traditionally Democratic-leaning newspapers, but also traditionally non-political and conservative newspapers." (Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016.) Her coverage, and Obama's, may indeed have been negative. But the data seem show that they were not as negative as Trump's. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - The placement in the lede along with this added to it,
His campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his public statements were controversial or false.
Reads like synthesis. Are the false statements and controversies causing the "unprecedented coverage?" Mentioning this after Mike Pence becoming his running mate doesn't flow with what came before. It would be best to simply state why the campaign received 'unprecedented coverage.' Things he said were part of it, but the media went nuts from the start. It took them two weeks to pick up on the Mexico comments. At first, the media were all about Donald Trump running. They did the same thing in 2012 when Trump hinted he might run. NBC's coverage was especially intense in 2012 and 2015. Their media star from the Apprentice was running for president and they wanted everybody to know that. It took two weeks before they started mentioning the Mexico comment and the first negative stories were coming from Telemundo or Univision, one of which I think is owned by NBC. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree this would be read as SYNTH. Moreover the "unprecedented media coverage and attention" bit would need to be explicitly cited and verified by multiple mainstream RS for us to consider stating it in WP's voice. Otherwise it is editors' OR assessment of what we have observed. I don't think this discussion is going to be productive. The "controversial or false" bit is stated by many RS. What sources have stated "unprecedented volume of negative media coverage"? Mainstream journalists by their nature tend to be biased toward verifiable fact. Since Trump is more grounded in his personal intuition, it's not negative when the media indicate that. Also, who needs HuffPo for Trump's BLP? There's plenty of sources before we dip into HuffPo, Fox News, and the like. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @SW3 5DL: Thanks for the insightful observation! Actually, all three of the original sentences seem to have been wrongly juxtaposed, per SYNTH.
- In June 2015, he launched his campaign... In July [2016] he was formally nominated ... along with Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate. His campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his public statements were controversial or false.
- Trump won the general election on November 8..."
- In the first paragraph, the last three sentences are juxtaposed so as to insinuate that his campaign in the primary election received unprecedented coverage. Not so. His campaign in the primary and the general election received such coverage. (And so forth.) The last two sentences in that paragraph need to go somewhere else. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: So if we do cite multiple mainstream RSs, you wouldn't oppose? --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I deal strictly C.O.D., so let's see what you have. You still have the SYNTH issue, and you would need to show not that it's the dominant opinion but rather that it was somehow quantified and demonstrated. Good luck and let's see what you can find! SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: So if we do cite multiple mainstream RSs, you wouldn't oppose? --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm perfectly fine with the statement: "His campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention." or "an unprecedented level of media coverage." Because that seems accurate to me. What I have a problem with is the addition of "negative".. because had the coverage been overly negative, it's unlikely we would be in the position we are now. They certainly gave him an unprecedented amount of air time without repeatedly, continuously, and clearly pointing out his numerous falsehoods, or standing up against his repeated insults and behaviour. Dervorguilla's quotes simply don't support the idea that the unprecedented level of media coverage was an unprecedented level of _negative_ media coverage, and I find flaws in his logic in interpreting them that way. Centerone (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- It’s rather obvious that he received unprecedented coverage (without the word negative). The problem is that we would have to state why. We can find plenty of RS that he is unusual and a master at social media. But, there is also the fact that there is an ever-increasing impact of social media, and a ratings war between both online sites and cable news channels, possible outside interference by a foreign state, and an increasingly divided country. It would be difficult for us to avoid synthesis in stating the reasons, and not responsible to make a general statement without any inclusion of cause. And, any inclusion of cause would probably require more RfCs than most of us can stomach. Objective3000 (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Centerone. pbp 00:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Centerone: It's been suggested that he won in part because the mainstream media coverage was so "darkly negative". Reportedly, some voters concluded that the "Establishment" feared Trump more than Clinton, despite his higher socioeconomic status. Had the Times, USA Today, the Atlantic, and the others not all come out against him, he might have lost. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Objective3000: You've put it a lot better than I could. I would accordingly have to support removing both sentences. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Dervorguilla - I'd say no the line is inappropriate for the lead of this article, although it seems kind of accurate. First, it seems WP:OFFTOPIC -- while I recall there were reports and articles during the election where media openly said they felt free or obligated to cover Trump differently, that is a topic of the campaign or the presidency articles and not significant in his life which is what the WP:BLP article is supposed to be. (Current practice to the contrary.) Second, even if it fit here it doesn't seem to fit the guidance of what is suitable for a lead in WP:LEAD or style and structure of WP:BLP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Infobox — Chairman of The Trump Organization office
![]() | This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would it be appropriate to add "Chairman of The Trump Organization" to the infobox? Arguably, it would be viewed as inappropriate due to the fact that it is not a political office. Yet, on Ronald Reagan, the "President of the Screen Actors Guild" office is listed despite not being a political office (it is a union, however).
Thoughts? Frey's Fray (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- That's not his title per The_Trump_Organization. Per news reports in January, "Trump will resign from all officer and other positions he holds in his businesses....". Anyway, it's already in this infobox under "Occupation". You can read the pertinent talk page discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply; Yes, Donald Trump is no longer the "Chairman", but it's still worth listing it, is it not? To counter your point made, we haven't removed the fact that Barack Obama was a United States Senator from Illinois simply because he isn't a Senator anymore - and that goes for listing his Presidency as well, for that matter. And it's not quite in the infobox under "Occupation". If it was, it would be "Company chairman", not "Real estate developer". Anyway, this is what it would look like — Frey's Fray (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump | |
---|---|
![]() | |
45th President of the United States | |
Assumed office January 20, 2017 | |
Vice President | Mike Pence |
Preceded by | Barack Obama |
3rd Chairman of The Trump Organization | |
In office 1971 – January 11, 2017 | |
Preceded by | Fred Trump |
Succeeded by | Donald Trump Jr. Eric Trump Allen Weisselberg |
Personal details | |
Born | Donald John Trump June 14, 1946 New York City |
Political party | Republican (1987–99, 2009–11, 2012–present) |
Other political affiliations |
|
Spouses | |
Relations | See Family of Donald Trump |
Children | |
Residence | White House |
Alma mater | Wharton (B.S. Econ.) |
Occupation | |
Signature | ![]() |
Website | |
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit extended-protected}}
template. (The RfC was withdrawn.) —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)