Talk:Maryanne Trump Barry

message: A subpage at Maryanne Trump Barry/fjc was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: A portait-picture and/or action-picture always improves an article. -- AstroU (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Federal judge, might she have a portrait available in the public domain? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: You are invited to participate in an ongoing talk-page discussion about the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing discussion about lead picture at [[Donald Trump]] 

message: The lead says she IS a judge. The infobox says her term ended in 2011. Which is correct? 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See senior status. – Smyth\talk 11:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

message: The last names of some ancestors of Maryanne Trump are spelled differently in this Ahnentafel ("Drumpft") than at Family of Donald Trump#Genealogical table ("Trump").  You said in a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump#First name of the grandfather that you have good sources on the Trump branch in Germany. Could you confirm that Maryanne's table is wrong, so we can correct it? Could you also check other names in related articles? If that helps, I could prepare a template to add those tables consistently in all relevant articles from a single source. Thanks, — JFG talk 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There have never been any other spellings besides Trump. When Friedrich Trump, the German grandfather of Maryanne and Donald, arrived in NY at age 16, his last name was incorrectly registered as Trumpf. And then there is the root of the Drumpf hype in the States: kind of a speculation about an ancestor back in the 17th century who was named Drumpf by Gwenda Blair in her book The Trumps. As for Drumpft, there is no basis at all. This is just a fake. I corrected such fakes or well-meaning mistakes in most of the relevant articles, partly more than once. It's like a fight against the mythological Hydra. – I am happy if you call me for advice, but I am not into regular involvement in your part of WP. Even in the German one I needed a handful of clones to do all the important things that nobody else than me is able or willing to do. And I still don't get it why I keep to be the only wikipedian worldwide to use The Trumps and Pozar's Melania biography. And why nobody bothers to grip those Donald biographies. Also worldwide. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for confirming the information. Right, "Drumpft" is not even valid German, "fake news" I guess!  — JFG talk 04:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of ancestors 

message: Law school is not graduate schoo. It is professional school. 
Does Wikipedia have an editorial policy regarding calling law school “graduate school”?
It may be spoken of in that way in a casual sense but it is not correct.2600:1700:F220:B0E0:EC9A:CD4:8EEF:C000 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law school is not graduate school. It is professional school 

message: The intro to this article currently reads:
:Maryanne Trump Barry (born April 5, 1937) is an American attorney and a retired United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, appointed by President Bill Clinton. She is the eldest sister of U.S. President Donald Trump and has privately been sharply critical of him.[1]
That last bit is today's headline but is not typically the kind of thing that floats up to the top of a biography. It's certainly worth having a section about it in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the first paragraph. I made that adjustment and User:Cullen328 reverted it, suggesting that consensus should be gained here before it can be removed. Do folks have thoughts?--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that her criticism of her brother will certainly be a significant part of how she is seen by history. As for it being in the first paragraph, the lead currently consists of a single paragraph. Rather than removing her criticism from the lead, a better solution would be to expand the lead to better summarize her life and career. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't ever remember being so certain that the most recent Trump presidency bombshell was going to remain right near the top of the historical picture of Donald Trump.  This does indeed belong in the lead.  Cullen has a good idea about how to improve the lead.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I concur with  soibangla (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Err...What???  She did not make "one criticism"--she went all the way back to when he was young and she said he was a brat and a cheater.  He lied to get into college.  He has no "No principles.  None.  None."  He is cruel.  This is just barely scratching the surface.  I'd say that it sounds pretty "sharply critical" to me.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored that to the lead, as there is clearly no consensus to remove it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

text: First of all, the recording and the trancripts were not "leaked". They were openly released by Mary Trump, one of participants in the conversations, to the Washington Post (which is a reliable source) in accordance with the law of the state of New York. Donald Trump has already responded dismissively, as have White House officials Mark Meadows and Kayleigh McEnany. However, none of them nor anyone else credible have contested the accuracy of the quotations, and therefore the quotes should be considered as factual and accurate. I guess that you consider factual journalism that you do not like to be "bad journalism", but your personal opinion holds no weight. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I don't understand. She's no longer a judge. soibangla (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither are John Marshall or Learned Hand, but we still maintain their articles. Her primary locus of notability was being a federal appellate judge. She would be notable for that even if she was unrelated to Trump, and if she was never a judge, her relationship to Trump wouldn't guarantee her notability at all. BD2412 T 21:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Is prior consensus required before making any edit? soibangla (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

text: * It is not, but if the edit is contested, consensus is required to keep it. BD2412 T 21:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *, if there anything that I am certain of, it is that we should not make editorial decisions based on catering to the whims of conspiracy-minded readers. That's the path to mediocrity. As for the historic significance, I am convinced that this will be a major part of any future coverage of MBT or the Trump family. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * It may well be. However, there is no WP:DEADLINE, so there is no harm to the article in delaying a decision on this point for 72 days and change. The criticism is already recorded in the article, and after the coming election it will probably exist for as long as Wikipedia does for these matters to be addressed. BD2412 T 21:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be "a summary of its most important contents", and the current version of the lead fails that standard, unless you consider her comments about her brother to be "unimportant". If that was the case, why would White House and Trump campaign officials as well as the president be discussing it with reporters? I object to delaying this until after the election, which is not a deadline on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * I am merely expressing an opinion here that there is no immediate need to resolve this question. Obviously, if there is a consensus for the material to be included right away, that consensus will be implemented, but we live in an age of bombshells that blow over in the next 24-hour news cycle, and are forgotten. BD2412 T 22:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. My point was not to eliminate this information from the page I  simply contested putting it in the lead when the information came out 24 hours ago. If you read my comments I stated that further corroboration is needed. My main concern was with the apparent value judgement made with the phrase "sharply critical". More information and a rewording to stay relevant to the times but at the same time neutral makes the most sense in my view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.253.245.124 (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sharply critical" statement