Talk:Donald Trump

Politician status

Is it right to call Donald Trump a politician? He has never held an elected office. This is his second-ever political campaign. epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe Donald Trump has only once been a candidate for political office, and Trump is currently a pre-selection Republican Presidential candidate; how does this warrant describing him as a politician? User:Brisbane1965 15:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That is also what I am trying to say. If he was only ever a candidate, how is he a politician? epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just re-iterating/supporting your point of view. User:Brisbane1965 15:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• From our article: "A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government". Dictionaries define it similarly. There is no need to have actually held office. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  There is no way he is a politician. He is a bombastic ****** who talks a lot of **** (censored due to BLP).

  But joking aside, I understand that by Wikipedia's own article, he could be considered a politician. What do other reliable sources say, though? epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Holding office is only one definition of politician. The etymology of the word is " a person skilled in politics", while definitions include "a person who is active in party politics.....a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles...a person who holds a political office." Cambridge dictionaries gives the British definition as "a ​member of a ​government or law-making ​organization" but the American definition as "a ​person who is ​active in ​politics, esp. as a ​job"

As for sources, The Washington Post, The Independent, The New York Times, The New Yorker all describe Trump as a politician. Valenciano (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Since this can be a contentious label, I suggest we add these sources to support the fact that he is a politician in the lead, despite it violating policy. epicgenius (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no... we shouldn't allow the media to influence these definitions. User:Brisbane1965 15:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too, but we should see if other reliable sources do not mention him as a politician as well. That may influence whether it can be included in the article. Otherwise, I guess "politician" has a looser meaning these days. ;-) epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, my definition may be different, but that's a different discussion. Trump being a former Mayoral candidate qualifies. Many thanks. :-) User:Brisbane1965 15:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Stating in the lead that he is a "politician", even before stating that he is a "TV personality", is misleading since it suggests to the reader that running for or holding office has been a major feature of his life. And that is not the case. (This sophist justification to specify "politician" is the kind of coat-rack POV argument that turns people off to either editing, or reading, or referring to, the WP.) A "politician" as the 2nd descriptor in the lead suggests a significant stake in career politics in his life. That's just not reflective of the fact regardless what the WP politician article says. IHTS (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

For those who feel Floquenbeam's use of WP definition ("active in party politics, holding or seeking office", where "no need to have actually held office") justifies identifying Trump "politician" as descriptor in the lead, then for a little consistency, perhaps the same people s/ feel compelled to go over to the Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina articles, and make the same claims there (that they are/were "politicians"). (Or maybe consistency is a *bad* thing, and I just haven't learned that yet ...) IHTS (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think politician is restricted to those who hold office. Clearly as the leading Republican candidate, he is a serious political contender. This is not a new, looser definition. The Shorter Oxford dictionary defines politician as "An expert in politics; a person engaged in or concerned with politics, esp. as a practitioner." It says this definition goes back to the early 17th century. An earlier meaning was a "schemer" or "intriguer". It is a misnomer to use the word to signify only a member of Congress or a holder of executive office. As for sources which describe Trump as a politician:[1][2][3]etc--Jack Upland (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that politician is appropriate because it sets the sphere as politics, which is true. But I think "xxx is a politician" really does imply some time spent doing politics, which Trump does not have. So I think that 'aspiring politician' is a good identity for Trump today. SocraticOath (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I also think that politician is appropriate. 'Aspiring politician' is good too, and should address the most of the concerns raised here.- MrX 21:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"Aspiring" is wrong. He is one of the most prominent politicians on the planet at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In the US, since the electorate grants politicians their consent to be governed, it's my feeling that calling Trump a politician can mistakenly imply that he already carries that warrant, which he can't unless actually elected. I think this is a meaningful difference between candidates and politicians. SocraticOath (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, since Trump is "running as an outsider," doesn't that pretty much mean that he doesn't identify as a politician himself? I clarified this with six words at the end of the first lede paragraph. Any objections? SocraticOath (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As one (not American) who considers it unusual of Trump to be a serious candidate for Presidential office in a major party without having ever served as a Representative, Senator, State Governor or city Mayor (commonly found in the CVs of Presidential front-runners), I think it would be more accurate to describe him as an aspiring (less formally would-be or in vernacular, wannabee) politician.Cloptonson (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

loser.com

I have removed the content about loser.com being redirected to this article. It's trivial and has very little relevance to the biographical coverage of this subject. It's also WP:UNDUE.

Removed content
In February 2016, the website loser.com began re-directing to this very article on Wikipedia.[4]

If this is to be re-added to the article, there needs to be consensus for doing so.- MrX 12:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No, there doesn't. It's in the pop culture section and you can't get anymore "pop culture" than that! It's sourced (by TIME, I might add) and definitely notable. Google it and see for yourself! Welcome to the world we live in. 'Tis the internet.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. This is new content and requires consensus for inclusion. Any idiot can redirect a domain to a Wikipedia article. It doesn't make it a pop cultural phenomenon.- MrX 12:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

MrX: This does make it a pop culture phenomenon, though. Time Magazine, Snopes, fortune.com, Daily Mail, Yahoo News, NY Daily News, Huffington Post, and more have all reported it! It is most definitely notable! The fact The Washington Post has written up a history of the website proves it is not just some domain "any idiot redirected to Wikipedia!"Cebr1979 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it has been reported by several news agencies. Many other trivial things have been reported about Trump that we also don't put in his encyclopedia biography. Sourcing is not the only requirement for including content. Editorial discretion, demonstrated through consensus determines what content makes it to the article and what doesn't. So far, there is no consensus so it must remain out. If you feel strongly about this content, you may want to start an WP:RFC to get more input.- MrX 11:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything with "Trump" in the article title gets tons of clicks for these sites. The redirect has zero relevance to the Trump biography. Honestly, it sounds like you're more interested in associating the word "loser" with Trump for your own biased political purposes than anything else. Doorzki (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal Issues Section Needs to be shortened way down or made its own separate article

The legal issues section at the bottom of this bio take up way too much of the article's space and consequently violates WP:WEIGHT (and possibly other Wiki rules) for a bio.

That's not to say that some (or all) of what is documented in this section shouldn't be included, but it needs to be shorter as obviously these issues have not been a dramatically defining issue in Trump's life thus far.

However, if some editors are plastering the end of this article with legal issues for political reasons, that obviously has no place on Wikipedia. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If that was intended as a directed comment, please allow me to note that I added only one lawsuit to the list, the $500 million one against Univision, a recent addition. I did separate the paragraphs for readability purposes and give titles. SocraticOath (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I do object to the idea that Trump's lawsuits have not been a dramatically defining issue in Trump's life. If you want to establish that point, please do it here on the talk page. It seems clear to me that the lawsuits are notable. SocraticOath (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with SocraticOath that Trump's lawsuits have been a big part of his public image, and think this should be a separate article; see further discussion and links under 'proposal for new articles' below. ABF99 (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the sheer volume of content in the lawsuit section is overwhelming to this article and seems to cast Trump in an unfairly negative light. I do think the lawsuit section is important to preserve but in a separate article as this content will only grow as more interest develops on Trump's past. It might also be good to consider a separate article on his business accomplishments eventually as that content will probably grow in volume as well. Doorzki (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Doorzki, can you expand on the idea that the lawsuits seem to cast Trump in an unfairly negative light? It seems to me that the way the legal affairs section is written doesn't go against Wikipedia's principles of fairness (WP:BLP / public figure), neutrality (WP:NPOV), and WP:verifiability, although I agree that the section is long. The article is larger than the threshold for Wikipedia's article split procedure (WP:Split). SocraticOath (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

SocraticOath, thank you for asking me to expand. I think the problem I see can be fixed by condensing all the sections into readable paragraphs. Right now, the Legal Affairs section reads like a bullet-point list with repeating, related, bold titles like "Housing discrimination" and "Tenant mistreatment in New York City." I feel this over-emphasizes these related events to the reader. Moreover, the list format does not flow with the rest of the article. I would suggest a few broad sections like "Real Estate Litigation," and "Family Matters" over the current chronological chart. Further, I would urge caution in using lists of titles that simply name crimes like "Antitrust" because the list of bold titles give a feeling of NPOV to someone skimming the article and not closely analyzing each charge. Doorzki (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, condensation makes better sense. The section doesn't need so many categories and subheaders. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've objected to the split before, being wary of offloading Mr. Trump's history of litigiousness (an essential component of his biography) into a separate and little-trafficked sidebar. As it stands the legal section, while long, is at the end of his entry. It is there for readers to examine or not, but it is still part of the whole. To take it out would be to imply that Mr. Trump's so-called business success story has been relatively free of acrimony, scandal, and perceived legal abuse. I would not approve a split unless the main article includes both 1) a comprehensive summary of his lawsuits and legal maneuverings, and 2) prominent mention, preferably in the lede, that his history of litigiousness has also brought him in and of itself a level of notoriety. Anything less would be a disservice to readers. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Vesuvius Dogg, the only weakness I see with the current presentation is the BLP concept of "broadly neutral", which applies to individual items as well as the entire article, including the table of contents. Although I think the article is broadly neutral, it seems that this is the most likely argument for making this kind of change. SocraticOath (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Am a little confused by what you are saying. Is there a BLP problem with any individual item? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not in favor of splitting the article and (broadly, today) I don't see any issues. I'm trying to frame the discussion by going over the applicable rules in advance of the debate. SocraticOath (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a pass at removing headers. SocraticOath (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've mentioned this in a new section but I'm posting my concern about it here as well. I feel this article could do more to distinguish between Donald Trump and The Trump Organization. While many of the legal affairs include a great deal of Trump's personal involvement, others seem to be related to common business activities within Trump's industry rather than being highly related of Trump as a person. I admit that I struggle on where to draw the line. I will say though some of the content like "Vs. Ossining, New York" describing relatively minor disputes of zoning, building code, and property tax valuation seem to me to be of little relevance to Donald Trump (the person). I highly doubt Trump himself has spent any considerable time worried about a small town's drainage system (though people in his organization may have). Doorzki (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doorzki, I think it's important to remember not to get stymied by the details of the lawsuits, some of which are quite trivial. The point of the Ossining lawsuit is that Trump was accused of using financial maneuvering to inappropriately pay lower taxes to the local government. Whether this is actually what happened, the courts will decide. But like the incident with the flagpole, the accusation (Trump attempted to use the legal system to do something that's legally shaky for his own benefit) is a common theme for many of the lawsuits. The legal shakiness can seem neutral at times, as when he wanted a helicopter manufacturer to pay for the costs to his company resulting from the death of three top executives in a helicopter accident; or it can seem less-than-neutral, as when he did things that resulted in the firing of an analyst who had predicted bad returns on a Trump project, and subsequently settled a defamation lawsuit when the project did have bad returns. I suppose these little differences are what make the details more than trivial. By the way, since Trump frequently counter-sues when he's sued, it doesn't really work to separate the article into "as defendant" and "as plaintiff" sections, in my opinion.SocraticOath (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

More to your point, I'm not really struggling to differentiate between Trump the man and Trump the company in my mind. I would feel differently about, say, Texaco, which was bought. One example where you may be on to something is with Trump Entertainment Resorts, which is now owned by Carl Icahn. Still, I don't think it's sensible to separate the Taj Mahal stories from the man Trump. I suppose that if Icahn takes the company in a really different direction, which he may do (he's only had it for a few months, if I remember right), then it would probably be less confusing to say, "while Trump was chairman and president of TER, a project was...." instead of simply, "in 1992, Trump began a project to...". SocraticOath (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I used to think that Trump's father's investment in the casino by purchasing chips was clever. But really, there is such a thing as the spirit of a law, and Trump eventually paid a fine for that incident. SocraticOath (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

New articles proposal

OK, I think that Wikipedia's long-format reporting on Trump's various activities is valuable and should not be simply deleted for the sake of WP:Weight. Maybe there should be several new articles to avoid this problem. I propose a new article, Lawsuits involving Donald Trump. Perhaps Alleged links between Donald Trump and organized crime would be another good article to add, as well as Donald Trump real estate ventures, Donald Trump in pop culture, and Donald Trump in US politics. Clearly, this active 69-year-old mogul requires extra attention in order to be the subject of good Wikipedia articles. SocraticOath (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I object, because his lawsuits and Mafia history are critical to understanding his record as a businessman. He is a politician at the moment, but business is his main claim to fame. To offload the lawsuit section into a separate article would be to minimize their importance, to bury the record and seriously diminish a reader's understanding of his character and history. Why not offload the wrestling or golf sections instead? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's more important to present information fairly and to let the reader form an opinion rather than to color content in such a way that conveys conclusions on topics such as character. Doorzki (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support the proposal for a new article on Lawsuits involving Donald Trump. The subject of Trump and his lawsuits, brought by him or against him, itself is a notable topic and has been brought up by sources and commentators across the political spectrum. Here are a few examples: http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/donald-trump-and-the-lawsuits-following-him-516283971890, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/the-lawsuits-of-donald-trump/273819/, http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/donald-trump-lawsuits/, http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/05/05/4478/donald-trumps-lawsuits-could-turn-conservatives-who-embrace-tort-reform, http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/we-investigated-donald-trump-is-named-in-at-least-169-federal-lawsuits/. Instead of brief mentions in the general Donald Trump article, a well-sourced, more detailed NPOV article on this topic would be doing a service to Wikipedia readers. ABF99 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support this idea because the volume of content overwhelms the other content of the article, unfairly overwhelms Trump's considerable accomplishments (most of which are not tied to these lawsuits), and is sure to grow rapidly over the next few months. Doorzki (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Your "sure to grow rapidly" argument rings hollow to me. If you anticipate that much more of Trump's litigation history will be reported in the coming months, why are you making a pre-emotive argument to offload the issue altogether, deferring instead to his "considerable accomplishments"? That's just not NPOV or balance. "Considerable accomplishment" is hardly a phrase likely to be used by plaintiffs, defendants, and members of the many communities this man has bullied and victimized over the years using legal means. He is a most prodigious and unpleasant litigator. That's part of who he is. We can't avoid the subject without ourselves violating NPOV. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know this for sure, but I have a feeling based on previous elections that as the DNC ramps up opposition research on Trump, more and more details will emerge. Of course, I do not want to "offload" this information. I just don't want it to overwhelm this article. I think sometimes the only way to be NPOV is to present only the facts and to provide the benefit of the doubt to the subject. I don't agree with your statement that he "bullied" and "victimized" "many communities," but I also don't consider the man an angel by any means. To me he did what business people do in the highly litigious American legal system, especially within his industry and within his desires to be promiscuous (not that I care to judge him on it). Highly relevant cases should be mentioned here either in their own section or within other sections, but minor cases should be in their article as they are just that: minor. The intent of this article should not be to make the point that Trump goes to court a lot, especially if the purpose of that is to convey a negative light on him. One of my favorite articles on Wikipedia, Barack Obama, is written in a careful way to give the president the benefit of the doubt and to not tread into the weeds of interpreting legal intricacies. One of the problems with presenting long lists of legal cases is people interpret them as guilty verdicts. People also might interpret settlements as admissions of guilt (because, we might conclude, there is no reason to settle if you are right). Both of these are inaccurate. Trump is in a position that requires him to have many legal disputes as is the president. That doesn't mean the quantity of the legal disputes should reflect on either man. However, having a separate page with the purpose being comprehensive in terms of legal affairs provides a way for the interested reader to get into these legal details without getting an incorrect impression while reading the main article. Doorzki (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Doorzki, let me say: I don't think your statement that Trump "is in a position that requires him to have many legal disputes" is easily reconciled with his track record of suing the little people. Case(s) in point: the $1 million defamation lawsuit against student and Trump University litigant Tarla Makaeff for statements made on Facebook, the $5 million lawsuit against pageant contestant Sheena Monnin for (truthful) statements made to the media about pageant rigging, the $5 million suit against Bill Maher for his "orangutan" joke, the $5 billion lawsuit against the journalist who may have lowballed his net worth (though Trump couldn't prove it). None of these lawsuits were "required" by his profession. And certainly his profession didn't require he sue his ex-wife Ivana for $25 million for an alleged violation of a divorce non-disparagement clause. Further, I'd argue that his Rancho Palos Verdes, Miami airport, and Ossinning lawsuits have all been leveled against communities (and organizations) with relatively modest legal budgets, demanding outsized community resources to combat; I would argue these lawsuits indicate more than just a small tendency toward bullying and legal abuse (and also demonstrate his propensity for settling, particularly when he is himself the plaintiff, despite what he's said during the campaign). However: I do appreciate that the section risks developing into a rather tedious laundry list, with some of the matters relatively trivial in comparison to others, and that a comprehensive summary (with weight toward the most important as well as current cases) might be in order. Maybe we could begin writing that summary here on the Talk Page, in anticipation of an eventual article split? But I don't want to trivialize the issue with an inadequate and/or superficial summary. Even Trump's most ardent good faith supporters, currently signing lifetime non-defamation contracts in exchange for the privilege of volunteering time to the campaign, ought to know that Trump had a record of suing former friends and fans ("pour encourager les autres"). So let's put this all in proper NPOV perspective. There's no way this is a normal part of doing business. It's part of his character. It's who Trump is. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• SupportA separate legal issues page would fix the serious WP:WEIGHT issues with this article. Especially if Trump gets the nomination, let alone president, devoting half of his BLP to law suits his company has been involved in will not be justified in taking up half of his article. Secondly, a big issue with putting this exhaustive list of lawsuits in his BLP is that many were done by the Trump Organization - which is owned by Carl Ichan's company - and not Trump itself. Trump many not have been directly involved in many of the lawsuits the Trump Organization was involved in. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support The Legal Affairs section seems long enough to support being its own article at this point.CFredkin (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Political commentary in lead

I've removed this commentary on Trump's politics from the lead. The lead should consist of facts, not subjective discussion. In lieu of this content, I think it would be fair to mention a few of his most prominent political stances (e.g. opposition to illegal immigration).CFredkin (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends on how you define 'subjective'. Would it be fair to call Donald Trump a politician running on a conservative platform, or would that be a subjective label? If saying he's running on a conservative platform is okay- would saying populist be okay too? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin removed this sentence from the lede:

"His plain-spoken style and controversial comments have led to extensive media coverage, where his politics have been described as populist, nativist, protectionist, and authoritarian by a variety of pundits and media outlets."

Overall this sentence is well sourced and its content is undisputed -- though its wording could be improved somewhat.

You might be right that a specific breakdown of Trump's major positions within the lede could be appropriate, but I don't think it's correct to remove the above summarization of Trump's political views from the lede either. One approach would be to follow the Bernie Sanders article lede, where Bernie progressive label is mentioned in addition to an overview of his major priorities. Spudst3r (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

References

I believe that we should not only list what his critics say, but what his supporters say as well. When we only give voice to his critics, it can give the tone an unfair partisan edge. So instead of only saying that his policies have been described as "nativist," we could say that "Critics portray his policies as nativist...while supporters..." I'm pinging Winkelvi on this because he recently changed another addition to the lead containing the content in question. Display name 99 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with listing what his critics or his supporters say. There is a problem if it gets included as encyclopedic content when it really is nothing more than WP:POV. Which is why I removed it. Encyclopedic tone is all important, after reliable sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, let me propose this:

His plain-spoken style and controversial comments have led to extensive media coverage. Some have criticized his policies as nativist, protectionist, and authoritarian. However, his supporters applaud his seemingly bold ideas and straightforwardness, and see his proposals as a means to end what are considered corrupt and inefficient establishment politics.

I think that this gives accurate weight to both sides. Hopefully, you, Spudst3r, PeterTheFourth, and CFredkin can agree on this or something rather close to it. Display name 99 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

References

"His plain-spoken style and controversial comments have led to extensive media coverage." That is POV wording and certainly not encyclopedic. Please read WP:PEACOCK. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, after reading that over, I think that the first part of the statement that you have quoted above is fine, although the second may require revision. A lot of people support Trump because he "tells it like it is," and does not seem to have a filter for political correctness. Meanwhile, some of the things he says have certainly created controversy. As for the last part, I can see how you may want to change the tone to something less loaded. Would you approve of the statement if "extensive" was dropped in favor of "significant?" Display name 99 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the first part is not okay. It's in Wikipedia's voice that Trump has a "plain-spoken style" and is "controversial". That's POV. Perhaps you should also read WP:PEACOCK. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to mention something about Trump's political stances in the lead, then I think we should avoid labels (either good or bad) and stick to facts and his actual stances on issues. For example, I think something like this from one of the existing sources might be appropriate:

Trump first campaigned for the U.S. presidency in 2000, winning two Reform Party primaries. On June 16, 2015, Trump again announced his candidacy for president, this time as a Republican. He quickly became the front-runner in the Republican contest, due in part to his skepticism of immigration, free trade, and military interventionism. As of March 9, 2016, he has won 15 contests in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries.

CFredkin (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good except for "He quickly became the front-runner in the Republican contest". "Quickly" is making a quantitative judgement. It would be better to give a time-frame ("after entering the race, he became the declared front-runner by <name of the month, year>") than to say "quickly became". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, it is true that after Trump declared his candidacy he speedily moved to the top in most polls. I consider this an unbiased and true statement. I think that "declared front-runner" sounds rather confusing and awkward, although I would not be opposed to saying something like "by late July he had become the front-runner." I think that CFredkin's version is fine, although I would replace "skepticism" with "opposition." Display name 99 (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Consider it true if you'd like, but it's not an unbiased statement from Wikipedia's standpoint on POV. There's nothing wrong with "declared front-runner" as it is not only grammatically correct, but it is correct in the sense that he was declared the front runner by the media at a certain point. I don't think it was or could be by July 2015, because there had been no debates held at that time and no caucuses or primaries. Polls do not make a candidate a front-runner in American politics. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Debates don't decide frontrunners any more than polls do. I think it was clear by the end of July that Trump had more support than any of the other candidates. We can't wait to say that he emerged as the front-runner in March, because he was the most-supported candidate well before that. What would you suggest? Display name 99 (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, they do. When did the media start to declare a front runner? Before or after the debates? July is too early to declare a front runner, in part, because not everyone declares their candidacy by mid-summer. Regardless, Wikipedia can't say who was the declared front-runner and when, we go with reliable sources. What do the sources say and when did the most major ones start to say it? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this summary is removing critical points that should be mentioned in the lede, in particular summarizing (similar to how Bernie is a progressive) Trump's key ideological descriptions. I'm open to also including commentary on his "controversial comments", but because there isn't a consensus yet on that wording I'll exclude that for now. I propose modifying the lede sentence to:

Trump first campaigned for the U.S. presidency in 2000, winning two Reform Party primaries. On June 16, 2015, Trump again announced his candidacy for president, this time as a Republican. He quickly became the front-runner in the Republican contest, due in part to his skepticism of immigration, free trade, and military interventionism. His supporters applaud his seemingly bold ideas and straightforwardness, seeing his proposals as a means to end what are considered corrupt and inefficient establishment politics. Others have described his campaign as populist, nativist, protectionist, and authoritarian. As of March 9, 2016, he has won 15 contests in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries.

This incorporates sentences from both Display name 99 and CFredkin because both their summaries contribute to the lede in different ways, while also adding the well cited descriptions of his politics from media sources that leads his political positions section. Overall I think it's quite balanced, but let me know what you think, Display name 99, PeterTheFourth, Winkelvi, and CFredkin. Spudst3r (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, although I would replace "skepticism of" with "opposition to." Also, allthough I do not mind the use of the word, Winkelvi may want "quickly" replaced with "eventually," as was previously agreed. If he suggests it, I think it would be best to go along with it unless someone else agrees that there is no issue with it. Display name 99 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be an improvement over the version that has already been agreed upon. It appears to re-incorporate language that has already been objected to by multiple editors. I'm not sure why this is being re-litigated. (I also don't understand why this proposal was buried in the middle of this section in Talk.)CFredkin (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but looking over your objections and the current state of the article I've amended my proposed lede to as follows:

Trump first campaigned for the U.S. presidency in 2000, winning two Reform Party primaries. On June 16, 2015, Trump again announced his candidacy for president, this time as a Republican. He emerged as the front-runner for the Republican nomination. He became known for his skepticism to immigration, free trade, and military interventionism. His supporters applaud his criticism of the party establishment and his straightforwardness, believing he can end what they consider corrupt and inefficient establishment politics. Others have described his campaign as populist, nativist, protectionist, and authoritarian. As of 16 March 2016, he has won 20 contests in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries.

This proposal: (a) favours skepticism over opposition because that's the wording used in the citation given, (b), removed quickly emerged as it was criticized for adding a voice, and (c) adds "His supporters applaud his criticism of the party establishment and his straightforwardness" because the original sentence was not backed up by the citation given, so I replaced it with this one. I'm open to different wording, but overall I think the His supporters applaud.., and "others describe..." sentences within the lede is a good way of approaching describing his campaign. (d) Continues to use the words to describe his campaign used in political positions that no one has disputed. Let me know what you think Display name 99, PeterTheFourth, Winkelvi, and CFredkin. Spudst3r (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

How about we simply leave it the way that it was agreed upon? Display name 99 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem I'm trying to address is that I believe the lede should contain more than just one sentence about Trump's politics given the notability of his run, similar to what you see with the Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz articles (they all show that good biography's for presidential candidates should contain at least a few sentences of political commentary as a bare minimum). Donald Trump's current lede in my mind is inadequate because it should have more details about his Presidential run. Trump's lede should at the very least: (1) describe his major expressed political priorities, (2) describe notable aspects of his media/political personality / campaign (e.g. his straightforwardness that has become a major notable aspect of the Trump "story"), and (3), wrap this in with a description of how to classify his political identity (e.g. Trump's expresses views consistent with 'nativism' or 'authoritarianism' similar to how Sanders is seen as progressive). The current lede only achieves number 1 and we definitely have room to expand what is said. My lede is a first attempt at achieving all 3 of these goals but I'm very open to amended wording.Spudst3r (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Spudst3r, I understand your point and agree with your basic goals. I had supported the inclusion of some detail-mainly that he received extensive media coverage and quickly became the front-runner. Other editors, though, objected to some or all of these details. I also notice that someone removed the sentences concerning how his supporters and opponents see him, respectively. I do not believe that I was aware of that when I made the above comment. I believe that this summary of how he is seen by the different groups-as "nativist..." or someone destroying the "corrupt establishment..." are appropriate. Display name 99 (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Winkelvi, please see here, here, and here. Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a reliable source, the CNN link doesn't say Trump was the frontrunner, and the CBS This Morning link only quotes yougov.com, which is an online blog, not a news source - that makes it also unreliable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, the CNN article repeatedly refers to Trump as leading the other candidates. But to avoid disagreement regarding time, could we simply say that "he eventually emerged as the front-runner?" Display name 99 (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You were the one who claimed Trump had been declared the front-runner since July. The CNN link did not say anything about Trump being a front-runner. Yes, saying he eventually emerged as the front-runner makes sense and is non-POV. As long as it can be sourced as such, it should be fine, although including a time-frame would be best. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)'

Winkelvi, I have made the changes. After examining them, please let me know if you have any further concerns. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi and Display name 99, because the two major political parties haven't nominated anybody yet, I thought it would be more appropriate to say that Donald Trump has emerged as the front-runner for the Republican nomination, rather than the Republican front-runner. This makes it clear that his rivals are still other Republicans and not yet the members of other parties. SocraticOath (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

SocraticOath, It looks fine to me. Thank you for clarifying that detail. Display name 99 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for backup of citations

Would our friends outside the United States please consider creating electronic and hard-copy archives of the source material for this Wikipedia article? Thanks, SocraticOath (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-threatens-to-weaken-first-amendment-protections-for-reporters/ SocraticOath (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The first amendment has multiple parts including freedom of speech and freedom of the press. These are two distinct freedoms. I believe Trump is referring to press rather than speech. I believe the problem to Trump is libel in the context of news, not the idea that speech should be restricted. Per my understanding, a reporter simply requires a source to publish a news story but cannot be made to give up that source. I believe Trump's position is that the current standard makes it easy to disguise malicious intent in reporting news. A reader might make important decisions based on content being characterized as "news" (such as voting decisions), but might be more wary of "opinion" content or another context not marketed as "news." There are other highly consequential contexts where presentation of information is important to its interpretation in law. For example, investment advice is distinct speech versus business news, even though the two can be exactly the same. Presentation can provide legal liability or legal protection. Trump seems to me to want a higher standard for news content, specifically. Anyway, I know where you're coming from, but I don't think the concern has been well defined in most reporting. Doorzki (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So it's my thought that if today's standard for libel protection were raised, that a variety of publishers might take a hard look at their material and withdraw some things that they think wouldn't pass muster anymore. Since the reporting used here has passed Wikipedia's standard, I thought that the public would benefit from having these articles still available after such an action by the government. SocraticOath (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Foreign Relations: dealings with dictators

I just added a sentence under political positions relating to Trump's treatment of Muammar Gaddafi in NYC in 2009, and his comments in retrospect in 2011. My sentence was placed next to a sentence about closer international relations with India. Trump did not treat Gaddafi generously in his dealings, and I am using an unusual word to describe this kind of political positioning: shrewdness. If other editors think this sentence needs help, I would be really glad to hear suggestions. However, I think that Trump's assertion about his preferred style of foreign policy with this type of leader is appropriate and notable for the article, if not exactly here in this section. SocraticOath (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think shrewd is a good substitute for screwed. It looks fine to me.- MrX 19:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor removed the addition, saying it's not really a political position. Any comments, MrX or others?SocraticOath (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a political position, but it could be said to be indicative of his position on foreign policy. It does, however, pre-date his campaign, so it's inclusion in the main biography is probably not a priority.- MrX 00:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT suggesting that Mr. Trump will become President of the United States, nor am I suggesting him as my preference, and I am not looking to advertise his campaign in any way.

---

For some time now, it has been within my attention that, in the event that Mr. Trump becomes President, massive changes to not only his article, but the article infobox, will be implemented.

My concern is that, if he wins the election, his infobox will be changed "INFOBOX PERSON" to "INFOBOX OFFICEHOLDER". The reason for my concern is that if it is changed to an officeholder box, information of his net worth and salary, etc., will not be displayed, since the officeholder box does not support those credentials (and therefore does not display them).

In order to avoid this, I am proposing beforehand to allow the infobox to remain a person box, and utilise the person/officeholder module; like the one on the Clint Eastwood page.

This way, information of his net worth, etc., will remain displayed, and information of his political offices can be seen without sacrificing that information.

In any case, thank you for your consideration. Frey's Fray (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of ways to address this, including using multiple infoboxes. I don't think we have to worry about it until around January 2017, if at all.- MrX 21:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm only opening this matter so we are prepared to address the issue before the result of the election, rather than after. I am aware of the prospect of using multiple infoboxes, but it seems less convenient than my proposed method. Frey's Fray (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Your proposed solution certainly seems valid, but if Mr. Trump is elected president, there will be plenty of infobox warriors who will vocally object to having any of his personal financial information in the infobox. After all, he wouldn't be the first wealthy president, but I guess he would be the wealthiest.- MrX 12:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of, these 'infobox warriors'. That's why I wanted to establish a decision beforehand to prevent this. Frey's Fray (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Separate pages

Why are we adding every little detail about his campaign on this page when we have pages like Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016? There should be just one paragraph to sum up his campaign on this page with the link to these other pages and all extra details should go there! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably because there are far more readers of this article than the campaign article. I agree that this material here can be trimmed, but not to a single paragraph. I would support condensing paragraphs 3, 4,5, and 6; removing paragraph 7; and reducing the material under 'Proposed ban on Muslims entering the U.S.' down to a single paragraph (without a sub heading).- MrX 11:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump vs The Trump Organization

It is my opinion that Donald Trump (the person) so well personifies The Trump Organization that it is common to treat them as one-in-the-same. In fact, everything I have learned about the man leads me to believe he has intimate control of what the company does. I think it might be important, however, to remain cognizant of the distinction between the person and the organization. Reading this article, I feel at times the distinction is not adequately maintained throughout the article. Trump may be chairman and president of the company, but he is not the same as the company. Giving him too much credit for the successes and failures of the organization may not be fair. Looking at other large privately held organizations like Dell and Mars, and reading the pages of Michael Dell and Victoria B. Mars I feel a greater effort is made to maintain the distinctions between the organization and it's namesake leader. I would just like to ask that any edits be careful to maintain some distinction between the two. Doorzki (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

See above (Lawsuit section too long...) for some of my thoughts on this subject, please. SocraticOath (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Image

@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 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 #20 Image 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)

Second choice is #1.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 18 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.[5] 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 #1 -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:41, 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)

• TRAINWRECK —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump Taj Mahal

Fellow editors, There appears to be a disagreement played out in the edit summaries of edits adding & removing material from the Trump Taj Mahal section. We would be better to have the discussion on the merits of that material here on the Talk page. On the basis that this article is a BLP, and there are questions as to whether the inclusion is WP:UNDUE (and therefore not aligned with WP:NPOV); and in the spirit of WP:BRD, I will remove the material pending formation of a consensus. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be undue, but (since the sources provided don't mention Donald) it is definitely WP: original research.CFredkin (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Don't include. The cited WSJ article from Feb. 11, 2015 by Peg Brickley says: "Mr. Trump hasn’t been involved in the management of the casinos for seven years." This suggests the material is okay for our article about Trump Taj Mahal, but not for our article about Donald Trump. As far as this New York Times article is concerned, it doesn't mention Trump at all. If Trump had named his business something else (like "Make America Great Again Corporation") then his last name wouldn't even appear in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me the $477,700 fine from 1998 for failure to report currency transactions is relevant, given that Trump was then an active casino manager (until 2007/2008). The $10 million fine from 2015 (and warnings from 2010 and 2012) is mentioned with the caveat from the WSJ that he was not actively involved in management. He did have a licensing agreement and retained, I believe, a 10% ownership interest. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, the WSJ article specifically states that Trump was not involved in managing the casino at the time that the violations occurred. The information does not belong in his bio.CFredkin (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Trump was certainly involved in management in 1998 and in 2003, and the Reuters article states that the 2015 settlement resolves violations going back to 2003. The Wall Street Journal states that Trump was not an active manager for seven years as of January 2015, when the settlement was reached. Read the sources. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• I note that essentially the same information has been re-added. The onus is on editors to achieve a Talk page consensus prior to taking such action. I would suggest that no such consensus has been reached. Please discuss and form a consensus. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, in keeping with Bank Secrecy Act statutes designed to thwart money laundering. The casino was later assessed an additional $10 million fine in January 2015, settling currency transaction violations going back to 2003 about which it had been "repeatedly warned"; according to The Wall Street Journal, however, Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino for seven years as of the date of the settlement.

References

That's the copy I've proposed, and I note that it incorporates as sources both a 1998 New York Times article on the $477,700 fine and the February 2015 article from the WSJ which distances Trump from the $10 million fine, noting that he was not an active manager at the time. Note that the 2015 fine was the result of a settlement, after more than a decade of investigation, and came in the form of an unsecured debt against the bankruptcy (i.e. the government will only get $50,000 of this $10 million, although this paragraph obviously does not delve into those weeds). Is this copy acceptable? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Vesuvius Dogg: Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and User:Ryk72 above, please remove your edit until there is consensus here for it to be included.CFredkin (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This material is relevant to Trump Taj Mahal but not to Trump himself. It should be removed from this page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph per CFredkin's request, but reject the notion that the $477,700 money laundering fine in 1998 is irrelevant to Trump given that he was the active casino manager at the time. Also, the copy is footnoted to contemporary reliable sources. Please discuss. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Not everything that can be sourced to reliable sources is necessarily relevant to this main bio page. This article has become particularly choppy lately. Some consolidation and weeding would be appreciated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep/restore the deleted material. This involves charges and sanctions imposed on Trump, if I am looking-at it correctly. Therefore it is part of his personal bio.TeeVeeed (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You're not looking at it correctly. The charges and sanctions were imposed on Trump Taj Mahal.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

During the time periods mentioned, Trump was an executive, or owner, or whatever highly-responsible position he was named-as, (at those times), I'm going to go-with keeping my Keep/Restore vote with the request that the statements be parsed even further to make it less murky, or confusing-with when Trump Entertainment, (which Trump was less-involved, but WP readers cannot be expected to know that), was responsible, as-opposed to Trump-whatever it was called when the dealings occurred under Trump's supervision.TeeVeeed (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

-Declaration WP:COI full disclosure, Trump signed my paychecks for a few years, and I never shook his hand because of the germaphobia-thing, lol, but I have no personal agenda or problem. A lot of people here were employed by Trump.TeeVeeed (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@CFredkin: You previously deleted this material, stating that it was "original research" and not grounded in reliable, secondary sources. I don't believe that is the case. The paragraph was moved to this page at your request for discussion. Would you care to weigh in, and perhaps suggest emendations or compromise language? Many thanks. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The WSJ article is the only source that mentions Trump and it indicates that he hadn't been actively managing the casino during the period. You can't combine information from multiple sources to make a claim in Wikipedia. That's WP:original research.CFredkin (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin: The Reuters source (as well as the FinCEN press release) makes clear the $10 million fine linked back to violations occurring in 2003, before Trump stepped down. And wasn't Trump in charge in 1998, with the $477,700 fine was reported by the New York Times? Do you also feel that the fact Mr Trump stepped down from active management in 2007-2008 makes it "original research" to report the fines paid by the casino under his active management in 1998? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what I feel or think. We can't combine information from different sources in order to make a statement about a subject in Wikipedia. That's clearly original research. Until there's a source that indicates that Trump was personally responsible when the casino was penalized, the information doesn't belong in his bio.CFredkin (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump was clearly in charge in 1990/1991 and remained so in 1998 when the $477,700 currency exchange violation fine was assessed. Are you saying we can't include that? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've stated why that violates policy multiple times already. At this point, I'm going to wait for the appearance of new sourcing or information before commenting further.CFredkin (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you have avoided explaining why you believe the 1990/1991 currency reporting violations, for which Trump Taj Mahal paid a $477,700 fine in 1998 while still heading the casino, should not be included. This is reliably sourced to The New York Times. That is not OR. I am a highly amenable editor but your intransigence on this issue, and inability to respond to this specific question, is trying my patience. Do you have a problem with The New York Times as a reliable, secondary source? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My issue with using the NYT article that you're referring to as a source for the content you're trying to add in this article is that Donald Trump is not mentioned in the source. I've said that repeatedly. Once again, I'm going to wait for the appearance of new sourcing or information before commenting further.CFredkin (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, are you really using WP:SYNTH, a part of WP:OR, to prevent Wikipedia from reporting on this case? Let's review the rules in question (and not forget about WP:IAR): Wikipedia must not contain original material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. So by this rule, you wish to say, "Trump has no relationship to the $477,000 fine paid by Trump Taj Mahal in 1998 for failing to file reports required by the Bank Secrecy Act" and therefore, "Placing a reference to the $477,000 fine on this Wikipedia page amounts to original research, which is unattributable, or at least doesn't pass the inline citation standard of WP:BLP." CFredkin, this is zealous application of the rule and not a good reason to remove the material. If necessary, I would write, "in 1998 Trump Taj Mahal was fined $477,000 for ___. Donald Trump maintained over 51% ownership of Trump Taj Mahal at the time and served as chief ___" to satisfy this WP:SYNTH application, but even this is really unnecessary. WP does not have to become stupid and turn backflips in order to avoid synthesizing "something happened to Trump Taj Mahal in 1998" with "Donald Trump was the majority shareholder and leading executive of Trump Taj Mahal in 1998." Such a synthesis is definitely not original research, and removing content because of such a synthesis is a misuse of the principle. SocraticOath (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, contemporary references are available which link Trump Taj Mahal, then controlled indisputably by Donald Trump, with the 1998 fine (https://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/html/19980128.html, http://calvinayre.com/2015/03/11/casino/taj-mahal-can-keep-trumps-name-faces-anti-money-laundering-charges/). If you think the first one isn't a good reference because it's a press release, please say that below so that we can continue this discussion. A press release which says exactly the same thing as news isn't guilty of being the wrong kind of reference. SocraticOath (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The Fincen press release you referenced above doesn't even mention Donald Trump. Regarding the article on calvinayre.com, I'm not sure that's a reliable source, but regardless it's silent on the matter of Donald Trump's potential involvement with the casino's money laundering charges. Your many additions to this article indicate that reliable sources have been covering Trump's activities closely for a long time. If those sources are silent on the matter of Trump's potential involvement with money laundering charges at this casino, then I don't think we should violate WP policy regarding WP:original research in order to insert such a claim here.CFredkin (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep/restore the deleted material. This information, cited back to The New York Times, is reliably sourced. The "original research" reasoning being used to delete it is unfounded. Maslowsneeds (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I just notified a deleting editor who deleted this again, that there are TWO properly formatted consensuses here, both for Keep/Restore. At this point, consensus is Keep/Restore as far as I can tellTeeVeeed (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. In addition to myself, User:Ryk72, User:Anythingyouwant, and User:William S. Saturn have all expressed concerns about this content here.CFredkin (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you speaking on behalf of others ? Others can't register their own opinions on their own behalf ? Also, consensus is not a majority vote. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Maslowsneeds (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In response to the comment on the edit reversion, the NYTimes published the findings that led to the fines. There shouldn't be a cramped reading into the length of the NYTimes' news brief about what was important about Trump himself. That Trump was owner/operator of the Taj is material to the fines being included here, and the NYTimes didn't have to report all the facts about the investigation that led to the fines for the fines to be material to Trump. It was his company, and, at the time when it was his company, an investigation led to the imposition of the fines. Maslowsneeds (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump was not the owner. A publicly traded company, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, purchased the Taj Mahal in 1996, in a transaction that valued the property at $890 million. Publicly traded companies are owned by shareholders, and typically have boards of directors, and executives who answer to that board.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. In 1998, Trump was chairman and 41% owner of a then publicly-listed company (retaining control of the majority of preferred voting stock) at a time when the Treasury assessed a $477,700 fine for currency trading violations occurring from April 1990 (the month the casino opened, when Trump was incontestably the owner) to December 1991 (by which time he had ceded about half his ownership stake to junk-bondholders). Kind of puts him front and center, but who is to say Trump bears any personal responsibility? Maybe he was too busy going bankrupt to operate his company within the law. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that including content which is sourced to articles that don't mention Donald Trump in his bio is a straightforward violation of WP:original research..... One can use your argument as justification to include references to anything that happened at the State Department while Hillary was Secretary of State or at the Clinton Foundation, regardless of whether she's mentioned in the sources. I encourage you to try applying your standard at Hillary's bio, and see what happens.CFredkin (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't edit Mrs. Clinton's bio, but I'd argue that if she's being held accountable for falling short in her day-to-day supervision of the Benghazi mission security detail, Mr. Trump surely ought to be held accountable for the fact that, per the IRS, half the required currency transactions above $5,000 at his namesake casino, even in 2003 when he was chairman and CEO, went unreported. I don't think Mr. Trump gets a pass, on the assumption he was too high up in the organization to be responsible. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have concerns too. But for the sake of determining consensus in a lengthy discussion, a bolded vote should be made if one wants to support one side or the other.TeeVeeed (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

After the IPO, Trump retained a 41% stake and was the chairman of Trump Entertainment Resorts. (http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/trump-hotel-casinos-pay-failure/) I think this is an acceptable place to insert language distancing Trump from TER, although this distance is really pretty small. And when it comes to the Business Career section, this is totally within the scope of the article. Imagine if we couldn't write about Yahoo's CEO's performance in that role because she wasn't a majority shareholder herself! SocraticOath (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If not only the NYT but also every other reliable source on Earth chose to attribute this to the company rather than Trump specifically, then we ought to respect that. They may have had good journalistic reasons for doing it that way. Not only was a board of directors ultimately responsible, and not only was Trump a minority shareholder, but also this was a purely civil matter (not criminal), and was not unusual at casinos (there were civil penalties from 12 Atlantic City casinos over the last five years, reports the NYT article).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The WP article about Donald Trump is about a businessman (among other things), and has a section on his business career. Something happened at a company that was under Trump's CEO leadership, and of which Trump was the lead shareholder. Are you saying that it's original research to include this story here? Are you saying that it would be inappropriate point of view to include it here? Are you saying that it's not verifiable that Trump the man had anything to do with what happened at a company that was this close to him? Maybe the section should be written to make these relationships clear. But holding reporting on any other CEO to this standard would be absurd, because you would never be able to say, "CEO Bob Roberts did this" or "CEO Jim James allowed this to happen..." It would be like Wikipedia denies that CEOs receive authority from the board and are thus not responsible for the actions of the company in any way, personally or even in some alternately-defined businessy sense. SocraticOath (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, Trump was CEO. As CEO, he was in charge of carrying out the affairs and plans for the business. The affairs included conduct that were found suspect, investigated, and resulted in fines for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. It's material to the time when he each was CEO and had authority to execute on the affairs of the company on behalf of all shareholders and directors. Add to that, he was the majority shareholder. This is material. Maslowsneeds (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course we can say "CEO Bob Roberts did this" or "CEO Jim James allowed this to happen" if reliable sources say so. For example, see Warren Anderson (American businessman).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, are you saying that this article can't cover the $477,000 fine against Trump Taj Mahal in 1998, and the other fines, because of verifiability / original research? You are asserting that for us to report "the company did something while Trump was in leadership" is not supported by the references, or is making an unsupportable synthesis of references. Or are you waiting around for the pro-inclusion editors to provide language that correctly distinguishes between Trump and his company? SocraticOath (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's take another pass at the re-write of the section in question:

In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, while the casino was still privately owned by Donald Trump. The statutes cited, of the Bank Secrecy Act, were intended to thwart money laundering. In 2015, government assessed a $10 million fine against the casino, settling currency transaction violations of the Bank Secrecy Act going back to 2003. Since Donald Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino business since about 2008, not all of the violations of the settlement occurred under his watch.

References

Any comments? Votes?SocraticOath (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

SocraticOath (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your "proposal" is basically the same as the original edit. It does nothing to address the issue of original research. The only source you've cited that actually mentions Donald Trump is the WSJ article, and it specifically states that Trump was not involved.CFredkin (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with CFredkin for the reasons stated. If you cannot find a single reliable source linking "Donald" to this stuff, then there must be a reason why he wasn't explicitly linked to it. You may be able to find a reliable source linking him to it, and I encourage you to look harder. For example, perhaps you can find the full text of this article:

“ TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FINED $477,000 \ IN '90 AND '91, IT VIOLATED ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING RULES ON REPORTING CASH TRANSACTIONS OVER $10,000.

Author: John Curran, ASSOCIATED PRESS Date: January 29, 1998

Publication: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) Page: B02

Federal banking regulators have slapped Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort with a $477,000 fine for violations of anti-money laundering regulations in 1990 and 1991, officials said yesterday.

It was the biggest fine ever levied against a casino for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.

On 106 occasions between April 1990 and December 1991, the casino failed to file forms for transactions above $10,000, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury's financial crimes division.

”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, this is what you seem to be saying: "For WP to include on this page a story about a fine levied against a company that was operated by Donald Trump, during a time when he was the majority shareholder and CEO, but for which the news doesn't name Trump as CEO of the company, would be original research." There is no dispute about the facts of the fine, which company was implicated, or who was responsible for that company's actions during the years in question. Or are you claiming that for the WP article to report who the CEO and owner was at the time, a verifiable fact, is inappropriate synthesis? SocraticOath (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's inappropriate synthesis. If there was a reason for directly linking Donald Trump to this, then why would every single reliable source decline to report that link? Your hurdle is not high: just find a reliable source that makes the link. In searching for a reliable source, you may uncover the reason why Donald Trump was not directly linked to it; I can imagine lots of reasons, but it would be speculation on my part. What does the full text of the Curran article say?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Add/restore the proposal by SocraticOath, since it qualifies that not all of the fines were assessed under Trump's watch. That provides clarification, and it serves as a good faith compromise. It should be added to the article now. Maslowsneeds (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I tell you what.... Here's an article from the Washington Post in April 2014 stating that $6 billion in contracting money spent by the State Department over the preceding 6 years could not be accounted for and citing “significant financial risk and . . . a lack of internal control.”. That means the issue overlapped Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. The article doesn't mention Hillary, but by your standards here, it can and should be included in her bio. Why don't you try to do that, and if you're successful I'll support your edit here. OK?CFredkin (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground for you to block edits about Trump just because you are here to advance some kind of political agenda that is really all about Hillary Clinton. Twice now, Hillary has been invoked, when she has nothing to do with the fine, the fine being material to Trump, or about the good faith effort to reach compromise language. That you keep relying on Hillary as a crutch in your arguments here is material to you grasping at straws. I think we may need input from other editors here to effect the compromise language. Maslowsneeds (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course your non-response to my proposal just confirms that you're really suggesting that different standards be maintained between the articles in order to justify your POV pushing here.CFredkin (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC) And the so-called "compromise" proposal is really just an insistence that we suspend WP policy regarding original research.CFredkin (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's not compare apples to oranges-this is confusing enough. The fine from the Feds @ US Treasury, are pretty standard for a casino operator. At only about a hundred instances, and yes it would be WP:OR, but 100 out of how many that WERE correctly filed? The material/ref above is fine concerning the casino businesses, and Trump casinos had the "highest" ever fine for that problem, but again,(and it is WP:OR at this point), they probably had the MOST transactions at that time? For whatever the reasons, I agree that WP should NOT have this in the article in such a way that makes it look like Trump's casinos did something that doesn't happen to every casino that deals with lots and lots and lots of $$. I am talking wheelbarrow/giant trash-bags-full of money, when a casino opens, (we are talking about the 1st year that TAJ was open) they are usually overwhelmed. -So that really was not a serious problem for a busy casino. We are talking about another subject besides the bankruptcy issue here? A new section would be nice. 00:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeVeeed (talk • contribs)

Leona Helmsley

I added Trump vs Leona Helmsley with two good refs, and it was changed and moved to another section. I undid the change because the word, "rival" was deleted, and my main reason for adding the material in the 1st place was because this page had no mention of Mrs. Helmsley, and there are numerous refs including one of Trump's own books which mention the contention, animosity, between the two. I think that my original addition was respectful of all WP:BLP policy, added to the topic, and see no reason for the meaning and content of my addition to be diluted and changed into more puffery for DT.TeeVeeed (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the content was returned to the section on Legal Affairs, since there don't appear to be any references to legal issues in the sources. Personally I don't object to the inclusion of "rivals".CFredkin (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC) However the sources indicate that the property was sold to a partnership that included Helmsley. So characterizing it as anything else would be inaccurate.CFredkin (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

OK-I thought that the 2nd ref made the legal issues clear, but I can look for a definite (more "legal"-ref). I took that as Trump surrendering to Helmsley's partners, specifically, NOT Mrs. Helmsley? I was trying to use exactly what was said there. There was no mention in this article about DT's involvement with the Empire State Building either, or the fact that he gained a certain amount of control of it with the help of (foreign) Japanese investors. Calling-on WP:ReverRestore.... please read the purpose of that policy statement. I believe undoing/warring--is not the intended use of the policy, please read where/when it is appropriate to apply.-thanksTeeVeeed (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:teeVeeed: WtF? I stated above that the source provided indicates that Trump SOLD the Empire State Building, and yet you continue to restore your preferred, unsourced language. You've also completely disregarded policy regarding restoring edits on BLP's. I've referred you to WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which clearly states that the burden lies on YOU to obtain consensus here BEFORE restoring your edits and yet you restored your content twice without obtaining consensus here.CFredkin (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Tendentious behaviors aside, you are right about that 1st ref. wow. Forbes let a typo stand on their site since 2001. They, (quote) said, "surrendered", and I used the word-something else, which was actually MORE NPOV than "surrendered". The typo was where they said, (paraphrase) surrender to partner-of Leona Helmsley, Leona Helmsley.....when really the 2nd LH, sb/Malkin! (the current controllers of the Empire State Building-mentioned further-down the referenced page in Forbes). So-I can see if you would prefer another different ref there! And--NO. Just NO. I asked you to please read the reason for WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which I guess you did not so I will C&P----->

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies......it isn't so that editors can use it to war. In any event-done, done, and done. If anyone does not like the Forbes ref, due to the admittedly confusing typo in their article, let's fix it otherwise what is the problem?TeeVeeed (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph from the ref Forbes article, mistake bolded "Trump said today that he will surrender control of the Manhattan landmark to a partner of his bitter rival Leona Helmsley Leona Helmsley . It may not be a bad deal for Trump, although exactly how well he will make out could not be determined because all the details have not yet been revealed. ".........................OK?

So they said, "no details"-on the deal. The way that I had worded it changed, bitter rival to rival--(and believe me it is an understatement), and, Here is the paragraph from the ref Forbes article, mistake bolded "Trump said today that he will surrender control of the Manhattan landmark to a "surrendered control"---I worded-as "giving-up control of Empire State Building to partners of his rival Leona Helmsley."........technically, I'm not sure that Trump had any ownership?? He was the leasing party afasik? So I worded it very precisely and carefully, TRYING to be as NPOV as possible while still including the important facts, that he had an interest in the Empire State Building, new to this article, That he had a TREMENDOUS public FEUD with Helmsley-also new here for interest also not mentioned here, and threw-in that he was partners with Japanese investors on his Empire Site deal. I have added links to suits that were filed, so I think it is good now? But edits are welcome, I'm just butt-hurt that new important facts to the article were discarded without attempting to improve the content and I'm feeling bullied by the way it was done and the threats of block.TeeVeeed (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the full para from the source that you neglected to include:

Trump said today that he will surrender control of the Manhattan landmark to a partner of his bitter rival Leona Helmsley Leona Helmsley . It may not be a bad deal for Trump, although exactly how well he will make out could not be determined because all the details have not yet been revealed. The Donald and his Japanese partners, the heirs of onetime billionaire Hideki Yokoi Hideki Yokoi , have agreed to sell the building–all 102 floors and 365,000 tons of it–to real estate magnate Peter Malkin Peter Malkin for $57.5 million, some portion of which will accrue to Trump.

The source is clear that Trump and his partners sold the Empire State Building. If you can't agree that the content in his bio should reflect that, then the content should come out of the article until consensus is achieved here.CFredkin (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ahh-OK, so Trump and his partners DID sell it. Got-it. My bad. There are some weird things about that building, a 99 year-lease thingy, and it just goes on and on. I guess that Helmsley and her partners were the leasers? I was purposely trying to be a little dicey there without being weasley, because it is such a complicated story. I was just trying to get the refs up, and the basic facts so that readers can do their own research if they want about the particulars. So, can we at least agree that the vs. Helmsley should stay? But may need editing for clarity?TeeVeeed (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you've adequately sourced the reference to the Trump - Helmsley lawsuits, and as I stated above, I'm ok with keeping in the reference to Helmsley being his rival. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you too. I think it is good now. The article needs to be cut way back imo, and this page archived?-but with the 2016 elections it will suffer from bloat and worse anyhow for the foreseeable future. TeeVeeed (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Signature

The included file is NOT an authentic scan of his signature. It is vector graphics near-facsimile. The possible fraudulent use of the these signatures in the infobox has been discussed in the past. An example discussion that was weighed in on by @Jimbo Wales himself and can be found here. If you go to commons, you will see that the uploader (an admin no less, albeit apparently inactive) claimed it as their own work traced in Adobe Illustrator. As presented in the infobox, there is nothing to indicate that it is not authentic. Strongly recommend removing it from the article. Nyth63 19:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Bankruptcies

Currently this article states that Trump's businesses have declared bankruptcy five times. However that is not supported by sources, such as this one already cited in the article and which was published in June 2015. It says that Trump's companies declaried bankruptcy 4 times. This article includes a reference to the bankruptcy of Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2014. At that time, according to the sources provided, Trump was not directly involved with the company and only owned a 10% stake. I'm editing the article to credit him with 4 corporate bankruptcies until a source emerges that states otherwise.CFredkin (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Bankruptcy details

Currently the details of the Trump's corporate bankruptcies are documented in three sections of the article: the "Business Career" section, the "Trump Taj Mahal" section, and the "Bankruptcy" section. This seems excessive and undue to me. Also, it's not clear to me why Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Tower are broken out into their own sections. (There are other major buildings that Trump has been play a significant role in building.) I'm wondering if it would make sense to fold these 2 sections (Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Tower) into the Business Career section, in order to reduce redundancy. Any thoughts on this?CFredkin (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi CF-I sent you a note on your TP. I agree with putting AC casinos together. Is there any way to word this so that the bank-ruptures of properties/projects that were licensed with Trump's name be somehow mentioned here correctly? That may help readers and even editors who are trying to update, because there were quite a few-(no official tally as far as I know), of the licensed projects that went into bankruptcy and foreclosure. (something like how Trump licensees his name and brand to companies/projects, but with the caveat that it is NOT a "Trump" bankruptcy? The_Trump_Organization#Real estate licensing-some can be found here, but some of the ones on this list did go into foreclosure/bankruptcy but it is not mentioned in the articleTeeVeeed (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not averse to folding Trump Tower and Trump Taj Mahal into the Business Career section, where they would probably merit sub-sections. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Should bankruptcy(s) have it's own section? It is a strategy he has used, and it is a concern to readers and editors I am sure--so maybe it would be easier to kind-of condense all of the bankruptcy into one section, and break that section up into where he was more responsible vs. where his brand/licensed was used, and/or he was not in control?TeeVeeed (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC : Taj Mahal

This RfC is being amended for clarification : We need outside input to add this section as a compromise language :

In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, while the casino was still privately owned by Donald Trump. The statutes cited, of the Bank Secrecy Act, were intended to thwart money laundering. In 2015, government assessed a $10 million fine against the casino, settling currency transaction violations of the Bank Secrecy Act going back to 2003. Since Donald Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino business since about 2008, not all of the violations of the settlement occurred under his watch.

References

This compromise language was proposed by SocraticOath in a preceding talk section and was copied down here for ease of reference. Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Despite reliable sources and good faith efforts to reach a compromise on language (that was later slightly amended) about fines assessed to Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, an editor is blocking these edits based on arguments including about Hillary Clinton. Can we have outside input concerning the compromise language that is not colored by possible political bias ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep::As I said in too many words above, I think that it is an interesting addition to the Taj Mahal part of the article, but I agree that it should be made clear (the compromise version?) that it is standard operating procedure especially with casinos for businesses that deal with large and many transactions. And that 10 grand ceiling was a newer thing then iirc-(but that would be WP:OR)TeeVeeed (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep::I added the language and sourcing and have sought compromise. I don't see an OR issue when it comes to reporting fines levied against Trump Taj Mahal while Mr. Trump was the owner/manager/chairman. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The disputed content is WP:original research because the sources provided don't actually mention Donald Trump, except to say that he was not involved at the time of the infractions. We don't have to like Trump, but for the sake of the project we should apply WP's policies consistently and neutrally.CFredkin (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, on the contrary the references say Trump was indeed involved at the time of the infractions, beginning in 1990 and continuing until Trump resigned as CEO in February 2009. SocraticOath (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SocraticOath: Great. Then why don't you post the actual text from the sources that says that?CFredkin (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/29/nyregion/metro-business-trump-casino-pays-fine.html - some violations occurred in 1990 and 1991.

"Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts has paid a penalty of $477,000 for failing to file timely reports on currency transactions, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act, the United States Treasury said yesterday. The fine is for violations that occurred from April 1990 to December 1991 at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort in Atlantic City, the Treasury said."

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/business/timeline-trump-s-bouts-with-bankruptcy/article_ec9ce213-dbfd-5b6b-9ca5-76b9eb0dfd71.html?mode=story

"August 1991: U.S. Bankruptcy Court approves financial restructuring of Taj Mahal, giving half ownership of the casino to bondholders in exchange for lower interest payments."

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/29/business/company-news-court-backs-trump-s-plan-to-shed-half-of-taj-mahal.html

"A Federal Bankruptcy Court judge today approved a plan by Donald J. Trump's Taj Mahal Casino Resort to restructure its giant debt by surrendering half the developer's equity in the Atlantic City property."

... so before the bankruptcy settlement in 1991, Donald Trump was the 100% developer / owner of Trump Taj Mahal.

What kind of person would deny the relationship between these two sources in order to say this?... "Sure, Trump Taj Mahal violated some rules in 1990 and 1991. And yes, Donald Trump was the 100% owner / developer of Trump Taj Mahal at that time. But it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to report on those violations on the Donald Trump article, in the business section, because Wikipedia's original research standard prevents us from synthesizing the two different kinds of references together." SocraticOath (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

So what you're really proposing is that we suspend WP policy to enable you to insert your claim into this BLP. From WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.

CFredkin (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The proposed addition to this article is not contrary to the SYNTH rule, because each individual sentence is properly referenced. (I will make an adjustment so that Donald's ownership is also properly referenced inline.) You are disputing this proposed addition by saying, "even though each sentence of the proposed addition is properly cited according to WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP, and even though WP:SYNTHNOT allows two different sentences to be juxtaposed side-by-side, the mere inclusion of the story about the fines levied upon Trump Taj Mahal in the Donald Trump article constitutes a WP:SYNTH violation because including it would imply an inappropriate connection between Trump Taj Mahal and Donald Trump." The WP:SYNTH rule prevents editors from creating certain kinds of improperly-cited sentences, but in my reading of it, it doesn't specifically apply to the scope of an article as would be necessary for your interpretation to be governing in this case. SocraticOath (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Second compromise" version

In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, a time during which the casino was privately owned by Donald Trump (he ceded half his ownership to bondholders in August, 1991). The statutes cited, of the Bank Secrecy Act, were intended to thwart money laundering. In 2015, government assessed a $10 million fine against the casino, settling currency transaction violations of the Bank Secrecy Act going back to 2003. Since Donald Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino business since about 2008, not all of the violations of the settlement occurred under his watch.

References

Your "revised" proposal is not substantively different and still violates WP:SYNTH in exactly the same manner.CFredkin (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, please state which sentence of this proposal is original research. SocraticOath (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing is a synthesis of (reliably sourced) information regarding his ownership of the property, which is already included in the article, and information regarding infractions at the casino from sources where he isn't even mentioned. That is textbook WP:SYNTH.CFredkin (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk about the textbook.

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)

You are claiming that the entire report on the 1998 fines, and the more recent fines, are somehow afoul of the original research policy. I think the short version of your claim is that "for Wikipedia to say that Donald Trump is in any way associated with fines levied in 1998 and later would be original research of the form of synthesis." For your claim to be true, there must be some conclusion that the proposal reaches that is not supported by published sources. What is the original conclusion? The facts of the matter are clear, and there is nothing original in the statement that Donald Trump was in charge of this business when it incurred these fines by the government. SocraticOath (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Can we have some background of other language or different versions? The discussions here are not about whether your efforts were in good faith as if that's the only concern. Diffs that show individual comments tell me nothing other than it looks like an issue about the perception of good faith effort to discuss than whether the actual text is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding more. Are you advocating for the original text, the amended text, some other text? Can you just point to the previous discussion? Is it Talk:Donald_Trump#Trump_Taj_Mahal? Is there more, further discussion? We don't need to rehash everything down here. And so far the same individuals above have commented here which is going to happen if no one bothers to start at the top. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Votes below for 'include' refer to a "compromise" version of the section, which I provided at "21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)". This re-write was intended to address the concerns that were raised at the time which were not based on an improper use of Wikipedia's original research standard under the category of synthesis. SocraticOath (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I just provided a "second compromise" version of the section to accommodate an ongoing dispute about the use of the WP:SYNTH rule. SocraticOath (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Your "revised" proposal is not substantively different and still violates WP:SYNTH in exactly the same manner as described above.CFredkin (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, would you please state which sentence of the "second compromise" proposal above is original research? SocraticOath (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The full discussion is at Talk:Donald_Trump#Trump_Taj_Mahal. We don't believe any version of the text should be included until a source is provided that actually implicates Trump as being involved in the violations.CFredkin (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:SYNTH until a reliable source is found that links Donald Trump to the $477,000 fine instead of merely linking his company to it. The sources provided do not mention him, and only mention "Trump" because that happens to be part of the company name. I have pointed to an in-depth article on this subject: by John Curran, Associated Press (January 29, 1998) in the Philadelphia Inquirer but no one has apparently checked out that full article to see if Donald Trump is mentioned. There are many reasons why he might not be mentioned, or maybe he's mentioned as being outraged at the malfeasance of his underlings. But one thing is clear right now: the sources cited for the proposed edit do not support associating him with this guilty behavior. Please get better sourcing that mentions Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Include The proposed language does not state that Trump was personally involved, except to make the provision that he was owner/operator of the Taj at the time of the violations, and that is material to Trump. The provision represents the good faith compromise to reach a consensus, because there has been a pattern of violations. Later violations took place when Trump was majority/lead shareholder. This pattern is material to his ownership/management. As you no doubt know, when Federal investigators conduct a criminal probe, they don't name all targets, nor do investigators release all information from a probe at the point where one aspect of a probe reaches a disposition, particularly if other aspects of the probe are or may be on-going. Just because Federal law enforcement authorities don't name their targets, it doesn't necessarily mean that those unnamed targets have been cleared of wrong-doing at that time then. Look at how just a few years after the violations from the first fine were settled, a second set of violations took place. These are facts, as are Trump’s ownership/management positions. The wording of the compromise provision makes this clear and represents a good faith effort to reach consensus to include this language. Maslowsneeds (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Probably exclude: Setting aside the synthesis arguments, I think bringing that particular business transaction up in this article would serve to give undue weight to that particular incident. There's nothing wrong with spinning out subarticles on Trump's career or a discussion of businesses owned or operated by Trump. However our goal should be to provide a top-level overview of the man's entire life in this article, supported by summary style sections and subsections that refer to sub-articles that discuss particulars. If, however, there's an indication that this particular incident was a defining moment or the beginning of a downward turn in Trump's career, there might be an argument for including it in an overall section about that defining moment or downward turn. Remember, we're writing an article, not just cobbling together a loose collection of factual information about a person. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

A brief review of WP:SYNTHNOT helped me resolve a few questions I had about SYNTH. Most importantly, the clarification article explains that WP:SYNTH is only against original research of the form of synthesis. If synthesis is clearly not original research for one or another reason, then the synthesis is totally fine. SocraticOath (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-interventionalist views on foreign policy

In the lede the article states that Trump rose to prominence because of (among other things) his 'non-interventionalist views on foreign policy.' However I think this statement may be lacking a bit in nuance. Yes, Trump has made waves for speaking openly as a Republican about opposing the Iraq war -- but he has also spoken out aggressively about how he would like to fight ISIS more aggressively -- possibly to the point of sending troops into the ground. These stances are not consistent with a view of non-interventionism.

As this article explains well:

"Trump's non-interventionism also seems to be on the table. In the Detroit debate he talked about creating "safe zones" in Syria to stem the refugee flow. And in the Miami debate he said he would commit ground troops to Syria and Iraq: "We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS... I would listen to the generals, but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000." It is unclear which generals have Trump's ear, but the number of troops he cited sounds remarkably like he has been told about Frederick Kagan's white paper on defeating ISIS. Essentially, Trump endorsed the plan for Iraq and Syria that has been promoted lustily by Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. In other words, gone is the America-first foreign policy, in comes the non-credible plan to transform the region again through force of arms, with America leading a mythical, and surely quite moderate, Sunni fighting force." Spudst3r (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)