Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cwobeel (talk | contribs) at 17:38, 11 October 2016 (→‎Access Hollywood tape in lead section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeDonald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 18, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Page views for this article over the last 30 days

Detailed traffic statistics


Majority of NBC polls

It seems to me the section about the first presidential debate, should read as follows: "The majority of NBC polls showed that Hillary Clinton won the debate." Currently, the sentence is suggesting that a majority of polls conducted by multiple organizations were in-favor of Clinton as the victor. However, that is incorrect, only the majority of NBC's polls came out in-favor of Clinton. NationalInterest16 (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NationalInterest16 Do you mean NBC surveys....or NBC polls? Buster Seven Talk 06:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the original says "polls" which I am fine with keeping. I just think that it should be mentioned that all of those polls were conducted by NBC. NationalInterest16 (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this, and sourced the claim that all scientific polls showed her winning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This material doesn't strike me as biographically significant. It belongs in the campaign article, but not here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Polls on debate performance do not belong here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, was just trying to make the section more accurate if it had to be there. But I also think the information could just be gotten rid of. NationalInterest16 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I see the mention is gone from here -- but it had been duplicated at the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 without TALK there -- so figure I'd put a backnote here that I've tried to clarify by wikilinking poll to Opinion poll; remove the "All" in "All scientific polls" as source didn't say "All" ("All" is kind of open-ended and presumes no poll took place in say Texas or asked questions other than 'who won'); and then say "most voters" versus "voters" since that's more accurate about the source ... the poll said some voters felt the other way, and a smaller number felt 'neither'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every single scientific poll conducted to measure performance in the debate has shown Clinton to be ahead of Trump. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Debate performance is relevant, just as convention performance is relevant. Those are arguably the two most important events of his 2016 general election campaign and has had a clear impact on his prospects for becoming President. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taxes and Trump's net operating loss

I made a minor correction to the reference to the New York Times report on Trump's Net Operating Loss (NOL), to reflect what the Times actually said. The Times article, which is more or less accurate in describing the tax law, indicates that an NOL generated back in the mid-1990s would entitle the taxpayer to reduce or eliminate income taxes for up to eighteen years. That means eighteen years in total, not eighteen years subsequent to 1995. (Actually, we're talking about up to nineteen years, as explained below.)

If the NOL were generated entirely in the tax year 1995 (and we can't tell for sure in this particular case), that would have entitled Mr. Trump to a carryback of the NOL for up to three years (to 1992, 1993 and 1994), and a carryforward for up to fifteen years (1996 through 2010), until the NOL were used up.

As an aside, the news reports correctly point out that the information on the NOL was gleaned from Trump's state income tax returns, not from his 1995 federal return.

The total number of years for which no taxes might be due could actually be up to nineteen years, not just eighteen (i.e., we cannot forget the year in which the NOL was generated!). In short, if the entire NOL were generated in 1995, a taxpayer could theoretically have no Federal income tax for nineteen years -- 1992 through 2010.

There is an added complexity because of the separate rules on the Federal alternative minimum tax net operating loss. That is, some federal income tax could be due for a given year because of a statutory limitation on how much NOL can be deducted in a given year for alternative minimum tax purposes. Again, there is no way to know how this would have affected Mr. Trump -- without access to a lot of additional data.

Congress changed the tax law on NOLs years later. For example, for tax year 2015, it's a two year carryback (to 2013 and 2014) and a twenty year carryforward. Famspear (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, The New York Times' article on the taxes was rather sweepingly worded, clearly their journalist did not have much knowledge in tax law. Peter J. Reilly has done a good article at Forbes what the NYT's news article missed taxation law wise [1]. --Pudeo (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, Reilly questions Mitnick's action in talking about Trump's tax situation. I had the same sort of response. If Mitnick did not have Trump's permission to talk about Trump's taxes, Mitnick might have legal problems, at least theoretically -- particularly with respect to Federal taxes. See 26 U.S.C. § 7216. Normally, I do not even disclose whether a given person is or is not a client. Famspear (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just some information to clarify the tax situation: I had been puzzled why he would show that enormous loss on his personal taxes when it was a business loss. But when I researched it just now, I found out that the Trump Organization is an LLC, a limited liability company, with Trump as the sole owner. That means that all of the Trump Organization's financials - profits, expenses, everything - roll onto his personal tax returns. So the bottom line is, there is no difference between his personal taxes and his business taxes; it's all personal. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the general rule under the Internal Revenue Code and related Treasury regulations is that if the LLC has only one owner, the LLC is a "disregarded entity" for Federal income tax purposes, unless a special election is made to treat the LLC some other way (for example, as a "C corporation"). If no special election is filed with the Internal Revenue Service, then the income and deductions of the LLC would generally be shown on a Schedule C (sole proprietorship) as part of the individual's Form 1040 tax return.
A more precise way to say it would be to say that there is no difference between the person's "individual" income taxes and the LLC's income taxes. A "personal" tax return (such as Form 1040) can have both "business" and "non-business" revenues and "business" and "non-business" deductions. If I set up a lemonade stand in my front yard, and I sell lots of lemonade without setting up a corporation or LLC or other separate entity, and I sell that lemonade on a regular, systemic, continuous, on-going basis, that activity is probably considered to be a "trade or business" activity for Federal income tax purposes. The revenue I realize from that sole proprietorship activity is business revenue that is reported on Schedule C of my Form 1040 tax return. If, instead, I set up a single-owner LLC for the lemonade business (and I don't file any special election), the activity is still treated as a Schedule C sole proprietorship, and the revenue is still business revenue. If my lemonade business generates a net loss, that net loss on the Form 1040 may be a Net Operating Loss (NOL).
Isn't Federal income tax law fascinating?
Uh, or, do I need to get out more? Famspear (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't. Wikipedia IS getting out. I mean, Wikipedia beats working, doesn't it? 0;-D And your expertise is appreciated. But personally, when I found out that this whole enormous worldwide enterprise is reported on a form 1040, I suddenly began to believe what one of his sons said: that Donald's tax form is 1500 pages long. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I found out that the Trump Organization is an LLC ... with Trump as the sole owner." Where did you find that out, MelanieN? All I could find is this blog entry: "Trump may be the sole owner of the Trump Organization. More likely, his children have at least some ownership share." (The BPI Squirrel, blog entry, BPI Campus, October 4, 2016.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are listed at The Trump Organization#Organization. Bloomberg is the source for it being an LLC, and for the officers. Trump's attorney is the source for Trump being the "sole or principal owner" of the 500-or-so entities that make up the Trump Organization. Your blog writer is just speculating. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Various Republican lawmakers and conservative figures have disavowed him"

I removed this but it was restored to the lead. It would be ledeworthy if the lawmakers belonging to one party unanimously endorsed their presidential candidate, but that has not happened here so it doesn't seem ledeworthy. It also seems biased to include non-endorsements while omitting information from List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it would be ledeworthy if Republicans endorsed Trump, or am I misunderstanding you? Because it would be S.O.P. if he had consolidated Republicans. What's actually happening is quite different and unexpected, and therefore more ledeworthy, though it probably only belongs in the lead of the campaign article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what he's saying is that both parties have had divisions for a long time now, so it is routine and to be expected that a party that represents numerous factions would have some representatives not endorse a candidate from another faction (much like a number of more progressive democrats, i.e. the Bernie wing, has broken off and gone third party). If there was party unity and he was unanimously endorsed by everyone, that would be nearly unprecedented and newsworthy enough to be in the lede. As it is, this is the status quo for Presidential candidates. I remember a number of leaders not endorsing Romney as well, and major rifts between the economic conservatives and the evangelical wing going back decades. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be ledeworthy if Republicans unanimously supported Trump. Instead, his level of support is routine. "In this unconventional year, at least one conventional thing is occurring: Traditional Republican support is coalescing around the GOP nominee, Donald Trump." Seib, Gerald. "As Election Day Nears, Republicans Come Around to Trump", Wall Street Journal (Sep 23, 2016).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His current level of support from Republicans is far from routine. Kelly Ayotte is in damage control mode because she accidentally called Donald Trump a "role model". Mark Kirk, Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse... I could go on. This disunity is not routine. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, it probably only belongs in the lead of the campaign article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be disingenuous to even hint anything other than far too many Republicans (in the words of the NYT) "seek distance from his wobbly campaign..." and the best that they can hope for is to "lose close to salvage other republican candidates" down ticket. The level of "soaring unpopularity" is far from routine; it is unprecedented. True. A number of Republican leaders did not endorse Romney. But it never got close to this many that are fleeing their nominee. . Buster Seven Talk 19:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm rethinking that. It's not that they're running from him because of policy differences. They're running from him because of him. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear, from all reliable sources, that his lack of support from many prominent Republicans is far from usual, in this or any other year. (And you're right, Mobushgu, it's him, not his policies; did you see, after the vice presidential debate, how many top Republicans said or implied that they wish Pence was the nominee instead of Trump?) But I also think this belongs in the campaign article, not here in a BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, another thing which is unprecedented: the unanimity with which daily newspapers are rejecting him, often in the strongest terms, sometimes from papers that have endorsed the Republican ticket in every election for a century or more. But again, that doesn't belong in this article, it belongs at the campaign article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be very careful when adding this sort of material. I oppose the addition of anything that says many Republicans have disavowed Trump without also including balancing material that says many other Republicans have endorsed him. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Republicans who had refused to endorse him was unusually large even before the Access Hollywood tape release. Now it is even easier to argue that the fact is lead-worthy. Concerning the grievance of User:DrFleischman, the sentence could be reworked to inform readers that he has greatly divided the GOP while still leading readers to the fully correct conclusion that the number of conservatives who have disavowed him was abnormally high then and is even more so now, after late Friday. AndrewOne (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Producer, not personality; president, not owner

Trump Organization LLC says that Trump is its chairman and president -- not its chairman and owner. Donald Trump Biography ("DONALD J. TRUMP: Chairman and President, The Trump Organization").

So does Trump's campaign. About Donald J. Trump ("Chairman and President, The Trump Organization").

The Trump Organization Legal Disclaimer suggests that Trump doesn't own The Trump Organization LLC. (Nor does it own him!) "This Website may contain Content not owned by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization LLC or any of their affiliates..."

And Black's Law Dictionary says that a limited liability company is "taxable as a partnership", not as a sole proprietorship. Trump manages the company's affairs and most likely owns a controlling share of its stock. I've yet to find a source that says he owns the company itself.

Also, Ivanka may be notable for being a "television personality" (see Musmanno Group news release) but Donald seems to be more notable for being a television producer and host. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dervorguilla: For Federal income tax purposes, an LLC is treated as a partnership only if it has two or more owners and only if it does not file a special election to be treated as another kind of entity, such as a C corporation or an S corporation. For Federal income tax purposes, an LLC is a "disregarded entity" treated as a sole proprietorship of its owner if it has only one owner -- again, unless it files a special election to be treated as another kind of entity, such as a C corporation or an S corporation. If an LLC has only one owner, it cannot be treated as a partnership under the Internal Revenue Code. The rules are much too complex to be adequately explained in Black's Law Dictionary. Famspear (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If a person owns a share of stock in a company, he is an owner of the company (that is, he owns the company itself), whether he holds a controlling share or not. Period. If I own one share of Microsoft, Inc., I am one of the owners of Microsoft, and I "own the company itself" in that sense. (I don't hold a controlling share, though.)
In an LLC, ownership may or may not be described as owning "shares of stock," but that's a minor point. Famspear (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Famspear: Thank you for the free tax advice!  :)
It sounds like you're saying that Trump is (1) "an" owner or (2) "the" owner, and that you haven't found out which.
Nor have I. For now, we ought to just go ahead and take out the text that says he's "the owner" (cf. BLP Regulation 2.5, § 1 (remove any unsourced contentious material)). --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little complicated. According to this letter from Trump's lawyers, "The Trump Organization" is the collective name for about 500 entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner. Toohool (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing this up, Toohool. Yes, tax counsel's letter to Trump does indeed say:
"You hold interests as the sole or principal owner in approximately 500 separate entities. These entities are collectively referred to and do business as The Trump Organization."
It sounds like "The Trump Organization" may be the assumed name of a collection of separate businesses, each of them incorporated under a different name. (More at Black's Law Dictionary, s.v. "doing business as".)
Tax counsel takes care not to call him "the owner of The Trump Organization". Likewise the company itself calls him its "Chairman and President", not its "Owner". --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New wonderful photo

Given massive opposition, RFC was closed early per WP:SNOW. — JFG talk 14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Skidmore took a really good shot of Trump, in my opinion.

It's high quality, and he looks very good here. The current picture is 1.5 years old, and isn't relevant to everything that's been going on with Trump right now. He's a presidential candidate now. So are we doing this, or does someone actually have a problem with this? User1937 (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he's not smiling, shows too many wrinkles, might be less than 1.5 years old but still looks old, doesn't electrically demonstrate his electability, isn't appealing enough to women, has shadows in the photo but still wouldn't appeal to Afro-Americans, is wearing a conservative suit but still isn't appealing to the Republican establishment, looks constipated but not to the extent that that is health policy, looks like an orangutan but not enough to appeal to the conservationist lobby, doesn't look as good as Hillary Clinton and never will, and the photographer's name is Skidmore.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That made me laugh out loud hahaha. Thank you. --User1937 (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? —MartinZ02 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, he's obviously joking... —User1937 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it's an improvement over the current lot. Dervorguilla immediately switches her six votes from pic C to pic Z (or other designation).
Also, Jack Upland's remark about showing "too many wrinkles" is degrading to men. Editors need to start valuing them as more than just pretty faces.
So, who wants to start a parallel RfC? --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) 01:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that was a joke. —User1937 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User1937: Most of it. I do agree with you about the quality being much higher, though. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you oppose it? What's the problem you have with using a recent, good looking, high quality picture of him instead of a 1,5 year old photo? User1937 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you ARE Gage Skidmore, so why do you not want your open picture to be used? That's confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1937 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. Calibrador IS Gage Skidmore. And as for this photo, I personally do not think it is an improvement over the current one. In this one, he is squinting, and the light is poor. Skidmore has taken many photos of Trump, several of which were evaluated in the recent Request for Comment, and several of them are better than this one. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are. I've looked through them, most of them are with a microphone or something else in front of him. And if they're so much better, why do we still have that picture from 2015? Nothing gets done in here, and dude, Trump isn't squinting. Look at ANY picture of him, he has SQUINTY EYES. And how in the world is light is not poor.. It's so clear? So idk, all I've seen you do is complain about EVERY single photo ever proposed here. Like honestly, if you don't want to change the photo at all, just say that, but don't be rude about every single photo ever proposed here. User1937 (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User1937. Please stop rearranging the furniture. I'm sure your efforts are well intentioned but you won't get the results you want if you continue to make wholesale changes without even considering collaboration with fellow editors. As Melanie states, repairing what you have done will take concerted effort by many editors. You can't just barge in and make dozens of drastic changes and expect long-standing editors to sit quietly on the side lines. Buster Seven Talk 20:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lewd comments controversy needs a subsection and its own article page

Why is there none already? AHC300 (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You think that deserves its own Wikipedia article? User1937 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not. At least not yet. Maybe if it has some dramatic effect on the race, but not at this point. --MelanieN (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
L M A O. So sorry, just needed to let that sink in, and Mel's monotonous reaction just made it even more funny. Esmost πк 22:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a page on it: Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like a good Wikipedian, I respect consensus. When you're wrong, you're wrong. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dagnabbit. The obligatory "Pussygate" search led me only here, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about inclusionist. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I have learned from this election campaign: never look at pictures of Donald Trump and never click on links provided by Martin Evans.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never? "It brings it back to the body and to purity." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As this is now looking like it might be historical, I strike my previous comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted "inclusionist" as referring to Honeysuckle Divine.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:THREAD, one indent level more than the comment you are replying to. No opinion as to Ms Divine's notability. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've had many discussions about asst Trump stuff and "Historical" often got mentioned. But not one of us could have imagined this. Its actually quite sad. Buster Seven Talk 06:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest, and that's enough of a WP:NOTFORUM vio for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was a joke and that's probably a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:THREAD. No doubt I will soon be attacked by crusading knights templar.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant none of us could have imagined this level of Historic. It's Historic X 2. Buster Seven Talk 06:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's HUGE.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I'd never joke or engage in WP:FORUM about such an historic event. Shame on you. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on me indeed. I looked at pictures of HUGE numbers of NUDE persons, after saying that I would resist the temptation. People who know me know that this was out of character. I hope I will still be accepted as a candidate for administrator.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You got my vote, Jack. You have a huge following of female editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
In the words of James Bond, "I must be dreaming". Buster Seven Talk 13:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Removed material (medical letter, tax returns)

I noticed that the following paragraphs were recently removed from the general election section in this edit with little explanation. I'll leave it to others to decide what, if anything, is worth keeping, but figured I'd stick it here since it is pretty heavily sourced.

A medical report by his doctor, Harold Borstein M.D., showed that Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid function were in normal range.[1][2] Trump says that he has never smoked cigarettes or marijuana, or consumed other drugs.[3] He does not drink alcohol.[4][5][6] He also has germaphobic tendencies, and prefers not to shake hands.[7] In September 2016, Trump discussed his health on the The Dr. Oz Show.[8]

Trump has declined to publicly release any of his full tax returns.[9] Former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have questioned Trump's purported wealth and his unwillingness to release his tax returns, suggesting Trump might be wary of revealing a potential electoral "bombshell".[10][11][12][13] Trump responded by disclosing the existence of the ongoing audit.[14][15][16] Trump says he will not yet release records for audited years that he had "passed" because such records "mesh" and "interrelate" with current disputed IRS filings. High-income individuals are audited more frequently than the average taxpayer, but it is unusual for an individual to be audited for several consecutive years.[14][17][18] When asked by journalist George Stephanopoulos if he would reveal his tax rate, Trump replied: "It's none of your business, you'll see it when I release. But I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible".[18][19][20] If he does not release his tax returns before the November 2016 election, he would be the first major party candidate since Gerald Ford in 1976 not to do so.[21] During Congressional hearings of IRS commissioner John Koskinen in September 2016, Koskinen was asked by Jerry Nadler, a Democratic representative from New York, if "there (is) anything that would prohibit someone from releasing their tax returns, if they want to, because they're under audit?". Koskinen's answer was "no".[22] Tax attorneys differ about whether such a release is wise legal strategy.[23][24]

~Awilley (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Frizell, Sam. "Donald Trump's Doctor's Letter Reveals He is Overweight, But 'In Excellent Health'", Time (September 15, 2016).
  2. ^ Bornstein, Harold. Donald J. Trump Medical Records (September 13, 2016).
  3. ^ "Part 2: Donald Trump on 'Watters' World'". Watters' World. Fox News. February 6, 2016. Retrieved September 4, 2016. WATTERS: "Have you ever smoked weed?" TRUMP: "No, I have not. I have not. I would tell you 100 percent because everyone else seems to admit it nowadays, so I would actually tell you. This is almost like, it's almost like 'Hey, it's a sign'. No, I have never. I have never smoked a cigarette, either."
  4. ^ McAfee, Tierney. "Donald Trump Opens Up About His Brother's Death from Alcoholism: It Had a 'Profound Impact on My Life'", People (magazine) (October 8, 2015): "[T]here are a few hard and fast principles that he himself lives by: no drugs, no cigarettes and no alcohol. Trump's abstinence from alcohol was largely shaped by the death of his brother, Fred Jr., from alcoholism in 1981."
  5. ^ Dent, Millie (July 10, 2015). "15 Facts You Didn't Know About Donald Trump". The Fiscal Times. Retrieved August 1, 2015. The Donald has never smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol or done drugs. His older brother, Fred, was an alcoholic for many years and warned Trump to avoid drinking. Fred ultimately died from his addiction.
  6. ^ Morgan, Piers. The Hot Seat: Love, War, and Cable News, p. 31 (Simon and Schuster 2014): "[H]e's never touched a drop of alcohol, smoked a cigarette, or tried a drug".
  7. ^ Amira, Dan. "Does Donald Trump Have a Flesh-Pressing Problem?", New York City (February 25, 2011).
  8. ^ Sifferlin, Alexandra (September 15, 2016). "Donald Trump health report". Time.com. Retrieved September 16, 2016.
  9. ^ "Romney calls decision by Trump not to release tax returns 'disqualifying'". Fox News. May 11, 2016. Retrieved July 18, 2016.
  10. ^ Rappeport, Alan (February 24, 2016). "Mitt Romney Says Donald Trump Should Release His Tax Data". The New York Times. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
  11. ^ Savransky, Rebecca (February 24, 2016). "Romney: There's a 'bombshell' in Trump's tax returns". The Hill. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
  12. ^ Collinson, Stephen; Diamond, Jeremy; Khan, Hasan (February 25, 2016). "Donald Trump rejects Mitt Romney's ironic tax attack". CNN. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  13. ^ "Mitt Romney questions Donald Trump tax situation". BBC. February 25, 2016. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  14. ^ a b Horwitz, Jeff (February 27, 2016). "Trump: No 'Bombshell' in Tax Returns; Release After Audits". Associated Press. Archived from the original on February 28, 2016. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
  15. ^ "Trump says he can't release tax returns because of audits". CNN. February 26, 2016. Retrieved February 26, 2016.
  16. ^ Browning, Lynnley (February 26, 2016). "Trump's 12 Years of Audits 'Very Unusual,' Ex-IRS Agent Says". Bloomberg. Retrieved February 26, 2016.
  17. ^ Rubin, Richard (February 26, 2016). "The Audit of the Deal: How Donald Trump Thinks About the Tax System". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 26, 2016.
  18. ^ a b Arnsdorf, Isaac (May 15, 2016). "Manafort: 'No reason' for Trump to change". Politico. Retrieved May 18, 2016.
  19. ^ Kopan, Tel. "Trump on his tax rate: 'None of your business'" CNN (May 13, 2016).
  20. ^ Wilhelm, Colin (January 24, 2016). "Trump vows to release his tax returns". Politico. Retrieved February 22, 2016. It's a little tax
  21. ^ Rappeport, Alan (May 11, 2016). "Donald Trump Breaks With Recent History by Not Releasing Tax Returns". The New York Times. Retrieved July 19, 2016.
  22. ^ Swanson, Ian (September 21, 2016). "Dems hijack IRS hearing to ask about Trump's taxes".
  23. ^ Stewart, Emily. "Would No Tax Lawyer Advise Trump Release His Tax Returns? It's Complicated", TheStreet.com (August 27, 2016).
  24. ^ Zarroli, Jim. "Fact-Check: Donald Trump Can't Release His Taxes While Being Audited?", NPR (February 26, 2016).
Added reflist-talk in anticipation of need. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I restored much of this. The health stuff I put into a new subsection within the "Personal life" section, instead of within the campaign section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ty Anything. I don't think any of the recent wide-of-the-mark edits by User1937 benefited the article. Can the all be undone? Buster Seven Talk 06:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think they have been mostly undone. If they are repeated in smaller installments then that might be a better approach because it would let us take one suggestion at a time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley - I think these items don't belong here - the 2016 questions of health and tax returns are related to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, not his BLP. So consider moving or deleting them out of this article. I think the tax item is covered there, but not the health check -- maybe somebody decided it was a campaign issue that's no longer significant. Markbassett (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More recent photo

I suggest that should be published a more recent photo (2016) of Donald Trump in the infobox. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. There was an enormous, weeks-long discussion about what photo to use, see here Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 28, and I don't think anyone is anxious to re-open that question. --MelanieN (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC in that section had no activity for 7 days, causing the section to be archived without a close for the RfC. No one has restored the section from archive, suggesting that everyone is happy to let the issue die. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! Buster Seven Talk 21:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let it die. Please. That poor horse. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why no lead citations?

There doesn't appear to be a single citation in the lead. Shouldn't there be, e.g. for assertions such as "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false"? WP:LEAD suggests that at least one or two wouldn't be out of order. Sleety Dribble (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus for this article is not to have citations in the lead. Please see talk page archives for more detail.- MrX 14:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:LEADCITE. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's fix the General Election campaign section

Right now, that section is quite messy, clutered with dozens of sources and literally an entire copy-pasted essay on taxes for some reason. And all in all, it's waaaaay too long. I'm proposing this:

General election campaign

Main article: United States presidential election, 2016

After becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Trump's focus shifted to the general election, urging remaining primary voters to "save [their] vote for the general election."[1] Trump began targeting Hillary Clinton, who became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 6, 2016, and continued to campaign across the country. One month before the Republican National Convention, Secret Service agents thwarted an assassination attempt on Trump by a 20-year-old British man illegally residing in the U.S. during one of his rallies in Las Vegas.[2]

Trump accepting the Republican nomination at the RNC, July 2016

Clinton had established a significant lead in national polls over Trump throughout most of 2016. In early July, Trump and Clinton became tied for the first time following the FBI's conclusion of its investigation into Clinton's ongoing email controversy. FBI Director James Comey concluded Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified government material.[3]

On July 15, 2016, Trump announced Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. Trump and Pence were formally nominated by the Republican Party on July 19, 2016, at the Republican National Convention.[4] Two days later, Trump officially accepted the nomination in a 75-minute speech inspired by Richard Nixon's 1968 acceptance speech.[5] The historically long speech was watched by nearly 35 million people and received mixed reviews, with 40% of Americans reacting positively while 48% of Americans saying it did not reflect their views.[6][7]

Following the RNC, Trump became tied in national polls with Clinton following a 3 to 4 percentage point convention bounce. A week later, Clinton received a 7 percent convention bounce after her appearance at the DNC, extending her lead significantly in national polls at the start of August.[8][9]

Two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 recording surfaced in which Trump is heard discussing women using vulgar language and talking about his efforts to seduce a married woman. The recording, largely referred to by the media as the Trump Tapes[10], prompted Trump to make his first public apology during the campaign.[11][12]

References

  1. ^ "Donald Trump Tells West Virginia Primary Voters to Stay Home". Time.
  2. ^ "Fuller picture emerges of man arrested at Trump rally". Associated Press.
  3. ^ Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus, Anthony Salvanto (July 14, 2016). "Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump tied going into conventions - CBS/NYT poll". CBS News.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ John Bacon, Richard Wolf (July 19, 2016). "Trump and Pence nominated as Republicans target Clinton". USA Today.
  5. ^ Witcover, Jules (July 25, 2016). "Trump channels 1968 Richard Nixon". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved October 8, 2016.
  6. ^ Battaglio, Stephen (July 22, 2016). "35 million TV viewers watch Donald Trump's acceptance speech at GOP convention". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 23, 2016.
  7. ^ Director, Jennifer Agiesta, CNN. "Trump bounces into the lead". CNN. Retrieved August 3, 2016. {{cite news}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ "Post-Democratic convention bounce: 7 points for Clinton". Retrieved August 3, 2016.
  9. ^ "Election Update: Clinton's Bounce Appears Bigger Than Trump's". August 1, 2016. Retrieved August 3, 2016.
  10. ^
  11. ^ Alexander Burns, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Martin (October 7, 2016). "Donald Trump Apology Caps Day of Outrage Over Lewd Tape". The New York Times. Retrieved October 8, 2016.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ Salvatore Jensen (October 8, 2016). "Donald Trump's vulgar conversation about women caught on hot mic". The Connection. Retrieved October 8, 2016.

As far as I know, this covers the issue pretty well. Feel free to leave suggestions for adding or adapting certain parts, perhaps a part on the taxes etc. But I do believe this is already a big improvement on what we currently have. Let's work on this together, alright? :) —User1937 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I think this would be an improvement; it has gotten too cluttered for a biography. I think your simplification of the convention section is good, although you may have lost or misplaced a reference in the process. And I do think we need a brief mention of the tax issue, but not as long as it currently is. Tweaks I propose:
  • Reference problem: Reference 7 shows Trump in the lead post convention. And there is no reference for the next sentence, about him being tied and having a 3-4 percent convention bounce.
  • Add a one-sentence paragraph: Trump has declined to publicly release any of his tax returns, breaking a presidential campaign tradition that goes back to 1976.[1]
  • I do think moving the tapes out of the "debates" section is an improvement. But I would rewrite the last sentence to eliminate "largely referred to by the media as the Trump Tapes"; that really isn't a very common meme except as a hashtag. Instead I would add more about the uproar it caused. My suggestion:
Two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 recording surfaced in which Trump is heard discussing women using vulgar language, talking about his efforts to seduce a married woman, and bragging that as a "star" he can kiss or fondle women at will.[2] The recording touched off an immediate media and political uproar. Several Republicans renounced their support of Trump and some called for him to withdraw from the race.[3][4] Trump issued a public apology, his first of the campaign, but said he would not withdraw.[5]

References

  1. ^ Rappeport, Alan (May 11, 2016). "Donald Trump Breaks With Recent History by Not Releasing Tax Returns". The New York Times. Retrieved July 19, 2016.
  2. ^ Fahrenthold, David A. (October 7, 2016). "Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 8, 2016.
  3. ^ Jackson, David (October 8, 2016). "Here is the list of Republicans who are not supporting Trump". USA Today. Retrieved October 8, 2016.
  4. ^ Blake, Aaron (October 8, 2016). "Here's the fast-growing list of Republicans calling for Donald Trump to drop out". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 8, 2016.
  5. ^ Alexander Burns, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Martin (October 7, 2016). "Donald Trump Apology Caps Day of Outrage Over Lewd Tape". The New York Times. Retrieved October 8, 2016.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Thanks for bringing this here for discussion, that is exactly the right thing to do with a controversial article like this. MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the section on taxes yet (so can't comment on it), but I disagree that your proposals above that part are an improvement:
* It is more correct to say that Clinton's lead narrowed, rather than tied. Trump only ever tied or narrowly lead Clinton in 2 days in May and 2 days in July in the RCP polling average[2]. The HuffPo poll aggregator[3] shows her in a lead throughout the race, and so do the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregator[4].
* I don't understand why you prefer to mention the specific numbers in one poll on the reaction to his convention speech as opposed to the overall results in two polls.
* I lean towards keeping the text on how Trump's post-convention bounce measures up with past bounces. The convention is arguably the most important event of the election after the debates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it has gotten too cluttered for a biography. - For use with WP:SIZERULE, which applies to articles in general, the current readable prose size is 81 kB. I assume you could substitute "dramatically trimmed" for "divided". My only strong opinion is that it's damned annoying to wait about 10 seconds for a Wikipedia article to finish downloading. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tax audit

Do we have verification that Trump is in fact under audit as he claims to be? This Newsweek source says we have no evidence beyond Trump's say-so. In both of the sections in which we mention his tax returns, the fact that Trump is in fact under audit appears to be assumed. We should probably qualify that language appropriately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly should say "claims to be" if it doesn't. The IRS is not allowed to verify such. Objective3000 (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have to verify what he's said? Or do we have to just go with reliable sources? My understanding is that he says it, it's a campaign issue, then just put in what sources say. I don't think it's our job to verify. It's just what reliable sources say. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This could be moot if we go with a shortened version of the paragraph as suggested above. But certainly we should say "Trump says he can't disclose the returns because they are being audited"; the current wording "disclosed the existence of an audit" is giving him too much credit. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with O3000. "Trump claims..." hints at the fact that Trump could easily produce the Audit Letter from the IRS. The reader should know that the option to not produce the letter or the tax form is a choice not a requirement. Buster Seven Talk 03:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "Trump responded that he is unable to release his tax returns because they are being audited". BTW does that paragraph really need 15 references??? --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stating it that way implicates us in his lie. "Trump claims..." puts the onus on Trump. Buster Seven Talk 03:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, go ahead and change it. Fine with me. --MelanieN (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require consensus for candidate article edits through the election.

I have proposed further editing limitations on these articles through the election at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require consensus for candidate article edits through the election. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a request for editing limitations. As political articles go, this article has not suffered the "usual" level of vandalism (if that is the reason for the proposal). With the level of editor participation, problem editing gets handled pretty quickly. Buster Seven Talk 02:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Buster7: This is not the proposal, so it's the wrong place for your Oppose. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mandruss. I may be old but I don't need a crossing guard...at least not yet. I had stated my proposal in the correct place so rather than the wrong place I see this as "an additional place".:~)... Buster Seven Talk 02:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The recording prompted Trump to make his first public apology during the campaign

That is all what the tape prompted? In what alternative reality is this article living in? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Access Hollywood tape in lead section

In my view the Access Hollywood tape scandal doesn't come anywhere close to belonging in the lead section. This might or might not undo the Trump campaign, but at this point it's just another scandal among many. Maybe it's sufficiently important for the lead section of the campaign article, but not here. Same thing for the reaction from Paul Ryan, which is just another event in the ongoing drama known as the Trump presidential campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, in spite of my recent edit to tweak the wording. It may belong in the lead of the campaign article, but probably not here unless it is really shown to have enduring significance. Given Mr. Trump's uncanny ability to outdo himself, I wouldn't be surprised if there is something even more scandalous in the next few weeks.- MrX 17:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. At this point, Access Hollywood doesn't belong in the lead. We'll see if it does belong (or if something worse belongs) as time goes on. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed per WP:BLP?? It is relevant, sourced, an in no way in violation of WP:BLP. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, for the reasons stated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If something more outrageous comes up, it can be replaced at that time. For now, it is highly relevant and probably one the most relevant controversies. And relevant controversies belong in the lede per WP:LEDE. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=743858684"