Jump to content

Talk:Trump Tower

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dq209 (talk | contribs) at 18:40, 30 November 2020 (Removed absurd claim). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleTrump Tower has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 5, 2017Good article nomineeListed
January 6, 2018Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 27, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when it was revalued at $600 million in 2015, New York City's Trump Tower (pictured) became the most expensive property owned by Donald Trump?
Current status: Good article

Getting directions

The lead says "corner of 56h". Is that E or W 56h? Which is to say, next to or across from Bonwit Teller? (Was the Corning building torn down to build it?) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, XT link says BT was demolished, which puts TT on E 56h by my Manhattan map. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of place.

Before was here famous Bonwit Teller & Co. was a department store in New York City founded by Paul Bonwit in 1895 at Sixth Avenue and 18th Street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.104.221 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of the Trump Towers

According to the City of New York's NYCityMap system, 725 5th Avenue is owned by GMAC Commercial Mortgage and apparently not Donald Trump. I don't want to get in an editing war here so what would be the best course of action to take in regards to this matter? Unfortunately there is no way to directly link to the data contained on NYCityMap, the information has to be entered manually each time and I would like to assure that the most up-to-date information is included. Any advice would be appreciated. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet points under the lawsuit

What is this list of people/companies that are listed under the description of the labor law suit? They should be introduced/explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.228.134 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glass walls or windows

Shouldn't there be some discussion of this feature of the building? In a documentary on Trump I watched last month they made a big deal about this because Donald's dad didn't want him to make it that way and thought it was stupid or a waste of money or something. I don't see 'glass' or 'wall' or 'window' show up here at all, am I overlooking a synonym? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stories vs Actual Floors

This might be a useful reference. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Trump Tower which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Tower Appearing in GTA Should Not be Removed

GTA is a large and well-known video game franchise and Trump Tower appearing on the first game's original cover is very notable. I don't know why it was replaced when it should be there. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer Rafferty (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMG quit deleting it ffs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer Rafferty (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In pop culture

The building appears in the opening scene of "A Christmas in Vermont" (2016). Crazynat34 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Crazynat34 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, since the movie isn't notable unlike The Dark Knight Rises or GTA. Archer Rafferty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the 69 floor there is a golden shitter And on the 420th floor there is a room where Snoop Dogg and Trump smoke fat joints — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.44.105 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Archer Rafferty: Please don't remove the book about Trump Tower anymore. It is notable and I've now provided sources for it. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: At he time I felt it was irrelevant but looking back I see it differently so I apologize. Archer Rafferty (talk)

@Archer Rafferty: It's okay. No harm was done since you removed it in good faith. epicgenius (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in the Pilot episode of The Critic in a sign joke about being in foreclosure.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Owned by the President of the United States of America. Linuxfan1 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Informal review

To the GAN @Epicgenius::

  • more comments to come.
Triplecaña (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Triplecaña: Thanks for the feedback.I'll work on these soon. epicgenius (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

I know this is not a realty website but Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)#Residential unit sales has some listings as well. Triplecaña (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Just in case you haven't seen this Triplecaña (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tower heights

@User:Epicgenius - My edit summary was not clear when removing the roof height - the ref was broken but I also question the need for 3 identical height measurements. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat define architectural height and height to tip for measuring tall buildings, but the "roof height" listed elsewhere is both uninformative (identical) and uninteresting. I suggest just keeping the two defined/accepted measurements but will leave it to your decision given your extensive and excellent work on this article. BW |→ Spaully τ  15:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spaully: Thank you for your edits. I reverted you not because you were wrong (and you weren't), but because I was going to take the official CTBUH measurement as the height, then maybe put these roof height measurement into an {{efn}}. I am not claiming page ownership, but unless there's a policy against including the roof measurement, I guess it could stay in the article as an EFN. epicgenius (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a fair compromise. This isn't an area of expertise hence my comments, not suggesting ownership. BW |→ Spaully τ  06:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar error

>The atrium, apartments, offices, and stores opening on a staggered schedule from February to November 1983

should be

>The atrium, apartments, offices, and stores opened on a staggered schedule from February to November 1983

 Done Thanks! |→ Spaully τ  08:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Violation

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding BLP, but I don't see how Donald Trump alleging that his building was tapped amounts to a BLP violation. According to the BLP page: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Multiple sources corroborate the fact that Trump made this allegation (it's on Twitter for everyone to see, and it made plenty of headlines in multiple news outlets, even drawing a response from Obama's camp). It's both newsworthy and noteworthy, and it's apposite to the subject of the page. So why remove it? Scapulus (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Trump Tower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shaded0 (talk · contribs) 04:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaded0 GA Review

I will begin reviewing the article some time over the next 2-3 days and should have some more in depth review comments for the article by Friday or Saturday. Please confirm for me and let me know if you will have time to address and work on this review process over the next week. Thanks! Shaded0 (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Some initial things I noticed (feel free to comment below with the bullet points, I'll bullet my comments to make them stand out as things to address).

Just some style things first of all, will review content, sources, free use, etc. with the review when I have time.

  • Couple left oriented images at the beginning of subsections, you will want to have these be right oriented on the page. All images have captions
  • "In popular culture" could use some work with paragraph length, most others look good, these are the only section with short, choppy paragraphs.
  • Make sure all quotes have a reference directly after the quote (I will check on this also).
  • Check ref formatting is consistent
  • No disambig pages, seems good in regards to this with wikilinks
  • Title headings look good
  • Lists should only be included if they can't be made into prose or their own article. (Tenants is list-y, but seems appropriate). I may need to do some additional research to see if this fits GA guidelines and MoS guidelines.
  • Seems to have good variety and depth of sources.
  • Information included within the lead section is cited within the article. Lead adequately summarizes content.
  • Not seeing any notable copyright violations, I checked using Earwig's Copyvio Detector: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/
  • No fair use photos used in the article

History

  • "Trump's calculations forgot to account for the fact that the ceiling heights were much taller than in comparable buildings, and that as a result, floors 6–13 were deleted from the final count" can you reword or clarify on this?
  • I found a 404 not found on this link, may want to pull the pdf with an archive.org waybackmachine or switch the source. "Tycoon with towering ambition"

- http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/....

- Conheça o luxuoso endereço em NY onde Marin cumpre prisão domiciliar (info) [uol.com.br] (Dead since 2016-12-12) - Will Trump side with U.S. airlines against Middle Eastern rivals? (info) [latimes.com] (Dead since 2017-02-07) - Tycoon with towering ambition (info) [fultonhistory.com] (Dead since 2017-02-07)

  • NPOV seems fine for controversies subsection.
  • Well researched, well sourced.

Security Issues

  • Seems good.

Architecture

  • "..but some of the upper-floor commercial spaces come unfurnished, such as Donald J. Trump for President Inc.'s headquarters on the fifth floor" -- I didn't see a mention of this anywhere else in the article besides in Tenants. Maybe a slightly more expanded inclusion of this in one of these two sections.
  • "There are stores selling Trump merchandise that are located in the atrium, some of which sell memorabilia for his 2016 presidential campaign;.." I feel like this might become out of date.. maybe a mention or inclusion of starting from when this was, if possible?
  • Maybe another sentence or two expansion of 'Uses' subsection.

Tenants

  • Very interesting notes on the soccer organizations and players.
  • For the DOD inclusion, was this for office space, or some other use?

In popular culture

  • Better, still comparatively small as a subsection.

Overall I think this meets GA criteria. Let me know when you are able to address the above points and I will go ahead and approve the request. Thanks for all the great work done on this article.

Comments

Will continue to add and review as I read through the article.

@Shaded0: Thanks for starting the review. I've moved the images to the right. I'll work on the pop cult and the tenants list soon. epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome work on the rewrite of the Tenants section, the image rearrangement also looks much better now.
  • I will soon be fixing everything from the Architecture section on. epicgenius (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "..but some of the upper-floor commercial spaces come unfurnished, such as Donald J. Trump for President Inc.'s headquarters on the fifth floor" -  Done
    • "There are stores selling Trump merchandise that are located in the atrium, some of which sell memorabilia for his 2016 presidential campaign;.." - I removed it.
    • Maybe another sentence or two expansion of 'Uses' subsection.  Done. I moved the stuff about Trump for President to the subsection.
    • For the DOD inclusion, was this for office space, or some other use?  Done It's for supporting the POTUS.
  • @Shaded0: I've fixed the above issues. epicgenius (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I will go ahead and pass this for GA. Thanks for all the fine work on the article Epicgenius! Shaded0 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just spotted this, well done! Particularly epicgenius who has put a lot of work into this article. BW |→ Spaully ~talk~  07:35, 11 March 2017 (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.

Wiretapping allegations

The recent addition about the Donald Trump wiretapping claim has been removed. Please do not reinstate it, because:

  1. The addition does not provide sources that describe the allegations
  2. The allegations themselves are unfounded
  3. It doesn't have anything to do with the architecture, history, or any other aspect of the building itself

The only way this is related to the claims at all is that Trump Tower is the location that was allegedly hacked, according to Donald Trump. But we don't include a list of every single thing that has happened in this building, much less alleged happenings. epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I did not read this, and reinstated the edit. Anyway, coming to what you stated, I added the sources. I don't understand how the allegations are 'unfounded'. As far as I can tell, most media reported the allegations. The only reason to remove it seems to be the lack of relation to the building. However, I still suggest it be included due to the claim being that the tower was wiretapped. Also, in one of the edit summaries, you appear to be saying "We have an article about this, it's not important and honestly it's fake news". I believe the statement was self contradictory as you said we had an article, but it was 'fake news'.RoCo(talk) 15:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollingcontributor: Thank you for adding the sources. I don't think my statement is self-contradictory, although it could have been confusing. Although this was reported as news, it is also simply a claim - unproven at best and false at worst. Thus, it is news which is fake, therefore "fake news".
However, that's not the point. I think that since this is so unimportant to the evolution of the tower itself, the claim should be included in a single sentence in the "History" section. Even if the claim is notable, we wouldn't put it in the article, just as we don't have "Barron Trump draws on the walls of his apartment" in the article even though it's true. This article can't have every single thing that happened, or has been claimed to happen, in the tower. That's why I initially removed this addition. epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Associated controversies" tax assessment lawsuit

The article as currently written (and semi-protected) includes this text:

"In 1985, Trump was one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the New York State Court of Appeals concerning the payment of a 10% state tax in the event that a real estate property is transacted for $1 million or more. The exemption was worth between $15 million and $20 million. The tax on Trump Tower was upheld in a 4 to 1 decision."

This is an erroneous statement of the proceedings. Plaintiffs do not sue courts, as asserted by this language.

In fact, Trump was a plaintiff in a suit brought in 1983 against Roderick Chu, "Individually and as Commissioner of the New York State Tax Commission" in New York Superior Court, and the trial court dismissed his suit in 1984. (Trump v. Chu, 1984 WL 185307). Trump appealed that decision, and the Court of Appeals of New York affirmed that decision in 1985. (Trump v. Chu, 478 N.E.2d 971). Trump attempted to appeal that decision to the United States Supreme Court, which dismissed his appeal "for want of a substantial federal question", also in 1985. (Trump v. Chu, 474 U.S. 915, 106 S.Ct. 285).

I would suggest an edit accordingly.

Trump Tower NYC is 666 feet high

There are several websites that list Trump Tower NYC as "666 feet high". This article says "664 feet". Do we know which is actually correct? 73.46.49.164 (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list some of those websites? --Joshualouie711talk 13:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google it. http://www.thehypertexts.com/Donald%20Trump%20666%20Mark%20of%20the%20Beast.htm . This site misses that Donald Trump = 666 when using the Evil=48 Code of A=49, B50... D52+O63+N62+A49+L60+D52 + T68+R66+U69+M61+P64 = 666. 73.46.49.164 (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source. On the other hand, BI, Britannica, and the Chicago Tribune are reliable, and they all say 664 feet. --Joshualouie711talk 17:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trump Tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong citation

"By contrast, a review in 2016 stated that it was New York City's "most pleasant interior public space" to be built in recent history." This is wrong. The review is not from 2016, but the article just quotes an 1983 comment before(!) the opening that the atrium not is, but only "may well be" the most etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.130.221.220 (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been changed. Thanks for the heads-up. epicgenius (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Tower Fire

Given that the sole fatality was of some notability (he had been an Andy Warhol art dealer), and given the Trump is President, and given the assorted ramifications of Trump Org., I recommend that we get in on the ground floor of this nexus and establish its own article. If nothing else, it's a notable NYC article. Discuss, and then pull the switch or not, as ye may. kencf0618 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this is unfortunate and tragic, I don't think this is notable enough for its own article, simply because deadly fires happen every day. The fact htat this particular fire happened inside the president's former residence doesn't change its lack of notability. Maybe the art dealer might be notable, but definitely not the fire. There was also a fire inside the tower in 1982, and although it received a lot of coverage at the time, there's only 2 sentences devoted to the fire simply because it wasn't notable in the long term. epicgenius (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've fleshed it out a bit -it might be bumped up to the controversy section eventually. kencf0618 (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the work you have done on this section. I don't think this is a controversy, though, as it seems to be more like an incident that was covered because of its tragic. epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"where the Trump family lives ?

"a dedicated elevator leads directly to the penthouse where the Trump family lives". Afaik commonly known: nor Trump neither Melania & Barron live there anymore. (btw: "Trump family" + present tense ... → Melania_Trump#Statement_on_bullying) --Neun-x (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2020

Please change "After climbing for two hours and 45 minutes, the NYPD Emergency Service Units (ESU) apprehended him at the 21st floor of the tower" to either "After climbing for two hours and 45 minutes, he was apprehended by the NYPD Emergency Service Units (ESU) at the 21st floor of the tower" or "After he had climbed for two hours and 45 minutes, the NYPD Emergency Service Units (ESU) apprehended him at the 21st floor of the tower." The current sentence is grammatically incorrect. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:5DEB:5937:1202:663B (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Financing the tower

Maybe I am wrong, but there is little or nothing about financing the tower. Who paid so much money? Was it a bank credit? Usually so big towers are not built from private money, but rather big money corporations. Of course it is very small compared to Burj Khalifa, but in the Burj Khalifa case the even corporate money were too small, they used state money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.103.73 (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump_Tower&oldid=991563185"