Talk:Donald Trump

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)

NationalInterest16 Do you mean NBC surveys....or NBC polls? Buster Seven Talk 06:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

I have fixed this, and sourced the claim that all scientific polls showed her winning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Agreed. Polls on debate performance do not belong here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

As you said, it probably only belongs in the lead of the campaign article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Does the Trump Organization belong to Donald J himself? One relevant search result suggests that someone at the organization thinks so (or at least, someone hired by the organization thought so).

Trump

www.trump.com/

The Trump Organization

Official website of Donald J. Trump's business organization. Includes portfolio (real estate, hotels, golf, entertainment and television), publications, merchandise ...

This information doesn't appear anywhere on the page itself, however (or in the page source). So someone else at the organization may think otherwise...

??? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

New wonderful photo

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)

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)

That made me laugh out loud hahaha. Thank you. --User1937 (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? —MartinZ02 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on, he's obviously joking... —User1937 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Pretty sure that was a joke. —User1937 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@User1937: Most of it. I do agree with you about the quality being much higher, though. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as the photo taker. Calibrador (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose and suggest a one-year moratorium of DJT photo discussions in the article. Objective3000 (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Buster7, not good to make dozens of changes. Agree with Objective3000. We definitely need a moratorium on this photo issue. In the first place, if he wins, he'll get an official presidential photo. If he loses, what's there now will still work. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. MB298 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The lighting is harsh and the colors look very cold and stark. Look at the flag pin alone, the balance is off enough that the red isn't even there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Terrible pic. Skin is blotchy, he is squinting, Christmas-y necktie, he looks older than he is. No more photo discussions please...it is a huge waste of our precious time. Buster Seven Talk 05:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was hopeful for a looking-at-camera decent picture of Trump, but his facial expression is a grimace, and that's immediately a non-starter. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Summoned by bot, again. No need to change the current photo. Also I would like to point out that RfCs should not be the first step in a discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

You think that deserves its own Wikipedia article? User1937 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

There is currently a page on it: Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Dagnabbit. The obligatory "Pussygate" search led me only here, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk about inclusionist. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Never? "It brings it back to the body and to purity." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

As this is now looking like it might be historical, I strike my previous comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I interpreted "inclusionist" as referring to Honeysuckle Divine.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's HUGE.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

You got my vote, Jack. You have a huge following of female editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

In the words of James Bond, "I must be dreaming". Buster Seven Talk 13:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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. Trump says that he has never smoked cigarettes or marijuana, or consumed other drugs. He does not drink alcohol. He also has germaphobic tendencies, and prefers not to shake hands. In September 2016, Trump discussed his health on the The Dr. Oz Show.

Trump has declined to publicly release any of his full tax returns. 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". Trump responded by disclosing the existence of the ongoing audit. 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. 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". 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. 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". Tax attorneys differ about whether such a release is wise legal strategy.

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

References

Added reflist-talk in anticipation of need. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Amen! Buster Seven Talk 21:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Let it die. Please. That poor horse. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Also WP:LEADCITE. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

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." 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.

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.

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. Two days later, Trump officially accepted the nomination in a 75-minute speech inspired by Richard Nixon's 1968 acceptance speech. 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.

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.

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, prompted Trump to make his first public apology during the campaign.

References

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)

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.

• 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. 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. Trump issued a public apology, his first of the campaign, but said he would not withdraw.

References

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)

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)

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)

The Rappeport source links to a source with contradictory data; the article should mention both. Here's "draft UM/d" (the text is mostly from drafts written by User1937 and MelanieN and compiled, condensed, revised, and supplemented by dervorguilla).

After becoming the presumptive nominee, Trump shifted his focus to the general election. A month before the Republican National Convention, an undocumented British alien tried to assassinate him at a rally in Las Vegas; the attempt was thwarted by federal Secret Service agents.

On July 15, 2016, Trump announced Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate. They were formally nominated on July 19, 2016. Trump accepted the nomination two days later, in an historically long 75-minute speech watched by nearly 35 million people; it received mixed reviews.

[Cruz withholds support; polls bounce around.]

Unlike Clinton, Kaine, and Pence, Trump has declined to release any of his tax returns, thereby breaking a bipartisan campaign tradition that began in 1976 and was also broken by Bush/Cheney.

Two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump confides to Billy Bush that he once tried to seduce a married woman and says he found that as a "star" he could kiss or fondle many women at will. Both speakers used vulgar language. The recording touched off a media and political uproar. Several Republican politicians renounced their support for Trump, and some called on him to withdraw from the race. Trump issued an official apology, his first of the campaign.

References

The claim that "Trump would not withdraw" is so superlatively noncontentious that it doesn't even need to be mentioned here (one would hope!). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, go ahead and change it. Fine with me. --MelanieN (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Buster7: This is not the proposal, so it's the wrong place for your Oppose. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed, for the reasons stated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

I would say that if Trump loses the election, then the Access Hollywood tape scandal should be mentioned in the lede as a likely driver of that loss. Between now and the election, it doesn't belong there. bd2412 T 17:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The controversy is still a controversy, regardless of the outcome. And this is a huge controversy, and thus worthy of inclusion in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's still a controversy, but we don't have a WP:CRYSTAL ball to know it's true impact. It's WP:RECENTISM at this point to add it to the lead. And yes, BLP applies. We need to remain neutral and not assume that this is what kills his chances of being president. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't need a crystal ball to know the impact of this controversy. The impact is clear at this time and not including it in the lead leaves our readers wondering why it is not mentioned. If he wins or if he loses, the controversy will remain engraved in this bio... - Cwobeel (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(A) Yeah we do. 28 days to go. Then we'll get a "real" poll that will give us much more information than we currently have. (B) It's covered in the body, and it has its own article. We're not covering it up by excluding it from the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In his bio, yes; not necessarily in the lede. bd2412 T 18:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Specific wording in the body

There's been a lot of back and forth over the specific wording with little problems like saying that the incident is "widely known" as "trump tapes" (not in citations given), and implying that it was only the media who described the comments as "vulgar". I also think we could be more encyclopedic than saying that he was "bragging about his ability to grab women's genitals". I propose the following paragraph as a starting point that can be edited as needed:

Two days before the second presidential debate, a live mic recording from 2005 surfaced in which Trump was heard describing in vulgar terms unwelcome sexual advances on women and an attempt to seduce a married woman. The recording caused outrage across the political spectrum with many Republicans rescinding their endorsements, and prompted Trump to make his first public apology during the campaign.

If this ends up being a turning point in the campaign we can say as much as things progress. I left the citations out to so as to not clutter the talk page, but they should be able to be copy-pasted without a problem. ~Awilley (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think groping is an "unwelcome sexual advance".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"bragging about his ability to grab women's genitals" is highly encyclopedic coming from the mouth of the nominee of one of the two main political parties in the United States. Wikipedia is not censured. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Trump never bragged about "his ability to grab women's genitals" he bragged about his ability to grab women by their genitals which, in my mind, is magnitudes worse. Ajwilley's proposed wording is a more encyclopedic way of summarizing this material, but I don't think it should preclude also quoting Trump directly given how well-publicized the video is.- MrX 20:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems relevant here: New York Times, October 10: Why'd You Do That? Printing Donald Trump's Vulgarities. I'm not suggesting POV editing on anyone's part, but I would support more explicitness. This is not just another Anthony Weiner. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, I failed to consider that the main article appears to lay it out in all its graphic glory, which changes the picture somewhat for me. I have just inserted a {{Main article}} as close as possible to the related content here. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ummm....

I don't quite understand the rationale for excluding the tapes (and their subsequent fallout) from the lead. In the last few days, Trump—the Republican Presidential nominee—has been found to have boasted on tape about sexually assaulting women, has been abandoned by the Republican Speaker of the House, has been publicly disowned by numerous high-profile members of his own party, and has openly declared war on his own party's establishment... all within 30 days of a Presidential election. That is basically unprecedented in modern American political history. If these events aren't important enough to mention in the lead, I'm not sure what is. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you have stuck Monica in Bill Clinton's lead a few days after the story broke? That scandal resulted in the impeachment of a president and threatened to force his resignation, and even today it gets two sentences and 57 words in the lead. Gary Hart,"the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination", was forced to drop out of the race when news of Donna Rice surfaced, and there is not one word in his lead. I think what you're seeing here is good Wikipedia editors struggling to be neutral in the face of one of the hardest tests they have ever encountered. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Because the lead is supposed to summarize the topic. If Trump loses the election, then the fact he ran for president will merit one line. If he wins, the campaign may be skipped over entirely, as no doubt his presidency will prove more interesting than his campaign. "Recentism" provides a good explanation of how to handle current events. The article on the late Toronto mayor Rob Ford does not even mention his mayoral campaign in the lead, although it was plagued with revelations about colorful behavior. TFD (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Why should the Rob Ford article mention his mayoral campaign when the major scandal occurred while he was the sitting mayor. According to the second paragraph of his lede, "His political career, particularly his mayoralty, saw a number of personal and work-related controversies and legal proceedings.[2] In 2013, he became embroiled in a substance abuse scandal, which was widely reported in the national and international media.[3][4][5] Following his admission, Ford refused to resign, but City Council handed over certain mayoral powers and office staff to Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly for the remainder of Ford's term."[6][7][8] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think that these explanations for excluding the material make any sense. We already spend one long paragraph in the lead describing Trump's Presidential campaign, so it's not a question of whether or not to mention it. That lead paragraph is woefully off-base in terms of due weight; we describe Trump's position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and on veterans' health care, and so on, but we don't say one word about the literally unprecedented aspects of his campaign, including the tapes, the fallout, the open warfare between Trump and other high-ranking members of his own party, and so on. It's just silly. Studiously failing to mention these sorts of elephants-in-the-room violates WP:LEAD, and it's not encyclopedic or "neutral" in any way. MastCell ^Talk 15:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  At this point, there does need to be something in the lead about this growing controversy. This has gone well beyond the locker room, and is now making it's way onto elevators and airplanes. The damage it's causing to the Republican party is probably worth mentioning as well, although that will be clearer after the election.- MrX 16:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  The Trump-Bush audio seems to be eclipsed now. A presidential debate has intervened in which Trump said Clinton ought to be in jail, some recent national polls (e.g. Rasmussen) say Trump has recovered from the audio disclosure, and now there's a new controversy about alleged touching that goes far beyond the talk with Billy Bush. I support leaving this lead as-is for now, although the audio disclosure can surely be discussed later in this article, and also in the lead of the campaign sub-article. For anyone who may be interested, a new article titled Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations exists and is up for deletion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  That AfD was a SNOW keep. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with AYW on this. It's not that the Access Hollywood tape hasn't hugely controversial, it's that Trump has been involved in so many other huge controversies that it's undue weight to single this one out. Take Trump University and the Judge Curiel comments, for instance--not mentioned in the lead, and hasn't that controversy received at least as much media coverage? If/when reliable sources say that the tape was (not might be) the turning point of the campaign then I'm open to reconsidering. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The sexual misconduct issues clearly need to be mentioned in the lead. They are important enough for a section in the article and a separate article, which is an extremely good indication that they need to be summarized in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article, including the most significant controversies. I believe Trump "University" should be mentioned as well, although in terms of media coverage, impact and so on, the sexual misconduct controversy seems even more important. --Tataral (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump® value

More material about brand value, branded facilities, and things named after Donald J. Trump (or the Trump family?):

Adding the Trump name to virtually any product or service increased its perceived value, according to Brand Keys. In 2015, that "added value" was anywhere from 20% to 37%, depending on the category, said Robert Passikoff... "That's a range enviable by any category or brand standards."

As of June 2016 ... the added value of the Trump brand in entertainment was as high as 43%. But that added value has been significantly diminished since the video surfaced. The perceived added value in TV and entertainment ... fell 13 percentage points as of Oct. 9, while the value of the Trump brand dropped 8 percentage points in real estate and 6 percentage points in country clubs and golf clubs...

Alexandra Bruell, "Is Trump Teflon? Most Say No as Brand Perception Takes a Hit", WSJ (Oct. 11, 12:24 ET). (See also copyedits of Oct. 11, 01:08 ET and Oct. 10, 23:24 ET.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

We how have more of this topic from other WP:RS:

• Michelle Castillo, "Tape release further erodes Trump brand: Survey" http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/10/tape-release-further-erodes-trump-brand-survey.html
• Danika Fears, "Donald Trump’s vile video comments could hurt his brand" http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/donald-trumps-vile-video-comments-could-hurt-his-brand/
• Jennifer Rubin, "Commentary: Donald Trump's brand is now a total disaster" http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-woman-assault-creepy-20161010-story.html

Note that the change values being reported seem to be measured in percentage points, so that the hit to the brand value, measured as a percentage ratio, would actually be considerably higher. What I find remarkable is actually how little the perceived brand value has dropped, given the "grab them by the pussy" comment.

-- The Anome (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've now added a reference to the above issue to the article, supported by three of the cites given above. -- The Anome (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying

Re this edit by Lord Laitinen, I think it's neither neutral nor verifiable to say that Trump later "clarified" his position on immigration of Muslims. Many folks would say he flip-flopped on that issue and that his current policy position was made less clear. Better to simply use the word "stated," as supported by our guideline on words to watch out for. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I think it's clear that you are being politically motivated to cause a fuss about such a minor vocabulary change, and that it is you who needs a little bit of a lesson in neutrality. It is obvious from the context in the article that Trump clarified his position. He originally stated that he would ban all Muslims from entering the country, then later CLARIFIED (stated) that he would focus on countries not vetted by the government. Immigration is not an important topic to me in this election at all, and my edit was not politically motivated. However, I am glad to say that I support Trump because Hillary Clinton's beliefs on social issues, especially abortion and marriage, are ignorant and contrary to my religion. I truly believe that Hillary Clinton is a lunatic who will do irreparable harm to our nation, but I would never let this personal belief interfere in my editing habits, and I take umbrage at your above remarks. In other words, there are areas I avoid editing specifically because I am politically motivated by them; immigration is not one of those areas. I hope I have clarified this enough for you, and God bless! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a habit of fussing over such minor vocabulary changes. There is a whole page about that at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Unless you can present fairly strong RS support for "clarifying", you are committing original research and we should opt for the more neutral word. State and clarify are not synonyms as you appear to claim. Thank you for your political opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I belatedly see that the OP already linked to that page and you ignored it. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I am an extremely skilled linguist and I understand context. I know the definitions of "clarified" and "stated," and though they are not synonyms, I can see how both would be appropriate based on the context in this article. I don't know what you mean by your second statement; if there is something with which I can assist you, please reply with a more detailed response. I do not like to "ignore" anything, especially if it paints me negatively. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was that you appeared not to absorb the message of that page, which appears to render your claims of politically motivated editing baseless—and a violation of WP:AGF. The OP explained adequately why "clarified" is not neutral here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

My opinion was, and still is, that "clarified" is no more or less neutral than "stated." However, I do not wish to enter into conflicts with you or the editor who started the section. I am upset that such a minor, inconspicuous change caused this much of an upheaval. Also, I wish to point out that I did not directly accuse anyone of politically-motivated editing, and thus, did not fail to AGF. I was first accused of failing to uphold neutrality, to which I responded that the revert of my edit was certainly less neutral than the edit itself. I hope this clears everything up, and I really do not wish to elaborate any further on this. God bless, and happy editing to all! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You are on record as saying, and I quote, "I think it's clear that you are being politically motivated". That directly contradicts the statement, "I did not directly accuse anyone of politically-motivated editing". Where have I seen this behavior before? God bless you as well! ―Mandruss ☎ 06:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sentence on sexual misconduct in lede paragraph on campaign

I added a sentence on the most covered isue of the campaign, to the lede paragraph on the campaign. 21:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I boldly added the following sentence to the lede paragraph devoted to the campaign: "Since October 7th, much of the coverage of the general election has focused on allegations—made by eight separate women, and bolstered by an audio recording in which Trump appears to brag about committing sexual assault—of sexual violence allegedly committed by Trump." This was since deleted by User:Epicgenius, who cited "BLP."

I don't see the BLP violation; the allegations have been covered at length by reliable sources, and if we don't pass judgment on the truth or falsity of the allegations--other than noting that they come from at least 8 women, include groping and raping, etc--there is no problem. Moreover, as I noted, it is the most-covered issue in the campaign, a fact confirmed by Martha Raddatz at the debate. Thus a mention of the allegations--based on the tape and the statements of women, both of which are described in Wikipedia's Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page--deserves one sentence in the lede.

I invite Epic Genius to state his case as to why there is a BLP violation. If he is unable to do so, I encourage other users to re-add a tweaked vversion of my deleted sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 21:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

the most-covered issue in the campaign - I'd say that's a judgment call on your part. In any case, this is a bio of Trump's entire life and, in the greater picture, this probably does not warrant mention in the lead unless the media gives it sole credit for his losing the election. See leads of Bill Clinton and Gary Hart for comparison. This article does already include content about this, just not in the lead, and there is another article about his campaign. There is also another article about this specific controversy. That's enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that a new article on this specific topic survived an AfD, one day after creation, with a snow result, in one day, would suggest that the topic is rather important. OTOH, I always tend to dislike recentism. Objective3000 (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The sexual misconduct issues are clearly important enough to be mentioned in the lead. First of all, he is recorded on tape admitting to such acts, secondly, his behaviour and comments towards women have received an enormous amount of media coverage, not only recently, but over a longer period of time as well, and on a global scale. Thirdly, it already has a significant impact on his campaign[5]. I should also mention that he himself has made sexual misconduct allegations the most important point of his own presidential campaign, so this is certainly not one of many less important issues or anything like that, but clearly the most high profile issue of his presidential campaign/five minutes of fame. [6]. --Tataral (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel an RfC coming on. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

These are clearly important issues for the election and ones that should be on the page. However, these issues belong in their own section not in the lead. I would also note that this is being treated completely differently on the HRC page. On the HRC page her comments about Bill Clinton's accusers haven't been included at all. Not one line in the entire article. Yet, on the Donald Trump page, its been insisted upon that not only should the information be included, it should be included in the lead. How exactly is this a fair representation? NationalInterest16 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion notice

More participation is needed in a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Objectifying women, in the hopes of avoiding an RfC. The article is about allegations of sexual misconduct, as per its title. Currently, it also includes an entire level 2 section, over 500 words, about allegations of things that imply sexism but do not rise to the level of sexual misconduct. Should this material stay or go? Please comment there. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved for the time being. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

"Following the revelation" -- when?

"Following the revelation of Trump's 2005 remarks". The dating here is unclear. The revelation, and all of the subsequent fallout, appear to have all happened in the last week or so, at least going by the Washington Post citation that appears to just be about the 2005 video coming to light and dates to October 7. If this reading is correct, then technically the WP source is cited in error; it should only be used for the statement that "It was revealed that in 2005 Trump made lewd remarks on the set of Days of Our Lives". Or is it being used simply for the quotation because all quotations need citations? If so, it seems like it would be better to give the quotation it's own sentence ("The comments included ...").

But the date needs to be clarified either way.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Far-right politician instead of politician

I think the description "politician" in the lead doesn't really do it. Firstly, unlike most other people described as "politician" in the lead of their biographical article, he doesn't have any track record as a politician; he has never held any political office. His political activity is limited to making prejudiced/discriminatory comments towards various minorities and towards women in media outlets, comments that are widely regarded as politically extreme and that would send people to jail in countries like e.g. Germany, over the last year or so. His views clearly belong in the far right tradition and are also considered as such by experts (e.g. Cas Mudde[7]). Thus, "far-right politician" is a more accurate description than "politician." --Tataral (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Not even Goldwater or Buchanan are so-classified in their leads. Objective3000 (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Remember we must follow WP:NPOV. Trump has formed a campaign for President of the United States, first by winning the nomination of the Republican party, and now as one of the two major candidates in the general election. He has also had political activity in the past, such as exploring a presidential campaign in 1988, 2000, and 2012. I think he meets the definition of "politician" – he even claims himself to be such. MB298 (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not think that would be accurate. A majority of people in the right-wing of the Republican party view Donald Trump as a moderate and as a Rhino. I also take issue with your comment that people who are discriminatory towards minorities must necessarily be right-wing. How did you come to that conclusion? NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Concern about the lede

The lede is not even close to describe this person, in particular as it does not include any of the new revelations about his words on kissing and groping women and the alleged sexual assault reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

In the grand biography of Trump, that, imho, is a minor event and not worthy of summary in the lead per WP:DUE and WP:LEAD. It totally belongs on the campaign page, but not the biography. At least not yet. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly not a "minor event"; rather it is the most high profile issue of what he is mostly known for, his presidential candidacy. He has also himself strongly contributed to making allegations of sexual misconduct the main issue of the election. Based on the worldwide coverage in reliable sources and impact on his campaign (including a stream of influential politicians of his own party abandoning him), it clearly needs to be mentioned prominently in the lead. Quite frankly, any issue that is considered worthy of a first-level section and a stand-alone in-depth article needs to be mentioned in the lead section of the main article, which is supposed to summarise the topic. --Tataral (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Currently the article has 1 sentence at the bottom of the lead about the allegations, which seems about right. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I wish you had been around for all the prior discussion of this question, but it's obviously all still available for reading. For reasons I've stated before, I oppose anything in the lead. But I'll accept the one sentence per Wikipedia give-and-take, brotherly love, and so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

And while I was writing the above comment the lead content was expanded to three sentences by an editor whose article:article talk ratio is 14.6:1 (yours is 1.9:1). See how this works? Give an inch... Strong Oppose more than one sentence, and no fair replacing periods with semicolons. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the current version[8] is a fair summary which gives the matter due weight in relation to how it is covered in reliable sources (as the Financial Times points out, Trump's "increasingly conspiratorial tone (...) appears to be a last-ditch effort to hold on to supporters by a campaign that is being engulfed by almost daily allegations of sexual misconduct"[9]). It actually only describes the matter in two sentences. The third sentence is devoted to Trump's views and how he defends himself against the allegations. --Tataral (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Your argument fails to consider or respond to important (imo) prior discussion, which I'm not going to copy-and-paste here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

These are clearly important issues for the election and ones that should be on the page. However, these issues belong in their own section not in the lead. I would also note that this is being treated completely differently on the HRC page. On the HRC page her comments about Bill Clinton's accusers haven't been included at all. Not one line in the entire article. Yet, on the Donald Trump page, its been insisted upon that not only should the information be included, it should be included in the lead. How exactly is this a fair representation? 23:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationalInterest16 (talk • contribs)

It seems that you are not familiar with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which states that: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The sexual misconduct controversy is the most high profile issue of his presidential campaign, it has both a first-level section in this article, and even a lengthy in-depth article, and hence clearly needs to be summarised in the lead section of this article. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison with Hillary Clinton is ridiculous: Hillary Clinton has not been accused by anyone of sexual misconduct, has not admitted to sexual misconduct, and has a long track record as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State, unlike Trump, whose experience in politics is limited to this year's presidential campaign that is dominated by the sexual misconduct controversy. --Tataral (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on a short two or three sentence paragraph in the lede

A short two or three sentence paragraph in the lede is perfectly appropriate, but no more than that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• I second that. --Tataral (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• I third it. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with the many editors who feel a paragraph in the lede is undue. I've replaced it with a sentence summary. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is no consensus for your edit. On the other hand there seems to be consensus to include a short paragraph of two or three sentences. --Tataral (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Volunteer Marek. This has long been part of Trump's notability, what with the beauty pageants affairs TV and radio interviews etc, but there should be no more than a 2-3 sentence paragraph in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing previous discussions I find the following:

For Lede Inclusion:

• Steelltrap
• Objective3000
• Cwobeel
• MastCell
• Tataral
• Xcuref1endx
• Volunteer Marek
• SPECIFICO

One Sentence Summary:

• Mandruss
• James J. Lambden

Against Lede Inclusion:

• Dr. Fleischman
• MrX
• bd2412 T
• Muboshgu
• TFD
• NationalInterest16
• EvergreenFir

That is far from the clear consensus required, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.

NOTE: editors are welcome to edit and correct the list above as discussion progresses James J. Lambden (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for your edit, whim seems to inappropriately downplay the sexual misconduct controversy, and I notice that you have reverted this article twice, against various editors, within less than two hours. --Tataral (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I made one edit and one revert, in the last week. I can't recall whether I edited this article previously. You're right that there is no consensus for my sentence addition - I'm willing to remove it but I included it in the spirit of compromise. We appear to agree that there should at least be some mention. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You made two reverts within less than two hours. --Tataral (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

seems to inappropriately downplay the sexual misconduct controversy - Considering that the sexual misconduct controversy is covered in exhaustive detail in at least two other articles dedicated solely to that subject, as well as being addressed in lesser detail in the body of this article, I don't see how you can say anything is being downplayed. The lead of a bio article needs to summarize the subject's entire life, without RECENTISM. You seem to fail to grasp this concept, and you seem to have your eye unduly focused on November 8. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

These allegations go back decades, so WP:RECENT isn't a factor. The increasing scale of public reaction to these disclosures looks to be causing a decline in support, as measured in the polls. That's recent, but given the impact on a major life story, highly significant. The essence is that Trump is losing the presidential campaign due to sexual misconduct stretching back decades. In particular, the 2005 tape. --Pete (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand that the lead is supposed to summarise the article's topic (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section), relative to the importance of the material, as measured e.g. by how it is covered in reliable sources . As you yourself point out, this issue, the most reported issue in RS in relation to Trump's campaign, even has an in-depth article, as well as a first-level section in this article, clearly indicating that it is a highly significant issue that deserves more than just one sentence/passing mention at the end of a lengthy paragraph on other stuff. Most people seem to agree that 2–3 sentences is appropriate. The enormous amount of coverage, the complexity and impact of the controversy at this point, also indicate that one sentence is insufficient as a summary. --Tataral (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Your argument remains unconvincing, I remain unconvinced, you lack consensus for inclusion, and I'm done here for the time being. Best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

By word count, the body content is 2.5% of the body. Your lead content was 15.7% of the lead. This is a fair summary of the body how, exactly? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, the section needs expansion. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That is less clear to me. And you're testing my AGF at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, when looking at the section, I agree that it could ideally be somewhat longer, maybe twice as long, which isn't extremely long compared to other sections, and in relation to the prominence of this and other material in reliable sources. The reason for it being relatively short is obviously that we have an in-depth article. The recent developments have made this controversy much more important for his biography than it may have been some months ago. --Tataral (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Well then I'd say the lead discussion is cart before horse. Gain consensus for expanded body content here, add it, and then we can talk about lead. Fair? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not, because the lead must not exactly match the body by percentages (for good reasons, because that could produce some odd results), but rather by "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" as set forth in WP:DUE. Since this material is covered in a first-level section in the body, since it has two in-depth articles, since it's more extensively covered in RS than any other topic, there is no doubt that a one-sentence passing mention is inadequate. --Tataral (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

By coverage in reliable sources during the presidential election, this material makes up over 50%. If you are going to calculate it in relation to coverage in Wikipedia, you need to include the two in-depth articles as well. --Tataral (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I await with interest your pointer to the policy or guideline that supports that argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This principle is set forth in WP:DUE, which states that articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Not all material in the body of article is equally important in this regard; some of it is low-profile details. --Tataral (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? That says nothing about including summary of sub-articles in the lead of the bio article. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't claim that either. That is obviously just an informal approach to guide us in the discussion over the relative prominence of the material, just like your own comment about percentages (there is no such literal rule either, and it would be highly problematic for a number of reasons). --Tataral (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

We're getting into WP:WIKILAWYER territory here. Moving material from the main article into a subarticle because of length is no reason to claim that the lede should be shortened. That's just bizarre. --Pete (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Not so bizarre. You move material out of an article and you adjust its lead accordingly. Bizarre is summarizing articles A, B, and C in the lead of article A. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

More than one editor has restored the content with edit-summaries implying consensus for inclusion exists. Whatever arguments for/against it's clear opinions are divided. I remind all editors (as the heading at the top of the page indicates): challenged material requires clear consensus prior to restoration. Claims of "ignorance" and further misrepresentations of consensus will be met with AE requests. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the salient point, and I don't know how we lost sight of the fact that, if your summary above is correct, it's currently 7 for, 7 against, with 2 for one sentence. We have a ways to go before the clear consensus required by DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The tally doesn't appear to be correct. For example User:Skyring who has participated here isn't included in the tally. I would also note that some of the users who are cited as opposed are brand new editors who have only edited a handful of articles related to Trump/Clinton (e.g. NationalInterest16). --Tataral (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Speaking of WIKILAWYERING, we're now seeking to exclude newer editors from equal voice in consensus with no basis for that in WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond belief, people! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

We are not excluding anyone from voicing their views, but it is perfectly normal to point it out when someone is an apparent single-purpose editor with few contributions, when they are included in a tally. --Tataral (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I grant you that consensus is about strength of arguments, not numbers, and you can legitimately claim that the newer users have not made strong arguments. That's fair play. But what if we have disagreement about the strengths of those arguments? In my experience that can only be resolved with an uninvolved closer, preferably an admin, and we don't have one here or sufficient structure to make one possible (imo). We would have to go to RfC for that I think. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS also explains that we don't count "votes." It's not helpful to keep citing vote counts here, just as it's not helpful to insist that we increase the word count regarding Trump's alleged sexual abuse in the article to match the percentage of its word count in the lede. Math much? What if there's a constant or nonlinear term in the transformation? SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tataral: I find no comments by Skyring on this talk page. Perhaps I've missed them. I've noted in the list above that other editors are welcome to correct and expand it as discussion progresses, including noting apparent SPAs per policy. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Skyring uses Pete in his signature instead of his username. --Tataral (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been a reasonably frequent contributor here. Regarding new editors, I think for this topic we should treat those without an established wikihistory with some caution. --Pete (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the wrong way of thinking about that. If Trump's warriors wish to invade and make solid policy-based content arguments, I say more power to them. If 50 of them make the same solid policy-based argument, that should have the same weight as one, so the other 49 are wasting their time and our server space. In theory a "Support per UserBob." !vote should be meaningless if it's about strength of arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about counting noses so much as a campaign of deliberate disruption, as we have seen through online poll manipulation and so on. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, behavior issues. A big subject that existed long before that phenomenon emerged. I have my strong opinions in that area but I won't take this any further off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Potential paragraph at end of lede on sex abuse allegations

Please vote/comment below so we can assess whether there is consensus for the charge. (The previous "tally" was done in a scattershot manner, and many of the comments took place before most of the women had come out.) For clarity's sake, let's first vote on whether there should be a paragraph:

Vote Include or Exclude. Then, if there is consensus for a paragraph, we can hold an RfC on the length/form of the paragraph. Steeletrap (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Include A no-brainer; this is the most covered issue in the campaign--both the Billy Bush audiotape and the 12 women who have publicly accused Trump--and all major RS have covered it. We go off of RS here on WP. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Exclude I would be for inclusion of a sentence incorporated into existing paragraphs (as the article stands now.) I take issue with the argument that this is the "most covered issue" in the campaign. Firstly, this article is about the man, not his campaign. With almost 40 years of coverage this is by no means his most-covered issue. Secondly, even restricting the group to campaign issues, coverage of his comments regarding muslim immigration (which persisted for months) is greater in total. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump is best-known as the 2016 presidential candidate; and this is the most relevant/most covered issue of that campaign. It's the most notable part of the thing for which he is most-known. The stuff we currently have in the lede--e.g. the Muslim ban--s much less notable than the 12 women who have accused him of sexual assault. Steeletrap (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Include. Note that a clear majority have already supported the inclusion of the material in the lead in some form; the main issue is whether we should have 2–3 short sentences (as argued by half a dozen or so in the most recent discussion) or just one sentence (as argued by 2 users). For the reasons described in more detail above, I think this controversy is too big, has a too large impact, and is too complex to be covered adequately in a one-sentence passing mention at the end of a paragraph on other stuff. There is no doubt that Trump is best known for his presidential candidacy, and there is no doubt that his candidacy is dominated by the sexual misconduct controversy in reliable sources. Due to its importance and coverage in reliable sources, the controversy is extensively covered in Wikipedia, including in a first-level section in this article, and in 2 further in-depth sub articles, all of which clearly indicate that it should be summarised adequately in the lead section of the main article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. --Tataral (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Include as supported in earlier discussion. Trump's history of sexual assault extends back decades. It is not WP:RECENT and confined to his election campaign. The impact of Trump's 2005 tape in which he supports sexual assault on his current campaign - a major life mark - has been marked and negative (in terms of his poll standings). The argument that one sentence buried amongst other material in the lede reflects the body content is strained - there is a whole article devoted to this topic consisting of material spun off from this BLP. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction noted

Please be kind, I'm not wiki savy and (thankfully) cannot change the page myself.

Under 'The Apprentice' heading, last para, quote 213, it says NBC cancelled their business relations with DT due to neg comments on migrants on June 29 2015.

Further on under the heading of 'Involvement in politics 1988-2015', last para, it says DT opted to not renew the contract due to his potential presidential run - dated FEBRUARY 2015.

Seeing as DT cancelled the business relations first and the possibility that the first quote from NBC may have been deliberate propaganda against DT (because not relevant); it should be removed. (Edit: or altered)

Dormouse7 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I adjusted the second instance to more closely reflect the cited article. Objective3000 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

2nd edit : But ......

I hope this goes to the right place!

I wanted the contradiction to be erased. Keep the NBC quote if you like but add something like 'but DT had already cancelled their business dealings/contract in Feb 2015' - add quote and delete from second section. Please :)Dormouse7 (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormouse7 (talk • contribs) Dormouse7 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I was kind enough to not suggest that your edit here was WP:NPOV, and simply removed the apparent contradiction. But, that's how it appears. WP is based on reliable sources WP:RS. You will need to frame your complaint according to WP guidelines. Objective3000 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)