Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Trump entertainment resorts

In the introduction to this page it says "Trump is also the founder of Trump Entertainment Resorts, which operates numerous casinos and hotels worldwide", while on the trump entertainment resorts page it says that they only operate 2 hotels in america. Could someone with the right knowledge and editing abilities please correct which ever page is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.99.17 (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Revisons to the lead

I have made a bunch of copy edits to the lead to improve encyclopedic tone and to remove excess details etc per WP:LEAD which specifies that the lead should be a summary of the article. For example, we don't need to know that he was the fourth of five children. That info can come later in the body of the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate information - please fix

This part is not accurate: and in 1968 officially joined the company.[7] He was given control of the company in 1971 and renamed it The Trump Organization.[8][9]"

According to the New York Department of State, The Trump Organization, Inc. was created by Donald J Trump on APRIL 23, 1981, (many years after Fred Trump founded his company) if you check its name history, the name Elizabeth Trump & Son is not on the list; that company was founded and owned by Fred Trump, which makes both companies different entities. So Trump didn't join the family business (something he said even on the Art of the Deal and he said it in his book 'How To Get Rich' (978-1400063277)), he broke away from the family business and tried his luck in Manhattan alone.

http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=781351&p_corpid=694908&p_entity_name=%74%68%65%20%74%72%75%6D%70%20%6F%72%67%61%6E%69%7A%61%74%69%6F%6E&p_name_type=%25&p_search_type=%43%4F%4E%54%41%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

• • See How To Get Rich (978-1400063277) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.254.122 (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

While the corporate filing you cite and link to in your post, does raise some questions, it doesn't provide any direct about the Trump family biz which the cited sources clearly state, he took control of and renamed. So without further sources that clearly contradict the existing one, the current content stands as correct IMO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Aberdeen Scotland golf course dispute

Isn't the level of detail on this dispute a bit mighty for a BLP? It's four detailed paragraphs of argumentative blow-by-blow. Is this appropriate for a BLP? At what point s/ this be spun off so the BLP can contain a mere summary? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely. About a third of this article needs to be moved to an article on the Trump Org. Its ok to say Trump is owner/pres whatever, but the business dealings of the company he owns or runs do not belong in his bio, IMO. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. (Summaries here; detailed business "this-and-that" issues in a separate Trump Org article.) I'm too new for merging/spinning off articles & am not sure this is a consensus either. (How to make progress? Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I see there is already a lot of duplicative stuff at The Trump Organization. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Any text in the Trump bio that is duplicated in the Trump Org article should be removed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, if I may voice an opinion. Mr T has been closely involved in the project and it appears to be linked in his mind with his Scots-born mother. He has had discussions with Alex Salmond and has appeared at PR events relating to the project. It seems arbitrary, to say the least, to maintain that this particular matter is a 'business issue', hence not properly part of his biography. It's hugely controversial in the UK - where he isn't known for much else. If this subject is ignored in the article dedicated to him, as it now is, one might ask whether it is because events outside the USA are considered relatively unimportant by Wikipedia editors, or because of the controversy. Other business issues are mentioned here. Costesseyboy (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Classifying the golf course controversy as business "seems arbitrary", but including it because "it appears to be linked in his mind to his Scots-born mother" doesn't?! (And having discussions with Alex Salmond and appearing at PR events support that view?!) An extended controversy might be mentionable, but I don't know BLP policy so am *out* of this discussion. (Clearly though, second-guessing T's inner psychology has no place here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for sarcasm. Trump himself has explicitly linked the project to his Scots-born mother on several occasions, so no "second guessing T's inner psychology" is required; and he has been closely involved in the project on a personal level, with several personal appearances and personal statements, as well as other interventions, in what is, actually, an "extended controversy"; so yes, I would say that it belongs in his biog. And that as it stands the article lacks objectivity, being strongly biased in favour of someone who is a highly controversial figure.Costesseyboy (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned I am *out* of the discussion. But I think you are reading-in unstated things about T's mentioning his mother. (You seem to be trying to imply a "why", and to that extent, it is second-guessing.) As far as the BLP, not my specialty. So I have no comment re objectivity or not. Others s/ participate now. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "trying to imply" anything there: it is you who have read things unwritten. I simply mentioned her to show how personally T is involved in this project, mothers usually being dear to their offspring's hearts. The fact remains that given the scale of the controversy in the UK and now worldwide thanks to 'You've Been Trumped' and (as I maintain) the depth of T's personal involvement, it's extremely strange that it's not mentioned at all in the Wikipedia article about him. Odd too that an original suggestion to reduce the length of the relevant section resulted so quickly in its complete removal.Costesseyboy (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can't source the "dear to his heart" (as motivation) comment, then you are indeed reading-in, and have proven my point. Let's see your source documenting this internal T motivation. Regarding removal of all material on the issue, my only problem was the detailed blow-by-blow, which is inappropriate for a BLP. (Not my decision to segregate the material totally, though, I can't find fault w/ that idea.) Instead of whining, how about proposing text for the summary you seek? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK I have. Down to one para now so hopefully no one will find it too detailed. Ihardlythinkso, would you mind not using words like 'whining' to characterise what I've said? Thanks.Costesseyboy (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Absurd. (Overlong, detailed blow-by-blow. Belongs at The Trump Organization, not here. You've stretched the meaning of word "summary" for your own view for the BLP. After suggesting you propose your summary on Talk, you go ahead and re-add a detailed account instead. Without any consensus whatever for the re-addition.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

'Consensus' for cutting/removing it before was you and one other. Another person has suggested mentioning the movie. I've given reasons why this is important and why it has a place here: it's a personal project for DT. Perhaps you're not much aware of the controversy where you are but it is big here. It's down to one para from 4. Can't we compromise on that, please?Costesseyboy (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"You and one other." That's at least two, in your case it's just you. One person does not a consensus make. "Another person has suggested mentioning he movie." Big deal. Not the same. Tangential topic. The person isn't here on this specific Talking point. You're feathering-in for own purpose. "I've given reasons why this is important." You mean the obsession interpreting T's internal psychology re mentioning his mother is Scottish? "It's down to one para." One overly-long paragraph. Not a summary but mind-numbing detail. ("Only one paragraph" borders on semantical manipulation. Same as you did re word "summary", and word "propose".) "Compromise"? You whine, then force your agenda without consensus, distort words to self-justify, falsely accuse (your tit-for-tat re "reading-in"), then act all nicey-nice after getting in what you want. Sorry, no deal; as mentioned I think your re-add is self-serving, unjustified, against BLP (probably), and without consensus. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain without rudeness how the para violates BLP? Costesseyboy (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC) I've revised & shortened the para.Costesseyboy (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My two cents: the documentary "You've Been Trumped" is about Donald Trump and thus I'd say it deserves mention on the Donald Trump page rather than the Trump Organization page. Further, the Aberdeen golf course is promoted directly by Trump himself, with the Trump Organization in the background. Doubtless the Trump Organization is/was also involved in funding Trump's presidency bid, but the presidency tilt info is on the Trump page.Saganaki- (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Trump Management Corp. sued by Justice Department (1973)

When was the portion discussing how Trump Management Corp. was sued in 1973, while Trump was the president, for not renting to African Americans? Not only that but other allegations of racism that once appeared here have also been removed, references for all of which can be found in various newspapers. Why are his political and media-related controversies detailed but not his other public controversies? Honestly, it looks as though this article was simply washed to remove any sources that discussed negative aspects of Trump's life. Derekc06 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If the article is lacking coverage in your opinion, then be bold and fix it. It's only semi-protected and you're auto-confirmed (your account is over four days old and has at least ten edits), so you can edit it according to Wikipedia principles (like using verifiable information from reliable sources), as freely as any other editor. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You've Been Trumped 2011

There has been a noteworthy documentary prepared about Donald Trump regarding his Scottish golf course. It's been reported here in the UK Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/sep/13/youve-been-trumped-scotland-golf-course).

Haven't got time to add it myself, thought I'd leave the reference here in case anyone has time Saganaki- (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Saganaki, unfortunately there's nowhere obvious to put the reference at the moment because some people feel the issue the film deals with is not properly part of this article, and all mention of it has been removed. When you have a minute perhaps you'd like to contribute to the relevant discussion above.Costesseyboy (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Birth certificate

See here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284917/trump-questions-obamas-birth-certificate-katrina-trinko

Trump has NOT abandoned his cause. Trump claims that the long-form certificate is faked or otherwise suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.3 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

The books Trump "wrote" should go in order by date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.197.24 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump now an Independent

CNN just announced that Donald Trump is no longer affiliated with the Republican Party. He is now an Independent. I would change the Donald Trump page but it's locked. Someone needs to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.130.241 (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox and added a source. Kuru (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 April 2012

Section : Family
Please change : On April 26, 2004, he proposed to Melania Knauss (Melanija Knavs), a native of Slovenia. Trump and Knauss (who is 24 years Trump's junior) married on January 22, 2005...
to : On April 26, 2004, he proposed to Melania Knauss (Melanija Knavs), a native of Slovenia. Trump and Knauss married on January 22, 2005...

The parenthetical "who is 24 years Trump's junior" does not add value to the article and should be removed. I asked for opinions on this edit in March of 2011 with no responses.

Thanks for your time and consideration. Xburrows (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Mother's place of birth

The article says his mother was born on the "Island of Lewis". This should read "Isle of Lewis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.27.253 (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kuru (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Trump branding and licensing - citation

Here is a citation link for "Trump also has a business simulation game called Donald Trump's Real Estate Tycoon": http://uk.gamespot.com/donald-trumps-real-estate-tycoon/ BarkingNigel (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

USFL

Why only one line on the USFL? I think his influence in it's rise/demise and the impact of the league make this at least a paragraph? Anyone else? --Monstermike99 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

someone needs to help out the 'legal' paragraph

That section starts off with one sentence about Deutsche Bank but doesn't tell the reader what on earth the project in question is. The sentence should include that it is about the the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago.

21:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Mac291 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/business/05norris.html?_r=1

Drives me crazy when people don't know how to write. It's like running together two sentence fragments or lack of punctuation. You see it all the time nowadays.

Thank you.

Net Worth

The article claims he's a billionaire, but the reference (#3) cites his earnings (only 53 million at the moment), not his net worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.108.33 (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Bfergel (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)"I just know it's very hard for them [Ivana and Marla] to compete because I do love what I do." Nightline ABC, February, 2008Bfergel (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

I'm aware of one incident classified by the media as a "controversy" - the building of a golf course in Aberdeenshire. Are there others? Worth a section? Syneil (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the 'announcement' he is claiming on President Obama, when this is added to wiki, it needs to be clear that Trump is not an unbiased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.177.221 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have included both these points as sub-paras. The Scottish golf course is, I think, self-explanatory, but the "Birther" theory and his bizarre/disturbing tweets post-election, I have had slight problems with, as I have attempted to show his bias, without showing my own about Trump! Manxwoman (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hambudge (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC) "Michael Forbes, whose tussles with Donald Trump were captured on film in an award-winning documentary, has been named the “Top Scot” of the year, ahead of other contenders like Billy Connolly, Andy Murray and Sir Chris Hoy." http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/farmer-who-took-on-trump-triumphs-in-spirit-awards-1-2668649#.ULjRliCXbfM.twitter

Listed As Environmentalist

why is trump listed as this in categories at the bottom of the article when he clearly is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.152.163 (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Some sort of twisted joke perhaps? Have removed the cat. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Real estate developments section

Parts of the Real estate developments section need re-org for chronological consistency. I moved one paragraph, but the rest looks to be a bit messier. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've started working on it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this sentence from the Real Estate development section. Its doesn't belong there or anywhere since its fan trivia: Trump was the first customer for the 2006 Cadillac DTS Limousine after the President of the United States.Donald Trump To Be The First Cadillac DTS Executive Limousine Customer. Auto Channel. Retrieved December 3, 2011.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Re the aricle's claim that the "birther" issue has been "debunked", the issue HAS NOT been "debunked".

In my opinion as a journalist:

This Wikipedia article about Donald Trump erronoeously asserts -- as a claim of fact -- that the "birther" issue (i.e., the questions re Obama's birth certificate and origin) has been "debunked".

The claim is incorrect.

The "birther" issue has been CLAIMED to be "debunked, but the "birther" issue, and the possible validity of the "birther's" claims, is very much alive.

The article's effort to substantiate its claim, by (a) turning, via Footnote #171, to a factually inaccurate, CBS News article -- which itself unacceptably states certain things as being “fact” even though those alleged “facts” are yet in dispute –- and then (b) citing, and presenting as “FACT”, the CBS News item’s ASSERTIONS of "fact", rather than stating that the CBS News item WAS ITSELF declaring ITS OPINION to be "fact" -- that the “birther” issue had been “debunked”, is an egregious –- and highly misleading and unacceptable –- failing of this Wikipedia article.

Whether the Wikipedia article’s writer, of that section, believed, or disbelieved, that the “birther” issue had or had not been “debunked”, is not the point. The point is that the article should be ACCURATE, and VERIFIABLY SO, in whatever it states.

That the Wikipedia article’s footnoted source, and the Wikpedia article itself, simply STATE that something is a fact does not MAKE that something a fact.

And for the Wikipedia article to turn to a source that equally errs as to the facts, and then to present that source’s erroneous information as being a fact in and of itself – and to do so WITHOUT STATING that the information is that source’s CLAIM – is beyond the standards of honest logic – or of proper journalism.

At least if the Wikipedia article had perhaps stated that various sources (such as that footnoted CBS News item) have CLAIMED that the “birther” issue had been “debunked”, then the Wikipedia article would have been on more solid ground as to clarity and accuracy.

In addition, as the “birther” controversy is, properly, relevant to this Wikipedia bio of Donald Trump, there are additional problems with the article’s facile assertion that the “birther” claims have been “debunked”:

For example, the article (a) inaccurately presents the “birther” controversy – and the “birther” arguments – as a dead issue (even though the issue is very much alive), (b) presents – and also misrepresents – source material that is itself biased and that only look at one side of the issue, and (c) excludes any reference to, or findings of, the various forensics experts, the various news organs and investigative journalists, even the investigative team lead by Arizona Sheriff Arpaio (whose efforts and findings re these issues, and even his ability to remain in office, are reportedly now being squelched), whose – findings which, these persons say, provide powerful evidence bearing on the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President.

Thus, while this Wikipedia article about Trump gives some useful information on various other points, it is notably unbalanced, misleading, improperly grounded, and inaccurate, as to the above points regarding the “birther” issue.

In my opinion.

(NOTE: SOME SOURCES):

[http://www.wnd.com/?s=birther WORLDNETDAILY -- Many WND articles analyzing these issues] 

[http://www.wnd.com/?s=obama+eligibility%20 WORLDNETDAILY -- Additional WND analyeis of the birther/eligibility issues]

Note Dame Law School Professor Emeritus Charles Rice, on Obama's Eligibility

Orly Taitz, Esq. -- "World's Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site" 

Warning: This website orlytaitzesq is frequently infected with malware. (Warning inserted by me into Protonius2's comment. JamesMLane t c 01:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC))

Canada Free Press article - Investigative Report re the Obama Eligibility Controversy"

Washington Times - Arizona Sheriff Arpaio Claims Obama's B.C. is Forged

Devvy Kidd -- Many of Devvy's Commentaries, including re Obama's Eligibility

[http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.se "Obama Release Your Records" (blogspot

--Protonius2 (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)PROTONIUS2 (09 February 2013). @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I changed "thoroughly debunked" to just "debunked" to maintain a more neutral point of view, but according to the source of this statement, several authorities have indeed debunked the doubts about Obama's birth certificate being authentic. I'm not sure the sources you cited above -- most of which appear to be blogs or opinion pieces -- count as reliable sources for countering the article's "debunked" statement. Even the Washington Times article you cited above refers to the Sheriff's claims as "the latest birther nonsense". Primogen (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEIGHT. If mainstream media have come down on one side of the issue, then we accept their judgment. TFD (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Good edit to remove the adjective "thoroughly".

Inclusion of Proper Name

As I'm sure you know, there has been recent controversy regarding Mr. Trump's birth name. According to some sources, Donald Trump was actually born Fuckface Von Clownstick, a name originating from the now defunct Nation of Leibowitzia. Purportedly, he later changed the name to make business situations less awkward. While such allegations may seem ridiculous, I am personally trying to disambiguate the issue, and, if you'll excuse the expression, clear his name. Does anyone have any information regarding the validity of these claims?

• Not sure how serious this was supposed to be, but editors of this page should be on the lookout for vandalism following twitter & daily show running joke.Scoundr3l (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Net worth in info box

Judging from the article, the Forbes-reported net worth of $3.2 billion has been disputed by credible sources:

"Trump's unsuccessful libel lawsuit against author Timothy L. O'Brien, for O'Brien's estimating his net worth at less than $250 million, was dismissed in 2009. In the lawsuit it was revealed that in 2005, Deutsche Bank valued Trump's net worth at $788 million, to which Trump objected."

Considering that, should WP really accept the Forbes figure at face value for the info box? --Baumi (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Forbes is a reliable source. As is, we can presume, Deutsche bank. However, I don't think any figure should be listed as it's obviously controversial. All reliable sources, and the lawsuits surrounding them, should probably be presented in a section of the page and the info box left neutral until there's consensus. Those are my thoughts.68.96.52.9 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've made an edit to that effect – hopefully it's NPOV enough. --Baumi (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

TonytheTiger made an interesting comment regarding the posting of the Forbes figure to the info box, "controversy section does not refute this number" [the march 2013 figure]. While it's true that there is nothing to refute the specific figure, the source itself has been called into question. Forbes' previous figures were questioned not only by the cited Timothy O'Brian article (which values it high) but also by Business Insider, in which Stone Street Advisors values it low. In both sources, not only the previous figures, but also the methodology used by Forbes is criticized, meaning the source could be considered dubious. In light of that, I don't see any harm in leaving it out of the info box. The relevant information is all available in the first section of the article.Scoundr3l (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we regard Forbes as a WP:RS in general, that unless a specific fact is refuted, it should be included. The fact that some people contest the valuation method seems part and parcel to estimation. I don't see what the fuss is. Removing this almost means that no one's net worth is estimable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

While generally I agree, there's no such thing as a RS "in general", as per WP:RS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made ..." Nobody is arguing against the inclusion of the Forbes figure in the article, or even saying that it's not a reliable source. The only contention is against its inclusion in the infobox, which suggests that his net worth is unanimously that. As per the infobox template page, information should only be included with consensus. There are numerous reliable and, at the same time, contradictory sources as to his net worth. Rather than taking it at face value in the info box, we should allow (force?) the reader to make up their own mind with the information at hand. Especially so with a living person, imho. A living person who is vocally and legally opposed to misinformation regarding his net worth. The information is all still there, it just errs on the side of caution.Scoundr3l (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all the comments above. There is not enough RSs and consensus among them to warrant Trump's net worth being defined in the info box in WP's voice. It should go in the appropriate section of the article and be appropriately attributed and summarized.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You're Fired trademark

The links provided for the You're Fired! trademark are not valid.

The following link shows the trademark that was awarded to JMBP in 2008 for the purposes of Entertainment services in the nature of a reality television series.

Thats J. Mark Burnett Productions producer of the apprentice.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:tm8x06.3.3

Of the 2 live trademarks, only one is associated to the apprentice and is owned by J. Mark Burnett Productions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.216.189 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

PR Piece...

A lot of this reads like a PR piece. In particular the overwhelming majority of the sources are to various of Trump's many autobiographies and memoirs.

This is someone with a well-established history of distorting his personal and business record for public gain.

I notice a number of things are missing here of major importance: 1) The extensive loans he took against his trust fund (never mentioned) and from family members; 2) It presents the casino bankruptcies as decisions Trump made, when in fact they were compelled by creditors one of whose biggest complaints was Trump taking outsized compensation from companies that were all losing money; 3) The discussion of Trump's personal wealth and the assets of the Trump Organization include a major distortion -- the way Trump got out of his personal financial problems, is that he no longer has beneficial interests in what used to be his indirectly owned properties -- the Trump organization principally is paid for managing properties owned by others.

I'd be very surprised if there aren't a *lot* more things like that throughout this article.

And what does anyone care about this guy's presidential-run publicity stunt? Someone's PR campaign is not, of itself, notable...

Is anyone well-versed enough on this guy's history to do a real, objective re-write? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Supporter of the Tea Party Movement

Numerous statements that Donald Trump has made to the media indicate that he is a Tea Party supporter, not to mention that he was a featured speaker at a Tea Party event:

• http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/7/donald-trump-says-hes-a-tea-party-member/
• http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-believer-tea-party/2013/10/10/id/530486/
• http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/04/trump-on-the-today-show-im-with-the-tea-party.html

JoelDick (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph for now out of BLP concerns. Easily re-added if there's consensus. Sources seem good to me, but I recommend letting discussion play out before re-adding it. 2600:1006:b100:ccd4:840d:88bb:6f0b:4171 and SQGibbon have expressed concerns. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This is tricky. In the sources listed here it looks like Trump wants the support of Tea Partiers and aligns himself with at least some of their principles but always comes just short of calling himself a member. "I certainly seem to be in a sense. They like me, and I like them. And we have very much the same principles", "I'm a believer in the tea party because what they want is what's really right for this country", and "I think so. I'm very proud of some of the ideas they put forth." Notice how he always refers to them as "they" and just won't come right out and say he a Tea Partier. He is hedging his statements like politicians do. I think any claim we use in the article needs to be suitably hedged as well without engaging in any original research (like saying that he is hedging). On review: At least the most recent version of the "tea party" edit does seem sufficiently hedged. I no longer see a problem with it given these sources supplied here. SQGibbon (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the way the paragraph is phrased ("Is a vocal supporter...") is hedged enough because it doesn't claim that he is a "Tea-partier", only that he has vocalized support, which he certainly has, based on the sources provided. To the comment above about "BLP concerns...", I'll point you to Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!": "...to prevent or reduce harm to living persons, these can be abused as some sort of trump card..." (Notice what I did there :). Besides, since when has it been damaging to a person's reputation to claim that he/she is a Tea-Partier? On the contrary, I think Trump would be flattered by that characterization.JoelDick (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to reply to "crying BLP", since this page is protected, there's heightened scrutiny of BLP concerns. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything from 2600:1006:b100:ccd4:840d:88bb:6f0b:4171 so I'll assume we have a consensus to add the paragraph back in.JoelDick (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Think again. WP:BLP has not been repealed. Collect (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tea Party

Making a speech where there are Tea Party supporters in the audience does not make a person "associated with the Tea Party Movement" and does not make the person in any sense a member of such a movement. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

He didn't just make a speech. The sources have specific quotes that he made that were supportive of the movement.JoelDick (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The audience contained some Tea Party members, and also non-Tea Party members. That you personally find his words sufficient to directly link him to the tea party is something the source does not do. Cheers. You should immediately self-revert your edit war. Collect (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Two blog sources for this, nope. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

As per the previous consensus here are quotes from the two sources I added to the article "So I asked him straight out if he considers himself a member of the Tea Party. 'I certainly seem to be in a sense. They like me, and I like them. And we have very much the same principles,' Mr. Trump answered ... I seem to get along very well with the Tea Party. Part of it is a mutual respect. I have a great respect for the Tea Party." and "Asked if he considered himself part of tea party, Trump said, 'I think so. I'm very proud of some of the ideas they put forth. They want to stop this ridiculous, absolutely killer spending that's going on. '" I do not see how all of this would not be considered as him having "...expressed support of the Tea Party Movement..." which is what the currently contentious edit states. SQGibbon (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@SQGibbon, as per the previous consensus here? Where exactly? Are you talking about the section above or elsewhere? --Malerooster (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)ps, maybe start a RFC to gain wider input than the 4 or so folks currently involved. --Malerooster (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just above. Three people discussed the matter, one dropped out, and two of them reached an agreement based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That is a consensus. Also, I'd like to think that we can work out the wording of one ultimately trivial sentence without needing an RFC. This shouldn't be that difficult and the controversial statement in the article is not making a particularly bold claim. SQGibbon (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It clearly states that he is not a "member" and that he supports some of the Tea Party positions - specifically that he supports reductions in spending. What might be said is "Trump supports reduction of spending, as does the Tea Party movement" which is substantially different from the claim currently made. Nor does any of this make him a "person associated with the Tea Party movement" specifically. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no claim in the text that he is a member of the Tea Party. He also makes clear that he wants to be associated with the Tea Party "have very much the same principles", "I certainly seem to be in a sense", "I seem to get along very well with the Tea Party", etc. That category appears to leave the exact meaning of "associated" open to interpretation but there are enough sources provided here to indicate that he is associated with the Tea Party by other people. SQGibbon (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You are making a vast leap from what the sources explicitly state. Wikipedia is not the place to make such leaps. And the claim that he is "associated" with a group may be contentious -- If one were to say the Pope is "associated with the Mafia" by some critics, that would not make such a claim valid, would it? We can state he supports some principles of the TPm, but that does not make the claim as stated correct. Putin supports Assad (apparently) but des that make Putin "associated with" an anti-Semitic movement? When we make any claims, we stick to what the sources explicitly state and we appear to be violating that principle here, and one can never assert that two people can make a WP:CONSENSUS in any event. The claimthat an ausience which includes some TPm members is a "Tea Party audience" is also an affront to Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There was absolutely no leap being made and you asserting it does not make it so and is, quite frankly, insulting. I read the sources carefully, and having absolutely no interest in any part of these subjects, determined that the proposed text adequately conveyed the content of those sources. If you disagree with the consensus interpretation then state your case but saying things like "nope", "vast leap", etc. do not in any way, shape, or form, help the discussion or work toward consensus building. And yes, the claim that he is associated with the group may be contentious but the the text in the category leaves interpretation quite open. Given that reliable sources in the media very clearly associate Trump with the Tea Party makes the claim at least one worthy of consideration. Finally, where in WP:CONSENSUS does it state that two people are not sufficient for establishing consensus? If that were the case then at least half the article in Wikipedia would never reach a consensus. So please, respect the consensus that was achieved and start working within Wikipedia guidelines and stop forcing your new opinion on the article in direct contradiction to the previous consensus without achieving a new consensus first. SQGibbon (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We do not "convey intent" - we convey what is clearly stated in the body of reliable sources. Period. And I suggest that your assertion of "consensus" here is quite premature indeed. And claims of association in general may be "contentious" per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about conveying intent? I said "I read the sources carefully ... determined that the proposed text adequately conveyed the content of those sources." The current text is an accurate summary of the content of all those reliable sources. I am not going to engage in violating copyright by copying the text over from those sources (in case that's what you are calling for) nor do I think it helps the overall quality of the article or Wikipedia to just quote every source (properly cited). The text conveys exactly what is clearly stated in those sources. "Period". There was absolutely nothing premature about the consensus that was achieved in the previous section. A discussion was had and all the editors still involved came to an agreement based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines and edited the article accordingly. That is exactly what WP:CONSENSUS calls for. That there is a new discussion attempting to achieve a new consensus is fine and is how Wikipedia works but in the meantime the previous consensus view holds until a new one is established. And I said "the claim that he is associated with the group may be contentious" so you repeating my statement to, what, make a point(?) is uncalled for. But just because something is contentious does not mean it cannot be included in Wikipedia especially when it is properly supported by reliable sources and is perfectly within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

(od)Sure looks like there ain't a current consensus for the material. Contentious claims about living persons require exceedingly strong sourcing.

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

"See also" links should not be used to imply any contentious categorization or claim about a living person.

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources

Seem to cover most of the problems. And in case you did not notice it consensus can change is part of WP:CONSENSUS. A two or three person consensus is not generally considered of any more than moot value. Collect (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Contentious claims about living persons require exceedingly strong sourcing." Exceedingly strong sources have been provided. Twice now.

"And in case you did not notice it consensus can change is part of WP:CONSENSUS." Not only did I notice this before you said it I even said it myself several times. This is another example of you repeating back to me something I've said as if I didn't already say it. This is insulting behavior on your part.

"A two or three person consensus is not generally considered of any more than moot value." For the third time, please show me any policy or guideline that even suggests this is the case. You won't be able to find anything because if it were the case then at least half of the articles on Wikipedia would never reach a valid consensus on anything. If only two people are involved in a discussion then the consensus they reach, as long as it follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as the previous consensus discussion did, is valid. SQGibbon (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read the discussions concerning "consensus" on Wikipedia. At this point I see an actual majority not accepting the asserted "consensus" which would seem to imply that the asserted "consensus" -- isn't one. I hate to disillusion you, but two people != consensus on any dispute. In the case at hand, several people demur on the "2 person consensus." I count Malerooster, Capitismojo, Collect, Noq, 2600, and Darkness Shines as amounting to more than 2 people, provided simple addition is not a problem. Collect (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, please point to the relevant policy or guideline that states that two people are not enough to establish consensus when there are only two participants in a discussion. Not one person, besides you, has made the direct claim that two people are not enough to establish consensus. But even if they have and I missed it, it is still not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. "I hate to disillusion you" -- must you always find a way to make a snide comment to me? Please stop with the incivility. SQGibbon (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all -- where far more editors (>>2) reject an edit on the page history than "agreed on the edit" on the talk page, it is fairly obvious to the most casual observer that there was no actual "consensus" on the talk page.

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale rather states that a small group can not override policies and guidelines, which is also an issue here.

Secondly, I can find no case where a "two person consensus" has been deemed of any value on Wikipedia. 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"First of all -- where far more editors (>>2) reject an edit on the page history than 'agreed on the edit' on the talk page, it is fairly obvious to the most casual observer that there was no actual 'consensus' on the talk page." After a consensus was established then editors came by weeks later to disagree. But first there was an established consensus. The consensus-making process cannot last forever just in case more editors show up.

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale rather states that a small group can not override policies and guidelines, which is also an issue here. " That is not at all what is going on and your attempt to paint it like this is yet another insult. A consensus was achieved that was entirely within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. That consensus can change is something I've stated several times now and if/when a new consensus is established then the previous consensus can be considered overthrown.

"Secondly, I can find no case where a 'two person consensus' has been deemed of any value on Wikipedia." I am not interested in this. Your task is to point to any policy or guideline that states that if only two people are in a discussion then the consensus they achieve, as long as it is within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, is not considered a valid consensus because there were only two people involved. It's very simple. You've asserted this fact numerous times and have yet to back it up. SQGibbon (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Consensus" is not a timed process and Wikipedia has no "deadline." In fact, it appears that no formal discussion ever took place here. See WP:RFC and WP:DR. And since I have found zero cases of a "2 man consensus" ever being considered a "consensus" you wish me to "prove a negative" which is a well-known fallacious argument. Collect (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"'Consensus' is not a timed process and Wikipedia has no 'deadline.'" Nothing I have said or that has been done in any manner contradicts this claim. Consensus was achieved and now we're waiting for a new consensus to be achieved.

"In fact, it appears that no formal discussion ever took place here. See WP:RFC and WP:DR." Normal WP:CONSENSUS process was followed. Saying that there was no RFC or call to DR is 100% irrelevant as it was not needed. There is absolutely no policy or guideline that requires an RFC in order for consensus to be established. If you think there is then point it out. Consensus was achieved as per the Wikipedia definition of consensus as seen at WP:CONSENSUS. Two editors disagreed on a proposed edit. Discussion was had based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines using independent and reliable sources and a consensus was achieved. That is exactly how Wikipedia operates and is exactly in line with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

"And since I have found zero cases of a '2 man consensus' ever being considered a 'consensus' you wish me to 'prove a negative' which is a well-known fallacious argument." In no way am I asking you to prove a negative nor have you accurately restated my very simple request. You have asserted multiple times that consensus from two editors is not a valid consensus. All you have to do point to the relevant guideline or policy that states this and your case is made. The analogy is that you claim that unicorns exist and I am asking you to prove this claim. The "proving a negative" fallacy would be you asking me to prove that there are no unicorns or to prove that there is no policy or guideline which states that two editors do not make for a valid consensus. Again, all you have to do is point to the policy or guideline that states that two editors are not enough to establish consensus. It's simple. SQGibbon (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Collect asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#query about this. I answered in the following manner and I'm copying it over here for what it's worth. Let me add, in light of the specific issues raised above, that I do believe that consensus can be formed by two editors, that no formality is required to form consensus, and that timing does play a part in judging whether consensus has been formed by concession or by silence, but I think most or all of that is largely irrelevant here for reasons stated below:

I do a lot of dispute resolution work and have to look at questions like this fairly often. Let me note here that the agreement which asserts the two-person consensus was made in this edit on July 4, with a corresponding edit in the article that same day. The next edit to challenge it was, I think, made in the article text in this edit on July 18 and on the talk page in this edit on July 25. Unless there were some prior edits that I've missed that's 14 days between consensus assertion and objection-by-editing. In a "hot" article such as Donald Trump (i.e. one which gets a lot of editor attention), I have to say that I think that in ordinary circumstances it would be a very close call whether or not the subsequent objections were sufficient to prevent a consensus from being formed by the prior agreement and edit. However, this is a BLP article, it was a clearly controversial edit, and the quality of both sources and consensus (see the second bullet point of the WP:No consensus section of this policy) are of importance. On the whole, I either think that either there was no consensus formed due to the subsequent objection or that the quality of the consensus (and the interpretation of the source, though that's a different issue) should keep the disputed edit in play without further bickering over whether or not there was a consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) PS #1: Unusually, I disagree with Blueboar in this instance. A consensus is a consensus. However weak it may be, it cannot be set aside merely by objecting to it. A new consensus must be formed to set aside the old consensus. An objection to the prior consensus may be enough to form a new consensus, of course, if no one objects to the objection. PS #2: I strongly object to the idea that any sort of formality should have to be observed in order to form consensus. I could say more about that, but I don't think that's really necessary to resolution of the specific problem here. TM — 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this hunt, so that's about all I'm probably going to say here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit which first made the "associated with the Tea Party" claim was 26 June. It was reverted by an editor on 27 June. Reinserted 2 July, removed by a second editor on2 July. I fail to see how a discussion on 2 July thus made a very recent edit into a "consensus". Reinserted 2 July, removed again on 3 July. Reinserted on 3 July. Removed on 3 July. Reinserted 4 July. Removed on 18 July (amazingly enough, some people do not live on Wikipedia - the claim is one where an RfC would be needed, but the number of times it was removed would seem to indicate that many editors did not view it as "established consensus" at all. BTW, consensus is never obtained by tendentious iteration of the same "bold edit" - it must be arrived at by full discussion - which did not occur. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's important to note that the people who disagreed with the initial edit in the early days of July are the ones who participated in the discussion on the talk page and achieved a consensus. There was only person who appeared to object who did not continue to participate thus the remaining people achieved a consensus. There was absolutely no need for an RFC since there was no one left who objected and the two main parties who were in disagreement reached a consensus view. That is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

"it must be arrived at by full discussion - which did not occur." A full discussion did occur. It's in the section just above this one.

What this means is that a consensus was achieved in a fully good-faith process exactly in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines by the editors involved and the actions of the editors since are people acting unilaterally against established consensus. A new consensus can be formed but in the meantime the old/existing consensus remains in place.

By the way, does this mean you're dropping the "two editors don't a consensus make" argument? SQGibbon (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Rapist

I remember reading this biography once, and it makes reference to supposed court documents filled during Donald and Ivana's divorce, documents which supposedly contain allegations by Ivana that Donald raped her once after coming home angry from some liposuction and hair replacement procedures, the results of which he was unhappy with. The biography is available on eBay, and here is a review of it which mentions these allegations. - 101.169.127.245 (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC) http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-21/news/vw-15193_1_donald-trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.127.245 (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I was going to put this in, but Ivana Trump (or her lawyers) recanted the claim. This is discussed in the article you cite. There really should be some major edits to this page to include the material from that book, though. I remember when that book came out, and if its correct that a huge amount of the stuff on this page about his business history, ownership, and so forth, is incorrect.

A key contention of the book is that the wealth claims are bogus. Trump had, through entities, owned lots of properties in the late 1980s, and had claimed as his net worth the total value of those properties without deducting billions of dollars in debt owed on them. Then, after a series of debt workouts in the early 1990s, and since then, Trump's actual business has been in property management, and does not actually have real beneficial ownership interests in the properties bearing his name.

Let me try to make this clearer: The claim, which was made in the book referenced above and has been reinforced numerous times, is that ownership of the properties in New York that bear Trump's name is structured so that Trump has either no, or only a minimal, economic interest in the real estate. Instead, his company received a management fee. But, he continues to assert that his "net worth" is equal to the total potential sale value of all of those real estate assets combined, without regard to debts or ownership structure.

This does appear to be the case. One of the things that came out during the financial crisis, when a slew of "Trump" properties in Florida and elsewhere failed, was that Trump hadn't actually owned the properties, but merely licensed his name.

Djcheburashka (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"people associated with the Tea Party movement"

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.

---

Are the sources:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/12/cruz-and-paul-greeted-by-cheers-at-tea-partys-2016-warm-up/
2. http://www.c-span.org/video/?318743-2/donald-trump-freedom-summit
3. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/16/trump-bashes-boasts-and-curses-in-first-major-tea-party-speech/
4. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-believer-tea-party/2013/10/10/id/530486/
5. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/7/donald-trump-says-hes-a-tea-party-member/
6. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/04/trump-on-the-today-show-im-with-the-tea-party.html

sufficient to label Trump in the possibly contentious category "People associated with the Tea Party movement"? 00:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Apply/Don't apply category

• Apply the category. Collect is correct that contentious categorization should be held to a high standard under our BLP policy. And I'm uncomfortable with the name of the category, but that's a discussion for WP:CFD, not here. We have reliable sourcing indicating that Trump says, albeit with some apparent caution, that he agrees with TPm on some issues, and is even "proud" of some areas of agreement. He also says that he feels positively about the times he has given speeches to TPm groups. That does sound like he considers himself "associated with" them. The evidence for him having any objections to such a categorization appear to depend upon WP:SYNTH. There are sources showing various TPm persons expressing positions on various social issues; there are sources showing Trump expressing different positions on those issues, but not, it appears, referring to the TPm in that context. Absent him saying, himself, that he disagrees with the TPm, inferring that he considers himself separate from the movement is SYNTH. Someone can be part of a movement without agreeing with all that the movement stands for, and even if being criticized by other members of the movement. I came here as an uninvolved editor, but I am now persuaded that the category is appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to point out that this section was created after the RfC had been underway for some time, and there had already been a considerable amount of discussion. Chronologically, the discussion began with the comments now at the top of #Discussion following directly after the RfC question. I originally made the comment above after a significant amount of previous discussion, and I would like my comment to be understood in that context. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

But, if per the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement, this category goes out of existence, then my comment about applying the category obviously becomes moot. And if the new category becomes Category:Tea Party movement activists, as seems likely, my position would be to not apply that category. Clearly, the existing sources indicate that Trump is not an activist in that regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

*Don't apply the category. The bot sent me. Trump doesn't appear to be affiliated with any group. He doesn't even seem to have any allegiance to the Republican Party. This is a BLP and while he isn't being put into a category like a racist hate group, like La Raza or the KKK, for instance, it seems best to have a scholarly source that is peer reviewed. Some editors have mentioned headlines, (which are written by editors, not writers), as well as referred to vague comments made by Trump and/or news anchors. This seems WP:UNDUE and could be a BLP vio. Especially given the sources above which are very poor sources. If you had a scholarly source from a peer reviewed journal that identified Trump with a particular group or ideology, I'd say apply the category, especially since it seems benign compared to other groups. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, so I'd just drop it. It doesn't seem crucial anyway. Agree with Collect's assessment below. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by topic-banned editor struck per decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SW3_5DL. I also want to ping Zad68, the administrator who closed the AE discussion, so that you can check my doing this, and correct anything that I did incorrectly, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Don't apply the category We have to be careful of WP:SYNTHESIS here. Just because Trump spoke at some TP rallies and such does not automatically make him a Tea Partier. Meatsgains (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I suggest that labeling any person as "associated with the Tea Party movement" may readily be deemed contentious under WP:BLP, and that WP:BLP requires more than a person saying he agrees with some particular positions of a movement or making a speech to a group which is not specifically directed at the movement or about the movement. Some of the sources are videos and some are clearly editorial opinion about Trump, but I cannot find in any of them that he specifically states any "association" with that controversial movement, and plenty of sources which have him taking positions rather antithetical to the movement other than on government spending. I suggest further that being opposed to government spending is not in itself sufficient to label a person as being associated with a controversial group or movement. I also suggest that contentious categories be generally avoided in BLPs. Collect (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I came here from the RfC notice, and am not otherwise involved in the page. In fact, I haven't even looked at the listed sources, but I can offer a comment in a more general way. It seems to me that a category using the words "associated with" is going to be problematic from the start: how closely "associated" is associated enough? Based upon WP:BLP, I would suggest that the way to decide, here, rests upon what the subject (Trump) has said, himself. If there is a reliable source in which he, himself, has said that he is in some way associated with the Tea Party, then apply the category. But if the sources all are based upon other persons saying it about him, then do not apply the category. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources can reasonably be read as saying he supports reductions in spending in agreement with the TPm, and conversely that the TPm agrees with him - but is that sufficient to call him "associated with" is the question. This is a fairly general recurring issue - for example is a person who supports Hamas with regard to the current fighting in Gaza then "associated with anti-Semitism"? Were pacifists pre WW II "associated with Fascism"? The list is endless and in the case of categories which can reasonably be deemed "contentious" seems to me to be best handled by avoidance of such categorization. Collect (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment about extending this discussion to other pages and topics, but here, I'd say that it's not enough for sources to say that the TPm agrees with him, nor enough for sources to say that, in the sources' opinions, he agrees with the TPm. There has to be sourcing in which he, explicitly, says that he, himself, agrees with the TPm. (Again, I'm talking only about Mr. Trump, not about antisemitism or anything else.) And I'm talking about applying a category to the page; there is nothing wrong with reporting on the page, with attribution, that there are reliable sources that say that he agrees with the TPm. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Trump has specifically stated mutual agreement on fiscal stuff, but on no other issues as far as these sources go. Note the TPm article has a number of non-fiscal issues listed. Would you find agreement on fiscal policies be sufficient to state "association"? Collect (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a difficult question. If he has explicitly said that he agrees with them on some issues, and there is no source material to indicate that he disagrees with them on the other issues, then I'd say that the threshold has been met, and applying the category is appropriate. It really depends on the details: he would have to indicate agreement without also distancing himself on other issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• RfC comment: In general, categories are rarely worth the effort put into fighting over them. That said, I find this discussion a bit mind-blowing. I want to be sure I understand Collect's viewpoint: we have sources like "Donald Trump says he's a Tea Party member" and "Trump on the 'Today' show: I'm with the 'tea party'". But these are not sufficient for a general statement that Trump has affiliated himself with the Tea Party? MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As you are well aware, "headlines" are not what we use for contentious claims, and since the sources furnish quotes making quite clear that Trump does not claim to be a TPm member that the headlines may be misleading. “I certainly seem to be in a sense. They like me, and I like them. And we have very much the same principles,” Mr. Trump answered. “When I speak to the Tea Party, they have the biggest crowd of anybody.” is the actual content of the first ref - and it is decidedly not what you wish to assert it is. The second has an interesting headline which also is not part of the reliable source. In fact the story says: Asked if he considered himself part of tea party, Trump said, "I think so. I'm very proud of some of the ideas they put forth. They want to stop this ridiculous, absolutely killer spending that's going on. What's going on in this country — the way we're spending money like drunken sailors — we are absolutely, we're going to destroy our own freedom." He says he is "proud of some of the ideas they put forth" which is a quite evident different claim than that proposed in the headline. Where a headline is not supported by the text of an article, we go with the text of the article. Thanks for showing exactly why we can not use the headline as the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're bolding the wrong parts. Washington Times: So I asked him straight out if he considers himself a member of the Tea Party. "I certainly seem to be in a sense. Los Angeles Times: Asked if he considered himself part of tea party, Trump said, "I think so. Therefore, Trump, by his own admission, certainly seems to be a Tea Party member in a sense. starship.paint ~ regal 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I cited what Trump said and that would seem to be better than citing what the headlines said. In case you did not understand, quote snippets benefit from being given in context, not taken as three or four word pieces taken out of context. Wrenching quotes out of context is about the worst form of sophistry one can do for a BLP, IMO. while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement. Generally the one who gives the fuller quote is the one who is being more accurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you brought up headlines when I didn't. Also, I too, quoted what Trump said. You also seem to be indirectly accusing somebody of quoting Trump out of context. Whether you're referring to the Washington Times, or the Los Angeles Times, or me, I'm not very sure. Let's not beat around the bush here. starship.paint ~ regal 10:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You used fragments of quotes (in one case you gave - the fragment was the same as used in the headline). Fragments are susceptible to the Fallacy of quoting out of context and actually meet that fallacy head on in the case at hand. Where a full quote has a different meaning from the fragment, then it is an "out of context" use. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe headlines are RS generally, much less for BLP articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why yes Collect, I used fragments. But, I don't think that the full quote disagrees with my conclusion. Above, I concluded that Trump certainly seems to be a Tea Party member in a sense. I stand by that. That means that Trump is not 100% a Tea Party member, but he's leaning towards being one. The question, as Tryptofish posted is, how closely "associated" is associated enough? starship.paint ~ regal 13:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried to look at the quotes that Collect provided on their own merits, without the accompanying editor commentaries. It sounds to me like Trump is saying directly that he considers himself to be associated with the Tea Party, but he is saying it in a manner that demonstrates a slight ambivalence on his part. It's the difference in nuance between "I seem to be" and "I am", or "I think so" and "Yes". Based on those quotes, he certainly seems close to belonging in the category. I'd be very interested in whether there are any quotes where, instead, he distances himself from the Party, because that could make a big difference here. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

How much distance is needed where it is clear that he does not specify any agreement with the TPm on social issues at all in any venue? Suppose this were the 1930s -- and a person were a member of a "Communist Front" organization -- your position would imply we could label such a person as "associated with the Communist Party" alas. Such is a slope which I suggest is easily avoided by using a strict version of "associated" when the movement is not solely a fiscal movement, and Trump only speaks about fiscal policy. Trump is in favour of completely legalizing marijuana and taxing it - not a TPm position in general. [1] shows comments about this - he is not really "associated with the Tea Party" as far as most people are concerned. [2] makes several jabs at Trump insistent with him being "associated with the Tea Party movement", he has contributed to the DNC and Democratic candidates who are not likely to be TPm members (Kathleen Hochul, Brian Higgins, Kirsten Gillibrand, Democratic Committee of New York State, Charles Schumer, Anthony Weiner, Hillary Clinton, Charlie Crist, Carolyn Maloney, Bill Nelson, Harry Reid inter alia). Sorry -- agreeing on fiscal issues alone does not make one "associated with the TPm" any more than agreeing that Hitler was bad made one "associated with the Communist Party" eighty years ago. Collect (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute, Collect. You're arguing that CNN, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Times are insufficient sources to show that Trump is associated with the Tea Party. But at the same time, you're arguing that a ideologue's blog post and Yahoo! Answers (!!!) are sufficient to show that he's not associated with the Tea Party? I think it might be best to step back, because you're tying yourself in knots here. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Kindly read what I wrote instead of snarking out on us. The full quotes found in reliable sources are better than snippets of quotes taken out of context. The fact is that Trump agrees apparently with the TPm and a helluva lot of others about fiscal restraint, but that is insufficient to assert that he is "associated" with a contentious group and the full context of the quotes makes clear the limitations of his agreement. No knots involved here -- just normal common sense that taking material out of context is not a great idea. Collect (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to harp on the idea that quotes are being taken out of context. For one thing, context in this case is provided by the article headlines and text surrounding the quotes—that is, the exact things you insist on disregarding. By divorcing the quotes from the rest of the article, you are the one guilty of taking them out of context. For another, the context is obvious: Trump was asked about the Tea Party, and he indicated that he is significantly in tune with their views. To go back to Tryptofish's question, I haven't seen any similarly reliable sources describing differences between Trump and the Tea Party (I'm assuming you were not seriously presenting Yahoo! Answers as a reliable source). MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Where Collect points to differences with the TPm on social issues and the like, let me ask this: are there any reliable sources that quote Trump as saying something like "I disagree with the Tea Party about [issue]."? If there are, then I'd say drop the category. If all we are going on is editors or secondary sources observing that there are differences between Trump's stated positions and some TP positions, then we are back at the quotes where he says that he seems to be in agreement with them, minus any distancing on his part. In that case, I think the category is valid. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Trump specifies his areas of agreement -- exclusively fiscally related - shouldn't that be a clue that he is not in lockstep agreement with everything supported by the TPm? Trump supported Romney when the TPm abhorred Romney. He has supported many liberal New York Democratic campaigns financially. If anything he is likely saying what people want to hear whenhe is campaigning. This is neither a new nor rare phenomenon. There are no quotes outright saying "I am a member of the TPm" in any source thus far given. Asking that we "prove a negative (evidence of absence)" is a wondrous fallacy in debate. Collect (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already said above, it depends on the category. Trump certainly seems to be a Tea Party member in a sense. If the category only recognizes 100% Tea Party politicians, then Trump does not belong in it. If we do take the category very literally as in merely "associated", then yes, I think Trump belongs in it. starship.paint ~ regal 14:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(od) In which case, folks who were once members of Communist Front organizations in the 1930s should be categorized as "associated with the Communist Party" - right? The "Tea Party movement" is clearly "contentious" as a claim about a living person who does not clearly and unambiguously self-identify specifically with such a group. Which is how I consider contentious claims must always be handled - including "claims by categorization." Collect (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

My comment about applying the category, now in the section above, was originally made here, in the context of the discussion that leads up to this point. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My comment below was originally made in response to the !vote that has now been moved to the section above. And no, I am not a troll. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My comment was based upon direct quotes from Trump himself, not headlines, and I am not aware of any reason to think that the sources of the quotes are not WP:RS for the veracity of the quotes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be responding to my ivote. It is not based on anything you may or may not have said here. Don't know why you think it is. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was responding to what you said, whether or not you were responding to me. It seems to me that what you said rested upon false assumptions about sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the same about your comments. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not true, however amusing that rejoinder might be. You are arguing that the sourcing comes from headlines, whereas I have carefully examined direct quotes from the subject that are in the text of the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not arguing any such thing. I examined the sources posted by Collect at the start of the RfC. I made the comment about the headlines because I noted that some other editors had mentioned headlines and news shows and found them adequate. My comment had absolutely zero to do with your comments. Owing to the fact that this is a BLP, I find the sources above to be inadequate for placing Trump in the suggested category. My suggestion is to find a scholarly text/article that is peer reviewed. You, on the other hand, appear to have taken offense because I, who don't even know you or care to know you, have posted an opposing view. If you are easily offended, especially where no offense was intended, then you'd best find another project. Also, I'm moving my comment back where I placed it and restoring the 'discussion' section which you deleted. I'm not going to bother responding to you and deeply regret ever responding to you in the first place as you appear to be trolling. It's just an RfC. Take a wikibreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Insisting on a "scholarly peer reviewed" article linking Trump to the Tea Party is unreasonable, and suggests that you're unfamiliar with this site's basic sourcing practices as well as the concept of peer review. The link is made by reputable news sources—which satisfies BLP and our other guidelines—and it's made by Trump himself, in his own words. MastCell ^Talk 05:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem: What you think he said is not said by Trump explicitly. Collect (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why a scholarly peer reviewed source is best. It's not at all unreasonable, in fact, in a BLP, it is the preferred source when it comes to contentious material. And whether or not these news sources are 'reputable' is POV. These sources are crafting a narrative for attention and ad dollars. They cherry pick quotes to build that narrative. They aren't experts on Donald Trump, or anything else for that matter. And WP policy on BLP's is to remove contentious material that is poorly sourced. This is why scholarly peer reviewed sources are best. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, when asked "if he considered himself part of tea party", Trump said: "I certainly seem to be in a sense. They like me, and I like them. And we have very much the same principles." "When I speak to the Tea Party, they have the biggest crowd of anybody." "I think so. I'm very proud of some of the ideas they put forth." In other sources, he has talked about social issues, in contrast to talking about economic issues in the sources from which those quotes come, and he expressed views that are different than the views that have been expressed by people in the TPm, but he apparently never mentioned the TPm in those contexts. We have a category that should probably be taken to WP:CFD, that uses the phrase "associated with". That's what we have to work with. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL (talk · contribs), previously known as Malke2010, is under an indefinite topic ban from all pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. Her participation here, in a discussion about Trump's links to the Tea Party, is an obvious violation of that ArbCom-imposed topic-ban. I think it would be reasonable to strike her comments here, and will request action at WP:AE. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually AE has routinely found that such trivial mentions of the Tea Party in other articles does not make those articles "related to the Tea Party." Just as AE found that mentioning the word "Austria" I an economics article does not make such articles fall under the LvM decision. There comes a point at which one could try arguing that every article which mentioned the Tea Party en passant is thus under the topic ban which would open a ginormous can of worms. The Trump article is not n any sense significantly related to the TPm. The edits here by SW3 are not in any way about the TPm, but about the meaning of the actual words of Trump, and trying to "go to the principal" is strictly high school stuff IMO. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What is Associated ??? - does that mean politically active in that way or is it a celebrity just at the level of agree with them somewhat ? I think it's there are too many folks active in it for 'association' alone to make the cut, or half the names in WP might have to get tagged, so for it to mean something it has to be a significant involvement or a significant marker for some reason. Markbassett (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Nobody's really defined that. And agree, it would have to be a significant involvement, which is not demonstrated by any of the sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

The more I think about the issues here, the more I am becoming convinced that the real problem lies with the way that the category, Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement, is worded. The words "associated with" are simply too nebulous to be used where WP:BLP applies. If I were to go to WP:CFD, and start a discussion about changing the category to Category:Tea Party movement activists or Category:Tea Party movement advocates, with the understanding that persons who are not clearly such activists/advocates would be removed from the category, and if that proposal were to achieve consensus, could we then resolve this RfC by removing this page from the resulting new category? I, for one, would believe that the new category would no longer apply. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

With any luck (that is, positing the new categories are so worded as to specifically apply to those who strongly self-identify within such categories) this sounds good. Collect (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(You mean, you and I actually agree about this? Be still my heart!) Yes, it seems to me that someone would have to be unambiguously an activist/advocate to be included. That's very different than being merely "associated". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please see: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the stuff about his political "campaigns" and views on things like climate change even here?

None of this is notable. Shall we add sections to the biographies of every person with a PR rep everytime they tweet?

I propose to take virtually all of that out, stripping it to the bare core that he made statements about a presidential run but did not, and so forth.

Djcheburashka (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Plan is to strip the entire discussion of his politics down to brief mentions that he made statements about a presidential run, and the like.

Going once, going twice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Trim, maybe. Strip? No. It seems coverage of his political activities has equalled or surpassed coverage of his business activities in the last decade or so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "coverage" equals notability, because if so then someone can press-release themselves to create their wiki page, but I agree that trimming rather than stripping works. Doing it now...

Djcheburashka (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wayback machine

Wayback machine is described in the article as a travel agency, Wayback machine is in fact an internet archive, perhaps someone who knows more about the subject could correct or remove as appropriate. Pincrete (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2014 (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.

Propensity for gambling?

Herschel Walker recently said some interesting things about Trump. Perhaps that was related to a large direct payment? According to The Terrible Truth about Lawyers, a book I just ran across, Trump personally guaranteed Walker's salary (around $6 million) as part of his desperate efforts to keep the USFL alive. In relation to Trump's ownership of casinos, you could say he's just fond of gambling, but I think it shows a more serious and broader lack of good judgment... Even apart from the "living persons' restrictions", it seems really hard to approach anything related to Trump with anything like a NPV. Shanen (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Shanen: A lot of pure speculation in your "Propensity for gambling?' bit, both in your title itself, and in your remarks. Why is it that you opine, for example, that: "In relation to Trump's ownership of casinos, you could say he's just fond of gambling, but I think it shows a more serious and broader lack of good judgment"? Trump made considerable profits from his erstwhile investments in casinos, and by taking them through completely legal bankruptcy procedures under U.S. voluntary bankruptcy laws. How, unless you think that making money itself shows poor judgment, does that show a "lack of good judgment"? Or, even more of a stretch, why and how does that suggest to you that Trump is "fond of gambling", and not maybe just smart enough to make profits from the market demand created by the minions who are "fond of gambling"? Sounds like a "good bet" to me, Trump's casino deal. But, as I understand it, and contrary to what you speculate, Trump does not, in fact, gamble in the sense you're suggesting (cards, slots, playing the tables, etc.) May be why he is the billionaire several times over, while some of us are not. (Don't really see, either, how Trump's "efforts to keep the USFL alive" has anything at all to do with a "Propensity for gambling".) And, although it may to you, as you say: "Even apart from the "living persons' restrictions", [seem] really hard to approach anything related to Trump with anything like a NPV", it's really not that difficult at all for most of us. @Thomas Paine1776: Professor JR (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with @Professor JR:. These sorts of speculations are not notable.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)