Talk:Trump University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Trump University Spam

I've moved this from the article - the newspaper source doesn't support most of the claims made (and google groups & google search are not suitable sources). However, if it can be properly sourced it should be put back in the article. --Singkong2005 · talk 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Trump University has been controversial as a confirmed source of spam. Trump University routinely denies the allegation. The spam, which originates from servers in Provo, Utah, include offers for pet medications, diet pills, software, loans, photo contests, and mortgage applications. [1] [2] [3]

Some spammers have been reported to have yearly earnings in the tens of millions of dollars.

I have to disagree - the newspaper source does confirm them as a source of spam.

It defines them as spam in a loose and inaccurate or irregular sense (it seems the author is on their list and gets excessive promo email - not offers for body part enlargement etc); most of the allegations are not supported in the newspaper article. I've also responded on your talk page. --Singkong2005 · talk 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And instead of deleting the section, rules state ythat you should ask for additional cites, correct? --Corwin8 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, allegations without appropriate sources should be removed... Wikipedia:Citing sources says:

If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense.

I see you've added a citation - I'm still not happy about the section, and would like to see it more carefully written... partly because I actually would like to see it done well enough to stay in the article and bring attention to their (apparently) bad behavior. But with that citation, I won't remove it or edit it just now. Please add other sources if you're able and consider moderating some of the language. --Singkong2005 · talk 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

is anyone willing to talk about why my edits are labeled vandalism? please? i don't understand. Whatali (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:VANDAL -- you've been deleting stuff you don't like, despite the fact that it is properly sourced re WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

which ref thing contains the information about stanford and columbia? i didn't delete it because i don't like it. and the thing about similarities with the university of waterloo has nothing to do with trump university. Whatali (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence that did not have any sources. Why do I have the feeling that this might not address your real concerns... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

i'm trying to understand what you're talking about when you said i was deleting stuff i don't like. what exactly did i remove that was vandalism? that's my concern. i'd like to get my vandal tag removed if possible since i'm only trying to help. Whatali (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't see how you were deleting links at the bottom of the page? Powerful strange. In any event, just relax and if you have stuff to add that comes with reliable sources, go ahead and try again tomorrow, after a 24-hour period has elapsed (so that you are out from under WP:3RR). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

they were incorporated into the article with the exception of the waterloo thing... did you even bother to look at what i did? Whatali (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Keep NPOV in mind. The spamming "rumors" shouldn't be highlighted as the only thing in the article with it's own subsection! --ElectricEye (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep correct usage of apostrophes in mind. Not it's but its.137.205.183.70 (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131110084203/http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/trump-calls-ny-attorney-general-political-hack-20068641 to http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/trump-calls-ny-attorney-general-political-hack-20068641

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Check failed with the following error: 8:42:03 Nov 10, 2013 Got an HTTP 302 response at crawl time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Parking removed quote

I inserted the following and it was soon reverted. It seems to me that this is exactly why we need an article on Trump University - because it is a big political issue. Comments welcome

Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney highlighted his criticisms of Trump by referring to Trump University.

Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat.

References

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We do have an article on Trump University, and it's what this talk page is about. And Trump University's role in Donald Trump's presidential campaign is certainly noteworthy and relevant. However, this particular quote is non-neutral and is really about Donald Trump, not about Trump University. All it says about Trump University is that Romney thinks its degrees are worthless. The rest of it seems rather coatrack-y, like it's included to take a jab at Trump himself--even if that's not the intention. In addition, if we're going to quote this kind of non-RS viewpoint (in the lead, no less) then it must be balanced against other equally noteworthy viewpoints. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this does not belong in the lede, and that the quote is mostly off-topic. A sentence saying something to the effect of Romney has criticized Trump University (with reference), not in the lede, would be reasonable. Dialectric (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Expand scope of topic to lawsuit(s) and the art of spectacle creation.

This article/topic is going to grow immensely over the next several months and the ramifications are widespread. I have alway been interested in the art of creating spectacle which is pretty much what Donald Trump is about, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with these creations because that add enrichment and value to lives. The alleged father of spectacle, Bolossy Kiralfy, pioneered the art to a science. Students of the University garnered stature as to being an alumni regardless of the merits. The question remaining is whether they were esteemed or shunned by their peers, which is a totally subjective assessment. Either way, this article has got some healthy legs to run on and I, for one, am fascinated by the art of spectacle as displayed by many.--Wikipietime (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVE to Trump University, consensus is that WP:COMMONNAME justifies a move to that name.(non-admin closure) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative → Trump University – It strikes me that this article should be moved to Trump University. The organization went by that name officially for at least half of its active existence, and more importantly per the relevant policy, reliable sources overwhelmingly still refer to it that way. For example, Google News gives 471 search results for "trump extrepreneur initiative" (with quotes) versus 419,000 results for "trump university" (with quotes). Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse - I would agree. But I'm not quite familiar with the wiki rules that would govern that. Mk17b (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  I believe the policy you are looking for is WP:COMMONNAME. ~Awilley (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse - Per WP:UCRN (policy): [article title] generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. No one ever calls this "The Trump Entrepreneur Iniative". Move to Trump University, and change this page to redirect to that. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse - I was looking for 'Trump University' before being redirected, as I suspect most other people do. Google 385.000 results for 'Trump Entrepreneur Initiative', +25,000,000 for 'Trump University'. QED. Little grape (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse - as others have noted above, the Common Name policy supports a move to 'Trump University'.Dialectric (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• I moved the page to just "Trump Entrepreneur Initiative" per WP:THE without being aware of this discussion. Sorry about that! --BDD (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support move to Trump University; but the redirect should be very helpful in any case. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support move per WP:COMMONNAME. StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2016 Primaries

Should there be a new section created related to the issue as it relates to the 2016 GOP primaries? Mk17b (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I sure think so and added a reference to Hinckley Institute of Politics where Romney inserted as a worthy issue on the electability of Trump. The further devaluing recipients of degrees may expose Romney to defamation charges. Ted Cruz tweeted image of Deception Diploma.

Trump University Money Grab

--Wikipietime (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

My contribution seems totally valid and I contest removal of " Mitt Romney made mention of the University and worthlessness of a degree at a March 3. 2016 speech at the Hinckley Institute of Politics as he reinserted himself as a critic of Trump in the 2016 GOP primary race for President." This talk page may not be the proper place to express this; if so, my apology. --Wikipietime (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the right place to discuss disputes over content inclusion on the article. I see your edit was removed by an Anon IP. Hopefully they will expand upon their reasoning here. If you want to have the content included, I suggest finding 2 reliable sources (WP:RS) that mention Romney's comments. There could be an issue of undue weight if you add a lot of content on Romney, or any other individual's perspective, but 1 referenced sentence should be fine.Dialectric (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the bare fact that the subject of this article was "mentioned" is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion, even with reliable sourcing. See WP:NOT, WP:RECENTISM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Considerable content has been removed that was the effort of several individuals. At what point is this not vandalism? Dr.Fleischman, could you explain those actions? --Wikipietime (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the specific content. I try to include informative edit summaries with all of my changes. If you're referring to the Makaeff lawsuit information, that content did not appear encyclopedic or helpful to the reader. In addition, it included personal details about private individuals (specifically Ms. Makaeff and Ms. Jensen) that were not germane or relevant to the subject of the article, and therefore violated our policy on biographies of living people. We need to be especially careful in this case because Trump U. has already retaliated against Ms. Makaeff. I intend to enforce BLP and will revert. Please obtain a consensus on the talk page before restoring this content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I quit. You got me. Not really interested in a back and forth. I will say though, that presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses this issue in a rally of thousands and this event is not a part of wikipedia?; Oh, well. For clarity and future reference as this unfolds, this is what you removed; The lawsuit filed in California, Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC et al., the plaintiff Tarla Makaeff, a yoga instructor, alleged of being “scammed” out of $60,000 over the course of her time in Trump University. On March 3, 2016, plaintiff's attorney, Rachel L Jensen, submitted a transcription of video clip, as an exhibit, from Donald J. Trump’s February 26, 2016 Rally in Arkansas. Trump addresses the suit at 18:25-23:45 of the video.--Wikipietime (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of things are said at major rallies. If we listed every time every subject was mentioned at every rally, this encyclopedia would be a total mess. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump set the record straight, with youtube video at critical time in 2016 election cycle.

On March 7, 2016 Donald Trump posted a video on youtube, titled "Trump University Truth" addressing the Trump University directly. Perhaps a mere mention of this in the article, by a more experienced editor, would be relevant and useful. In the video, Trump highlights some of the parties of the lawsuit. http://www.98percentapproval.com/uploads/Bob_Guillo_Survey.pdf

Extended content
File:Trump University Truth.png Trump University Truth

--Wikipietime (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Non-partisan factcheck.org already addressed that for us here - http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-defense-of-his-university/ - saying that "That’s misleading. A class-action lawsuit against Trump alleges that the surveys were not anonymous and were filled out during or immediately after sessions when participants were still expecting to receive future benefits from the program." Mk17b (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Highlighting this speech by Donald Trump is blatantly non-neutral original research. Of course, Mr. Trump is an involved party and his views should not be emphasized any more than, say, the plaintiffs'. Moreover, we have a strong preference, especially for heated disputes, for reliable, independent secondary sources over unreliable, non-independent primary sources like this one. The only purpose for including Mr. Trump's claims would be to explain that they have been rejected by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is unabashedly POV, I don't think this was an attempt to have a discussion whether it warrants inclusion or not. The conversation should just be collapsed before the talk section turns into a open discussion forum. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

LLC

In the opening paragraph, one user is insisting on removing the "LLC" after "Trump University" (insisting that to include it would be "legalistic") although in fact the official name of the corporation was "Trump University LLC."

There is of course no basis in policy for not including the full name on first reference (I of course don't object to dropping it on subsequent references).

If you look at other articles (and there are perhaps hundreds of these), the "LLC" is always included on first reference, for example:

• Coffeyville Resources (article begins "Coffeyville Resources LLC, formerly known as the COOP Refinery, is a company...")
• Colt Defense (article begins "Colt Defense LLC, together with its subsidiaries, is a designer...")
• Chartres Lodging Group (article begins "The Chartres Lodging Group, LLC, is an advisory and investment firm...").

I don't care to fight such a minor point (since the article subsequently makes clear that the form of the company was an LLC), but I do want to make clear that it is improper to not give the full name on first reference. Neutrality^talk 23:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the basis for this. The first reference is generally supposed to reflect the article title. The article title is "Trump University," per WP:COMMONNAME and the closed move proposal above. If you can find a guideline that supports your position then I'll come around. WP:FULLNAME doesn't cut it--this isn't a biography. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Found it at WP:NCCORP#First sentence. Self-reverting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Kind regards --Neutrality^talk 00:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent article in Fortune and other sources that may not be citable, yet

Here is a recent article in Fortune: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe someone will include it into the article. I find it astonishing that the article is as shallow and brief as it is.Personally, I am just watching to see what is going on here. Seems suppressive --Wikipietime (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)--Wikipietime (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)--Wikipietime (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Pam Bondi a rising star in the Trump University lawsuit. I am waiting for more citable sources to include in article.--Wikipietime (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

References

About Trump's criticisms of the judge

I just now removed the actual wording of Trump's attacks on Curiel, per a similar removal of them from the Gonzalo P. Curiel article, see Talk:Gonzalo P. Curiel. The main concern there was that mud-slinging should not be part of a biographical article. I'd rather not see the actual name calling here, either, just a report that Trump "criticized" Curiel; let people click on the links to see what he said. But I am open to discussion/consensus on this issue. --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with this removal. Trump's choice of words has been heavily covered by reliable sources and is highly significant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree as well; there has been a great deal of attention to what Trump actually said, and I'm not sure why we would avoid this here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have restored it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Neutrality^talk 18:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Now I am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds - your addition of content here, here, here, and here are unreferenced and contain neutral point of view violations. While your latest edit somewhat better, I think that there are still problems (especially with the use of the word "fake school") - I don't think that this description belongs in the article, as it definitely can be interpreted as non-neutral. Other editors have also reverted your edits for the same reason. Please do not make further reversions to the article without discussing and reaching consensus first; you are in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule and causing an edit war, which is not allowed and can result in being blocked. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

But it was a fake school, a total spam. There's neutrality and then there's the plain facts of the matter.137.205.183.31 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuits confusing

It seems like there are 3 separate suits being discussed in that section, but they run together. I think they should be broken out into sub-sections for clarity. WDYT? Toddst1 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately they tend to get run together in the reporting, and in people's comments about them. Sometimes you can't even tell which case people are talking about, or if they are lumping them all together. If you are able to straighten them out, with a paragraph for each or maybe a sub-section as you suggest, more power to you. I see that you have started a separate article, Art Cohen vs. Donald J. Trump, but I don't think a separate article is justified at this time. What would you think about making that title into a redirect, at least until there is a lot more coverage specifically about that case? --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example of how the cases have gotten mixed up; your suggestion here would allow us to straighten them out. Our article says "In October 2014, a New York judge found Trump personally liable for operating the company without the required business license. [18] In February 2016, Trump suggested the lawsuit had benefited from the Hispanic ethnicity of the presiding judge.[21]" But that can't be right. The New York case, People v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, New York state Supreme Court, New York County, No. 451463/2013 [5], was heard by Judge Cynthia S. Kern. Trump's February complaints must have been about Judge Curiel, not Judge Kern.

We also need space to discuss "the cases" without identifying separate cases, because that kind of thing happens - for example in the primary debates. And I believe Curiel is the presiding judge for two of the three cases, which may mean we can't assign Trump's comments about Curiel to one case or the other.--MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Judge Curiel is the presiding judge for the two federal class-action cases: Cohen v. Donald J. Trump, Case No. 3:13-cv-02519 ("the Nationwide Action") and Makaeff, et al. vs. Trump University, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00940 ("the California/Florida/New York Action"). See this official website set up by the Trump University Litigation Administrator). The site says that "These cases are proceeding simultaneously" (they don't appear to have been formally consolidated).

Justice Kern is presiding over the New York state case, People v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC (or more formally, In the Matter of The People of the State of New York, by Eric T. Schneiderman, as Attorney General of the State of New York v. The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC, Formerly Known as Trump University LLC, et al.). Confusingly, judges of the New York Supreme Court—which is the trial court in New York—are referred to as justices. Neutrality^talk 15:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll interpret that as support for separating the suits in the section by creating sub-sections. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do. Can't happen too soon. Could do it by lawsuit and then separately a "Political football" section. There's other bad stuff. Here:

In October 2014, a New York judge found Trump personally liable for operating the company without the required business license.[18] In February 2016, Trump suggested the lawsuit had benefited from the Hispanic ethnicity of the presiding judge.[21] Shortly thereafter Schneiderman described Trump's remarks as “racial demagoguery.”[22]

You would think that Trump's comment in the 2nd sentence had something to do with the lawsuit in the previous sentence. But that lawsuit is NYS and Trump's comment is about Curiel in CA in federal court. And the AG is just denouncing Trump because he feels like it, even though his case isn't at issue. The last two sentences would be better removed. We deal with Trump v Curiel further below.Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily support (or oppose) a separate subsection for each case. We need to keep in mind that the cases have a common nucleus of fact. I do think there should be some sort of list, table, or subsection that contains the key details on each case - date filed, judge, court, case name, class action vs. non-class action, etc. Neutrality^talk 01:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of making a separate subsection for each case. I'm more in favor of listing out the cases in some sort of table or bullet point list and then discussing the cases collectively, as the reliable sources have done for the most part. Thank you to Melanie and Neutrality for the research and analysis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Curiel ethnicity and Schneiderman quote in lead section

Re this revert: Can someone please explain why a comment about Curiel's ethnicity is so central to an encyclopedia article about Trump University that they belong in a 3-paragraph introductory summary? Further, can someone explain why Schneiderman, representing the plaintiffs, is entitled to a scathing 3-line quote in the lead section while Trump University gets no balancing material? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been moved, per your suggestion. Thanks for the help.2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been removed. --MelanieN (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If you remove even more sources there can be even fewer sourced claims in this article; maybe you can remove everything negative by morning if you keep at it! Keep up the good work of removing reliable sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4DFE:B91B:87C0:6E1D (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4C86:3B76:19E8:4843 (talk)

Online education?

Why does the lead sentence describe this as as "online education" company? I think the "education" was mainly through seminars and personal teaching/coaching, wasn't it? --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. It's been there since the very first version, not sure why. I'm cleaning it up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll tell you why. When it began, Trump University offered online classes, but it quickly switched its focus to live classes and seminars, the first of which was free to attend. One of the company’s ads said of Trump, “He’s the most celebrated entrepreneur on earth. . . . And now he’s ready to share—with Americans like you—the Trump process for investing in today’s once-in-a-lifetime real estate market.” The ad said that Trump had “hand-picked” Trump University’s instructors, and it ended with a quote from him: “I can turn anyone into a successful real estate investor, including you.”137.205.183.31 (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

About the new document dump

I think we can include a sentence or two, toward the end of the article in the paragraph about the released material, provided it is a neutral summary of what is included in the recent document dump. I have reverted (and someone before me also reverted) the extended, all-negative section someone wants to add, quoting only the testimony and allegations of ex-employees. This is a non-neutral, cherry-picked selection of information. And while the New York Times can be used as a source, the testimony itself cannot; it is a primary source. --MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

They immediately re-added it. I will try to work something out on their user talk page to avoid an edit war. --MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You can take out the primary sources if you want, but, personally, I fail to see how that will help the article. Mistakenly, I omitted the secondary source originally. All of the quotes and paraphrases are from the secondary material. i've not read the primaries, but simply added them, for the benefit of industrious readers. I've moved all the new material, and replaced my original paraphrase with pure direct quotations from secondary sources for the negative claims. I hope there is no problem with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:5130:930:9F25:C4E2 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because documents are posted at nytimes.com does not make them secondary sources. These are primary sources, and as such Wikipedia policy requires us not to go beyond what they say. Moreover, secondary sources such as news articles are definitely preferable, and this subject matter has been heavily covered by the secondary sources. Finally, I agree with Melanie that the content you are pushing is highly non-neutral. Please review our policies and guidelines on neutrality and original research before proceeding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please take a closer look. There is a secondary source there, as in a Newspaper article about the testimony. i understand the distinction between secondary amd primary sources; merely because I posted some primary sources does not mean I posted no secondary sources. I repeat, there is a secondary source which all of the quotations are drawn from. Please look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:5130:930:9F25:C4E2 (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

How can direct quotes from a reliable, neutral secondary source like the newspaper article from the Times be non-neutral? further, this is newly unsealed testimony. Please add ADD"L secondary sources if you have them, but there is no reason to delete thequotes from the secondary article I linked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:5130:930:9F25:C4E2 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we all at least agree that this is a secondary source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=Multimedia&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click

I am not conducting original research; everything is direct quotes fro, the Times secondary source today(Headline: "Former Trump University Workers Call the School a ‘Lie’ and a ‘Scheme’ in Testimony.") Since this is new information, I doubt you will find many independent secondaries yet, but please do search for them. Still, the Times is reputable, and worth our notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:5130:930:9F25:C4E2 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The citations you added are a mess. I'm not going to dig through so many lengthy citations to figure out which content is supported by which citations. If the content isn't supported by the main NYT article then that's an indication that it isn't sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. Also, at a minimum, this content isn't neutral unless it includes the fact that some employees and students thought the program was legit. And I agree with Melanie that this subject matter doesn't belong in the lead section. Finally, please don't edit war. Seeing as how Melanie and I both disagree with this content as written, please remove it and discuss it here before re-including. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

'"I'm not going to dig through lengthy citations..." Are you serious? It is supported by the Main Times article. There is no mention in that article of employees "who thought it was legit" you are injecting your own bias. I'm so sorry it was too difficult for you to click on the link I have repeatedly provided for you to see the statements are direct quotations.

One more time, no digging necessary! Here is the SECONDARY SOURCE ALL OF THE MATERIAL IS DRAWN FROM; http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=Multimedia&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:5130:930:9F25:C4E2 (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've now added 4 fresh secondary sources, to appease our good doctor. Are we happy now? All the sources say the exact same thing; in fact, the Times article is the least negative by far.

In fact, I now daresay that that is the single most impeccably and scrupulously sourced sentence in the entire article. Very glad I could be of service. Good day,

Two editors have voiced good faith objections to the content you added. Please remove it and we can discuss it here. I will not engage in further discussion on the merits until then. If you don't remove it then I'll seek administrator intervention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

On second thought I removed the content myself. If you re-add it then you're in violation of WP:3RR and I'll seek administrator intervention. I suggest you take some time to cool off. I'm happy to discuss this civilly tomorrow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually think there should be some information about what the document dump showed. However, it should not be in the lead, but in the paragraph about that lawsuit. And it should be more general, without all the negative quotes based on cherry-picked testimony from ex-employees. I'll try to come up with a wording and I'll propose it here to see if we can agree on it. --MelanieN (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Melanie agrees with you Flieshman, you are wrong. You may be in good faith, but you are absolutely unequivocally wrong that the information alleged in the testimony does not belong in this article. You are repeatedly bringing up spurious arguments to try to white wash this article; so, no I do not think your edits are in good faith. You have repeatedly argued im bad faith "dont have time to look at citations" to remove a straightforward portrayal of the primary item of interest for 99 percent of readers interested in the article. Going and crying to administrator doesnt make you right when you cannot win with rational arguments. In no way do I accept the premise that you are editing in good faith by deleting material because it offends you when it is a neutral description taken straight from the Times, amd backed by 4 other independent sources. 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Off Wikipedia, I argue quite forcefully in my personal life that Trump is a con man and a megalomaniac. That is my personal opinion. As a Wikipedia editor, though, I am 100% committed to the neutral point of view. Accordingly, I agree with DrFleischman and MelanieN. We need to summarize the full range of sources, pro and con. This is a core content policy, which applies to all articles, even the Donald Trump suite of articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The IP has demonstrated (through several changes of IP) that they are unwilling to accept Wikipedia's core policies of neutrality and consensus. We will get this straightened out, but it may be necessary to semiprotect the article first. I would do it myself, but I am WP:INVOLVED. --MelanieN (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. We have two weeks semi-protection. Now we can get the article in shape. --MelanieN (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Disgusting. The two of you should be ashamed of the way you have conducted yourselves here.

neither of you could even deign to read a single source I gave you or produce any evidence for your absurd claims, 'there are two sides here"--where is the source that fepresents the testimonh positively fir Trump? You appeal to imaginary possible sources while I appeal to real, actual sources. and yet you steamrolled this article into erasing a wealth of new information to support your rather pathetic little delusions that your Fuhrer Donald Trump is an honest businessman. I gave you a huge consensus of news articles characterizing new events that readers of this article will want to know, and you deleted it to replace it with your unsupported, unsourced fantasies. No wonder this encylopedia is newrly always out of date and factually wrong when it is so replete with editors eager to delete impeccably sourced information to preserve "neutrality." If a consensus of NY Times, NBC, and a dozen other secondary and peimary sources is not neutral and well sourced, what is? I'm truly embarassed for this encylopedia's committment to being a poor source of information in order to avoid damaging feelings. Truly, a sad commentary on thus declining, crumbling boondoggle, filled with false facts to preserve a false sense of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Have any of you read the sources? Here are the headlines, and you tell me if I've misrepresented the news community's consensus: Ny Times:" Former Trump University Workers Call the School a ‘Lie’ and a ‘Scheme’ in Testimony" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=Multimedia&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click Nbc :"Trump University Staffers Describe 'Fraudulent Scheme' In New Court Documents" http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-university-staffers-describe-fraudulent-scheme-new-court-documents-n584071 Consumerist: "Former Trump University Managers Call Out “Dishonest” Program In Unsealed Testimony " https://consumerist.com/2016/06/01/former-trump-university-managers-call-out-dishonest-program-in-unsealed-testimony/

The coverage has been universally negative. I could have found worse quotes if I wanted. This is a witchhunt here. I am the only one who has presented sources to back up my views. All you have presented are claims, unverified, that there are 2sides here. Then show me them! I'm all ears to see your secondary sources that describe the testimony in dramatically different terms than I gave. I doubt you'll find any, but please show me some sources if I am wrong instead of attacking me. 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Vox: “It was a façade, a total lie”: new documents reveal how Trump University’s scam worked" http://www.vox.com/2016/6/1/11827596/trump-university-scam

You're misunderstanding us. No one is saying your choice of sources was poor. I love the New York Times. (And yes, I did read that article before you brought it up -- in fact, I cited it before you did.) The problem is that you're quoting the most negative, inflammatory viewpoints quoted from the Times source without quoting the corresponding positive viewpoints in the same source. Further, you are misrepresenting the source, which does not say, for instance, that "several" employees called Trump University a "lie." Only one did. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Fleishman, it's you who misunderstands and is scarcely capable of reading, i perfectly understand "no one is saying the choice of sources is poor." Pay attention. The point is this: look at those headlines. If you can read those articles , and tell me I "cherry-picked" "the most negative, inflammatory viewpoints" you are an outright liar and a fraud. I am done with your bad-faith, paid editing. You are a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well that's a new one. This is the first time I've been accused of working for Donald Trump. It's a badge of honor, I guess. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Me too - an honor I could have done without. --MelanieN (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• To the IP, I am no longer interested in interacting with you. You have shown that you do not accept Wikipedia's policies of consensus or neutrality, and I have nothing more to say to you. --MelanieN (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• • To Melanie: and you, in turn, have indicated you do not accept Wikipedia's policies of "Making true claims", "having sources for one's claims", "reading the sources before commenting on them" "representing things accurately, as they are depicted in a wide variety of our sources". What is laughable is that I gave you a dozen different news outlets with the identical, well-sourced assessment, and you, in reply produced nothing, and abised your administrator privileges to get your way in an argument you plainly lost on the merits and had 0 sources for. A sad state of affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4DFE:B91B:87C0:6E1D (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, please calm down and stop your personal attacks and POV pushing. If you are unable to do so, please go write anti-Trump blog posts elsewhere. Thank you. Wikipedia is not a tool for political advocacy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you go write a blog about all the goose-stepping you'll be doing once Trump is elected Fuhrer, my snide friend? I did not engage in "PoV pushing" please note the HEADLINES OF EVERY ARTICLE ABOUT THE NEW TESTIMONY:

"Former Trump University Workers Call the School a ‘Lie’ and a ‘Scheme’ in Testimony'/

"It was a façade, a total lie”: new documents reveal how Trump University’s scam worked"/" Former Trump University Managers Call Out “Dishonest” Program In Unsealed Testimony"/ "Trump University Staffers Describe 'Fraudulent Scheme' In New Court Documents"

Could those opposed please deign to point my way to even one source or quotation from an article supporting your views? Many thanks.2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4DFE:B91B:87C0:6E1D (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I deign, oh wise one. From the New York Times source: "Lawyers for Mr. Trump on Tuesday challenged those characterizations, saying that the testimony of the former Trump University employees 'was completely discredited' in depositions taken for the California lawsuit." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So tthen add that sentence characterizing Trump's attorney's position (even though Trump has essentially already lost the suit), instead of absurdly hiding the revelatioms when you and I both know that you just admitted on your talk page that I a probably right, and we are "very close to the point that the damaging revelations" (namely, the newly unsealed testimony)should be in the lead, it is an embarassment to the encylopedia that this article buries the entire point of the article in offhand, barely sourced comments seemingly meant to shield our readers from having any clue what Trump has even been accused of here. Read this article start to finish and you would have zero idea what this case is even about. At lesst jn my version the reader got to know something. In yours the reader leaves knowing less about the topic ″than when they began reading. Cheers. 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4C86:3B76:19E8:4843 (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that we complied with Godwin's law. Congratulations all around. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And let's not forget the corollary: "there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress." --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Erm, no. When the parallels with the rise of the 3r Reich are apt, your claim is null and void.137.205.183.31 (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Name change

I would have moved the forced name change (dropping "University") into the company history, rather than into the NYS lawsuit section. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I had originally moved it to a separate section inside "Allegations of impropriety and lawsuits" as it is not connected to the lawsuit, but was an allegation of wrongdoing. I think it should either go back that way or be moved to the history section because it is not part of the lawsuit, rather a separate action by the state of NY. Toddst1 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I've BOLDly broken it out as a separate sub-section in the "Allegations of impropriety and lawsuits" section and briefly mentioned it in the history. I think it is appropriate to mention in both sections, but I realize this may seem redundant. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I still much prefer putting it the history section. Then we can rename "Allegations of impropriety and lawsuits" to just plain old straightforward "Lawsuits". BTW, Trump tweeted yesterday (June 2): "After the litigation is disposed of and the case won, I have instructed my execs to open Trump U(?), so much interest in it! I will be pres." So he hasn't given up on that "U" entirely. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, take that statement with a grain of salt, since Trump U's lawyers used the possibility of re-opening the school as an argument that releasing the sealed documents would be harmful its future interests. In other words, it could be pure legal bluster. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

NY Dept of Ed letters

Toddst1, I don't understand why you're moving the 2010 letter from NY Dept of Ed deputy commissioner Frey into its own section, apart from the 2005 letter from the same agency and the Schneiderman civil action. It seems to me it's all part of the same issue, an ongoing dispute between New York and TU over false claims, which initially included the "University" moniker. Separating that part out seems rigid and confusing to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. It wasn't clear to me that they were related. Thanks for pointing it out. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump comments

Neutrality, doesn't the reference you added to legal experts' concerns "should Trump become president" strike you as a bit coatrack-y? Don't forget that this article is about Trump University, not about Donald Trump or his presidential campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's directly related to the legal case (and related to, but surely independent of, the campaign). As the sources reflect, it is exceptionally unusual for any prominent litigant to directly attack a judge in such a manner. That bears mention. Neutrality^talk 18:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's one thing for us to include Trumps comments, which I already noted elsewhere on this talk page are noteworthy. It's quite another to include commentary speculating on what Trump will be like as president. If the commentary said that Trump's comments reflected poorly on TU or hurt its chances at trial then that would be a different story, in my mind at least. There's also a WP:CBALL problem, but I think that's secondary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The linked policy states explicitly: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included..." Given that this is the Washington Post broadly reporting on the widely held views of some legal experts, I'd say that this criterion is firmly met. Neutrality^talk 18:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What about "concerns?" More importantly, what about the coatrack/neutrality problem? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how it's either of those two. As to the first, it accurately reflects an important and significant perspective directly related to the case; it is this kind of expert and historical perspective that an encyclopedia should mention. As to the second, the statement is neutral and properly attributed; it tracks the source quite closely. The mention is also brief (a single sentence), so it is proportional to the rest of the article. Neutrality^talk 19:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Would other editors care to weigh in? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It certainly is unusual for a litigant to personally attack the judge like this (I frankly can't remember a case), and it probably deserves mention. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, you might have misunderstood. I have no problem with including Trump's personal attacks. What I have a problem with is the implications of the attacks on a potential Trump presidency, which is definitely not the subject of this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The implications explain the significance of the attacks. Otherwise, the reader is left without context. Neutrality^talk 17:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If the significance is its potential impact on a potential Trump presidency, then that's a sign that it doesn't belong in this article. But I'm curious to get Melanie's view on this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should leave out the last phrase, with its predictions and speculation - so that we just say "Trump's "highly personal, racially tinged attacks" on Curiel, as well as Trump's comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have alarmed legal experts, who expressed concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence". (Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been offline.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

TU is becoming an explicit issue in the campaign. Should we add to the campaign section: "Hillary Clinton has cited the Trump University allegations to claim that Trump himself is a "fraud" trying to "scam America." [6]" ? --MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. "allegations" or "lawsuits"? If you can, add a date for the first time she did so. I believe it was this past week in her first speech devoted entirely to a Trump, but we'll need a source. I'm working on a proper treatment of the GOP as well, Romney etc., and hope to have that tomorrow. Takes to time to be succinct and not just dump a lot more detail than needed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9, thanks for all your work on that addition, but IMO what you came up with is not "succinct" - and actually does include "a lot more detail than needed." I had started a section below to discuss this before I saw your comment here. Let's discuss it down there for clarity. (We have a lot of discussions about different things going on here at once, let's keep them separate as much as possible.) BTW I'm glad we are all working on improving this article, because I notice it has been getting tens of thousands of page views a day, so I think it is incumbent on us to get the article in as good shape as we can (by which I mean informative, accurate, neutral, and readable). --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong material under NY

Under the NY case we say that "Michael Sexton stated in a 2012 deposition that Trump signed off on the school's advertisements.[23]" But according to the citation we learn that in a document released by Curiel, so not it's really a NY detail. And the source for the preceding sentence ("In an infomercial, Trump claimed to have "handpicked" Trump University's instructors. He testified in a 2012 deposition, however, that he never selected the instructors for the program.") seems to be citing class action materials as well.

I'm moving these to "History", though I realize they need to be properly integrated there. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I added some context but there is still room for improvement in that section. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Further thoughts on organization

In response to Bmclaughlin9's edit summary saying he/she doesn't know where to put the sentence about TU pressuring students... I think we should slightly re-frame the article to distinguish what TU actually did while it was operating from 2005-2010 (including the accusations and testimony of what it did), versus the procedural aspects of the lawsuits. So, I'd take all of the allegations by students and employees, which are currently scattered and disjointed among the litigation subsections, and put them in a new "Business practices" section. Then litigation section can focus on the procedure, the release of the documents, Trump's criticism of Judge Curiel, etc. etc.

I believe this framework would allow us to put more meat on the bones of the article while making it less disjointed overall. After all, I'm guessing most readers really just want to know what TU did right or wrong, and they don't care so much about the legal history and how the revelations came out. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. That's the sort of approach I think we need. I'm trying to rework the defamation suit business, and it's all about counterclaims and moving from district court to court of appeals and back to district court, and none of this "substance", i.e. how Trump U operated, plays any role at all. At this point we don't even describe the basic offering: the free 90-miunute real estate seminar, and then the step up to the two other more expensive programs. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice work, the article is much improved. (I had planned to fix the mention of an appeals court responding in 2013 to a 2015 ruling, but I see you caught it already.) I do think moving the various allegations to a centralized section would be good. Half the time you can't even tell which lawsuit is being discussed. --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What would you think about moving the "Trump has repeatedly attacked Curiel" paragraph to a different section? Maybe combine it with the "impact on election" section under a different name? It really doesn't belong in the section about one of the lawsuits, because Curiel is involved in two lawsuits. --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. The attacks on Curiel are made in the context of the campaign. I also think "impact on election" is anticipatory. The election is distant and the impact is being assessed/predicted by the usual bloviating pundits. The subject is more "as an issue in the 2016 election campaign". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"Issue in the 2016 presidential election campaign," I like that. Or maybe something even more generic like "Public discussion of the case"? In any case I think it should be pulled out of the "Cohen v. Trump" section. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I made the move but kep my wording for now. "Public discussion" is awfully generic. Like "commentary". But I don't think we're looking for the general discussion of how TU fits into the larger pattern of for-profit education that promises more than it delivers. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I moved the whole Trump-Curiel paragraph to the "campaign" section. Trump's attacks are taking place in campaign speeches, and they are not tied to any one case. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that it's been moved back to the lawsuit subsection. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Detailed quotes from Republicans and press

I think the recent addition of detailed quotes, from various Republicans as well as Megyn Kelly, are way too much detail. People's criticisms are quoted at length, both in the article and in the notes. I think all the detailed quotes from Romney, Rubio, Kelly, etc. should be done away with and reduced to a summary sentence, per WP:UNDUE (just as I deliberately did not quote HIllary in detail but simply said she has used the information). Other thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we can cut the quotes in the footnotes; those seem excessive. The sentences in the article text seem proportionate to me. Neutrality^talk 14:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I made some changes and will reply when I'm not limited to my iPhone. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think what we're doing here has much to do with the undue weight guideline to which you refer: "...articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." At some point later in this process, WP editors will provide assessments of TU and the lawsuits etc. and we'll do so based on the opinions of significant legal and business authorities, not Donald Trump or Marco Rubio. That will require careful balancing and management of whose views and how much detail to provide.

But that comes at the end of the play. At this point we're in Act II of a Punch and Judy show. We are providing a narrative of events to give the reader a sense of how TU has figured in the political debate, NOT to provide an assessment of TU and the lawsuits. We're explaining who is on stage and what/why are they shouting at one another. Giving the volume and notoriety, a few names and their actual language makes sense, I think. I've cited the former GOP candidate, Trump's biggest rivals, and a prominent journalist. And I've included Trump's response with a quote as well. If Trump's views haven't been given enough weight, we can add more, but there are few other voices, certainly few public figures, being raised in his defense. I've not included detail that I think is getting in the weeds, like Better Business Bureau said A, no it said D later, etc. I've tried to communicate to the reader something of the tenor of the discussion.

A summary sentence would leave the reader in the dark. Certainly anyone reading this -- "Hillary Clinton has used the Trump University allegations against Trump in speeches and campaign ads" -- would be entitled to ask what that means. Used? What did she underscore? Did she use a phrase that would help the reader understand how heated this debate has become? did she aim at his business reputation or personal character? didn't Trump respond dismissively? As it stands, it's like we're trying not to tell the reader too much.

It's still hard to keep this material from getting overlong, but that's why we'll be rewriting, adding and subtracting as teh drama unfolds. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, per the removal of the additional quotes in notes, this seems to be OK. I have a slightly longer version of the Hillary quote in another article, and I'll use it to expand this one. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Expand history section tag

I noticed the tag that somebody should expand the history section, but I don't notice any discussion of the tag here. I think the history section is not overly long, and that anybody who wants to expand it should feel free to do so. But in general, I disagree with this type of tag - it just uglifies the page. See WP:Sofixit. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If had looked more closely you would have seen that we've been adding to that section since that notice was posted. There are bits scattered on this Talk page that mention moving material into that section as well. Removing a tag because you don't like the way it looks? whatever. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Curiel

I see that attacks on Curiel are now covered under just one lawsuit rather than the politics section. I'm uncertain whether this material belongs under the lawsuits or the politics headings, but if under the lawsuits it probably deserves its own heading. The attacks on Curiel are as much about Low as Cohen, no? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. One thing we could do is make one level titled for "Federal class actions" and then underneath it put Low, Cohen, and Trump's attack on the judge as individual sub-sections. Neutrality^talk 15:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I like this idea. As noted above, I had moved the material on the Curiel attacks to the "campaign" section, but it was moved back to one of the lawsuits. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned from an NPV perspective that there's no explanation of why Trump attacked Curiel. These comments didn't come out of the blue. Wasn't he reacting to Curiel's decision to unseal the documents? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Trump has been criticizing Curiel in campaign speeches since at least February. reference cited in article --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see, thanks. Here's an article in The Atlantic that sheds useful light on the legal backstory and the key differences between Low and Cohen. I don't know if anyone wants to take a crack at including it. Also, FWIW, it cites a CBS article saying that Trump was already complaining about Curiel back in October 2014. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So I think we agree the Curiel material goes under its own heading under a new heading that groups the two federal lawsuits. But I really can't come up with the title. There hasn't been an actual request for recusal, so I'd avoid that word. The word attacks is tendentious per se, even if totally accurate. I'm stumped. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Lede

Hello, friends. I couldn't help but notice what a sorry state the lead of this article is in; I trust then that no one will object if I put my considerable juridical experience to work in penning you a new one. You're quite welcome. I propose the new lead go as follows:

draft collapsed

Trump University was a fake school, run by the Republican Nominee for President, Donald J. Trump. It is now defunct; it is widely believed to have been "essentially fraudulent in nature," according to the top lawmakers in New York, the state out of which the fraud was said to have been run, and where Trump himself resides. While Trump was originally supposed to have "hand-picked" the "instructors" of the "university", and to have designed the curriculum with his own, allegedly tiny little little hands, Trump is now known to have had no more involvement in the putatively educational operations of Trump University than he has in butchering the cows that make up Trump Steaks. Trump now faces numerous lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars over what top New York State lawmakers have described as a "fraudulent scheme;" according to rather plausible and greatly discussed rumors, he may be running for president in order to end the veritable blizzard of lawsuits filed against him, and to remove the Judge whom, because of his Mexican ancestry, Trump claim to be disqualified to hear any case involving him.Eminent Jurist (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: It appears you're only here to push your POV as evidenced here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's comments in summary

Instead of referring and editorializing Trump's comments in the summary can't we give explain their nature Frontier64 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I see 3 problems with describing the controversy in the lead as being about the "believed to be Mexican" comment. First, the controversy is also about other comments Trump made about Curiel, and your proposed edit lacks the context necessary to explain the controversy in a balanced manner. Second, I don't believe there's anything non-neutral about the use of the terms "derogatory" or "disparaging." I believe the reliable sources have used this kind of language. Third, it's important for the lead to be concise while summarizing the most important aspects of Trump University. Given that comments by Donald Trump about Judge Curiel are really only tangentially related to TU in the first place, I think we should strive to keep this content as brief as possible. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Certainly the most controversial comment (and only one that I know is called controversial) Trump has made has been in reference to Curiel's hispanic heritage. Also, Trump stated that Curiel was biased because he was proud of his heritage. That doesn't sound disparaging so much as Trump pointing out what he deems obvious. Frontier64 (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed "disparaging" from the lead. --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, do you think it's non-neutral to describe Trump's comments as "disparaging?" If we find reliable sources that use that kind of language would you reconsider? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me see the neutral, reliable sources and I will see. But in any case the word is unnecessary. The issue is Trump's comments about the judge, period. The lead does say that those comments have been "widely condemned." The details are in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't believe we need to reference or include so much details about the "Trump attacks judge" controversy in the lede. This is an article about Trump University. I think we should try to stick to that in this part of the article. Perhaps a note that there's the ongoing lawsuits should suffice. FallingGravity (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

per FallingGravity's comment above, what would people think about having only this sentence in the lead: "The company and the lawsuits against it have received renewed interest due to Trump's candidacy in the 2016 presidential election.[8] " - without mentioning Trump's comments about Curiel? They are covered in the article itself. --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

+1 Toddst1 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. My only nitpick is the word "renewed" which implies that there was once interest that decreased and that then increased again. Maybe a better way to phrase this would be "The company and the lawsuits against it received significant attention during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Good improvement to the lead; thanks, FallingGravity. I am now wondering about the sentence in the lead that says "The lawsuits have centered around allegations that Trump University misled prospective students into thinking that it was a real university whose instructors were hand-picked by Donald Trump himself, when in fact they were not." That is way too narrow a description of the allegations. How about something like (alternative 1) "The lawsuits have centered around allegations that Trump and Trump University engaged in illegal business practices including breach of contract, misrepresentation, and fraud, as well as racketeering." Or simply (alternative 2) "The lawsuits have centered around allegations that Trump and Trump University engaged in illegal business practices and fraud." Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm against language that, while accurate, is legalistic and doesn't really help to inform lay readers. All of the suits center around allegations of fraud, and lay people understand that concept. The other causes of action are ancillary and hard to understand. However simply saying that "the lawsuits center around allegations that TU defrauded its students" isn't enough in my view. Uninformed readers want to know more about what TU is alleged to have actually done, and I think we should be able to come up with a one-sentence summary. For example, I could see us saying something like: "the lawsuits center around allegations that TU defrauded its students by using misleading marketing practices and engaging in aggressive sales tactics." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll go with that. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

National Hispanic Bar Association

User:Anythingyouwant added material about Judge Curiel's membership in the National Hispanic Bar Association, and its call for a boycott of Trump's businesses. User:Nomoskedasticity deleted it. Anythingyouwant then restored a shorter version: Curiel belongs to the Hispanic National Bar Association which has called for a boycott of all Trump's businesses. It is unknown how Curiel personally feels about the boycott, and legal analysts say requesting a judge's recusal could be risky given that lawyers who make unfounded recusal requests may be sanctioned. which I removed.

My reasoning for removing it: a) this has nothing to do with this overall article about Trump University; b) there is no evidence that the Judge agrees with the NHBA's position or even knows about it, c) this is a trivial sidelight, which one of Trump's supporters has tried to use as evidence of the judge's possible bias. It might be relevant someday, if it was cited as evidence in a call for a recusal, but no such call has been issued. Anythingyouwant has been trying for several days to insert this material into the encyclopedia somewhere. Relevant discussions are at Talk:Gonzalo P. Curiel#Use of HBNA membership to insinuate bias and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gonzalo P. Curiel. So far a dozen people have weighed in against including this information and no-one except Anythingyouwant has spoken in favor of it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(I am not much, but I am not no-one.) Discussions elsewhere were about inclusion within the article Gonzalo P. Curiel, not about blanking the information entirely from Wikipedia forever, contrary to WP:Preserve. We are supposed to follow reliable sources, and if both CNN and the Los Angeles Times consider information to be non-trivial then it's not for us to say they're not quite liberal enough and not quite Democratic enough to be reliable as to non-triviality. The latter newspaper, by the way, had not weighed in about this stuff until after the pertinent conversations about the Gonzalo P. Curiel article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Valid point; I meant "no one else" but I'll modify my comment to say "no one except Anythingyouwant". Just one comment: the LA Times did not exactly "weigh in" on this issue in the linked article; they mentioned it in two sentences toward the end of an article about something else. Other than that I will wait to see what others have to say. --MelanieN (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You and I both know what the consensus will be, and it will be entirely consistent with WP:IAR.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I take a middle ground. I think mentioning Curiel's membership in the NHBA, the NHBA's stance on Trump, and the the lack of information about Curiel's personal stance are sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. However Anythingyouwant's version gives undue emphasis in my view. These items can all be consolidated into a single sentence. And the analysts' opinions about a recusal request that Trump never made is definitely undue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• This material was roundly rejected by consensus several days ago, when Anythingyouwant tried to push it into the biography of Gonzalo P. Curiel (in fact, it was rejected both on the article talkpage and at the BLP noticeboard). The consensus was that the material was misleading and violated WP:WEIGHT and/or WP:BLP. It's pretty sneaky and underhanded to try to shoehorn the same material into this article without reference to those prior and very recent discussions. It gives the impression of trying to circumvent consensus to push this material into the encyclopedia by any means necessary, and it certainly doesn't speak to one's forthrightness. That concern is amplified by the BLP aspects of the material.

  Be that as it may, I oppose the inclusion of this material for the same reasons that it was opposed by consensus in the Curiel article, and I would strongly discourage Anythingyouwant from continuing to shop around for a place to stick this material unless and until there is consensus that it meets policy requirements. As a general reminder, this material is subject to WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to opine on Anythingyouwant's behavior, but there is something to be said for the concept that certain content may be appropriate in one article and not in another. This article is the place for the Trump University lawsuit, and Donald Trump's comments have been a major controversy that arose from the lawsuit. That said I do have some ambivalence due to the fact that the comments are not about Trump University. As for the assertion that the content is misleading, I don't think it is, but any neutrality problem should be solvable with neutral language and reliable sourcing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the material isn't specific to the article where it's inserted, or to the language used. The problem is that the material cherry-picks a single low-profile factoid, from mountains of reliably-sourced coverage of the case, and prominently cites the factoid to insinuate bias on Curiel's part. This is obviously not the action of someone who looked for the best available sources and then tried to reflect them in his editing. This is the action of someone who wants to get a specific factoid into the article and is looking for sources that can be stretched to justify it. It's the cart leading the horse.

If you read either of the two cited sources (CNN or L.A. Times) and chose to excerpt one fact from either one, would this be it? To my reading, the thrust of the CNN piece appears to be that Trump's calls for recusal are unfounded and risk backfiring on him, while the focus of the Times piece appears to be on legal jousting over the release of video depositions in the case. It's not right to ignore the sources' actual content and context and instead mine them for a politically expedient factoid, which is then shopped around to find a place in the encyclopedia where it will stick. That process makes a mockery of our content policies and WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a mockery of anything, and I don't think editor behavior is particularly relevant in a content dispute. However I do think you have a valid concern. We as a community routinely pick factoids that don't reflect the primary emphases of the sources themselves; should we exclude all such factoids? I think absolutely not, as it would open a pandora's box to challenge 90% of the current affairs material on Wikipedia; and I don't believe there's anything in our policies or guidelines requiring us to do so. That said, if the cherry-picking gets too blatant then we start running afoul of NPV (specifically WP:BALASPS) and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. So, are we at that point? I don't believe so. Curiel's membership in the NHBA has been covered by a number of mainstream, reliable news sources, not just CNN and the LA Times, and is therefore highly significant, regardless of how a couple of those stories weave that particular fact into their stories. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I exclusively edit grammar, punctuation, and usage errors because A) WP is infested with them, and B) I've seen what can happen to editors who express a differing opinion. They get "disappeared." Nevertheless, I really must reply to that.

"We as a community routinely pick factoids that don't reflect the primary emphases of the sources themselves;

To quote Stuart Smalley, "And that's... okay?"

should we exclude all such factoids?"

What kind of question is that? A joke?

Yes, of COURSE we should eliminate quotes that do not reflect the position of the cited source. Such quotes are inserted by people with spin to inject so as to deliberately mislead readers who don't know the whole story. If our policy is to ignore manifestly biased quotes so as to push a POV, WP should state that officially.

"I think absolutely not, as it would open a pandora's box to challenge 90% of the current affairs material on Wikipedia;"

So because this article is deliberately misleading, it's okay because 90% of current events articles are accused of it. A WP editor really shouldn't make such a horrible statement in a public forum. If 9 in 10 articles have misleading quotes intended to fool the naive, then, yes, BY ALL MEANS we should repair that shameful situation. I should think it would deserve its own task force.

That you would seriously suggest that this practice should be ignored is exemplary of why academia doesn't take WP seriously.

As to Curiel, the fact that newspapers have talked about Trump's belief that the Judge is as biased as Wikipedia doesn't mean that it's relevant to this article. It is not. I'm sure there's another article about Trump's bizarre quotes. It belongs there. Link to it from here instead of talking about it, then, yeah, okay.

Verdana♥Bold 22:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you assume good faith and keep things civil by not ridiculing your fellow editors' arguments and accusing other editors of deliberately trying to mislead our readers. Please explain why you think the material in question is misleading. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump Institute

Is it appropriate to have a sentence in the lead and 3 sentences in the body describing the Trump Institute and saying it was a separate organization? Isn't this something that deserves a hatnote and a see also? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Similar name, similar program. It looks appropriate to me to have some real info here to avoid confusion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It was separately owned but was licensed to use the Trump name by Trump University. The Trump organizations got a cut for ever seat filled by the Institute. And according to this, the Institute often used the Trump University name as well as its own in its promotional materials. So it definitely belongs here IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this stuff belongs in its own section with a {{further}} hatnote? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The stuff has its own article at Trump Institute. All that is needed here is information that relates to Trump University. --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the link between TI and TU beyond the name and Donald Trump's involvement in both (in different capacities). Can you please explain? Our article says TU "licensed" TI (licensed what? intellectual property?) but I don't see anything about that in the cited source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

They licensed the whole Trump shtick - Trump's "name and credibility",[7] the type of business (real estate seminars), the course materials (the Trump University executive who set up the licensing deal said "We’ve basically taken our curriculum and used their logistics infrastructure to make sure that this thing goes off without a hitch"), the claim of "Trump-certified instructors," the promotion by Trump himself - not to mention the business model that produced hundreds of complaints against both. Many people couldn't tell the difference between TU and TI, especially since logos were sometimes used interchangeably. Sources vary in referring to the Institute as a "partner" or an "affiliated company" of TU; one source describes Trump University as "the umbrella organization for Trump Institute".[8] Aside from the many connections between TU and TI, a good reason for including this much information here is to make clear for readers that TI is NOT the same as TU, which they could easily think since TU did operate under several similar-sounding names. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Melanie, I'm afraid you're not approaching this with your usual rigor. The New York Times source doesn't say that TU licensed anything to TI. It merely says that Donald Trump himself lent his name and credibility to TI. In fact, sources such as this one from TIME confirm that it was the Donald himself, not TU, that licensed the Trump name to TI. As for the Daily Beast source, the WP:RSN archives suggest that the Daily Beast's reliability is hit-or-miss, and I'm concerned about this one as I haven't found another source making the same very significant claim. You'd think the New York Times and other outlets would have similarly referred to this affiliation, but they haven't. In fact, the TIME source (as well as this one from the Miami Herald) actually explains that the two organizations are separate and doesn't mention anything about an affiliation beyond the common link to Donald Trump. And then there's this source from Mother Jones saying TU wasn't even opened until after Donald Trump severed ties with TI. I think the Daily Beast source is just plain wrong. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with ignoring the Daily Beast, but have you actually looked at the Trump Institute article and its references? The licensing agreement was set up by Michael Sexton, Donald Trump's partner in Trump University, who confirms that the licensure arrangement was from Trump University, and in fact suggested (although it isn't in the article) that the Institute was expected to be folded into the University eventually. The Trump Organization's general counsel confirmed that the licensing agreement was from Trump University. ("Trump University had no relationship whatsoever with NGC," Trump Organization general counsel Alan Garten said in an e-mail. "Trump University entered into a license arrangement" with the Milins and Trump Institute. "Upon expiration of the license arrangement in 2009, it was not renewed.") This is not in dispute, even if some sources use the terms "Trump" and "Trump University" interchangeably. More rigorous journalists refer to TI as a "partner" or an "affiliated organization", which is a perfectly correct way to describe two entities linked by a partnership agreement. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. And Mother Jones has its facts wrong. TU didn't sever its ties with TI until 2009, when the partnership agreement expired and was not renewed, according to the Trump Organization's counsel, who is likely to be right about something like that. TU was incorporated in 2004 and launched its educational program (starting with online programs) in 2005. TU actually predated TI, which was founded in 2005, so the entire premise of that Mother Jones piece is incorrect. (I have great respect for Kevin Drum, but he got this wrong.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see we have a bit of a mess and some apparent contradictions among the sources when you throw Ars Technica into the mix. This needs to be cleaned up. At a minimum, if we're going to say that TU licensed TI in this article then that needs to be supported by a reliable source in this article. (See WP:SS#References.) Right now, it's not. The cited source doesn't support the content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Is that better? --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that's a definite improvement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump University's "classes"

I think the following sentence from the opening paragraph is false, with the possible exception of online classes before 2007 (on which I lack information):

The company offered courses in real estate, asset management, entrepreneurship, and wealth creation.

Since 2007 Trump University has not offered any classes at all, although they call classes things that aren't, misleading some reporters. After looking and reading the NY court documents (4) that are online, and at least 4 articles, I have been unable to find evidence of anyone since 2007 taking what an impartial outsider would call a class. deisenbe (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you please provide reliable sources that back up your contention? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide reliable sources that say they offered classes in these four areas? 2601:58C:C300:708F:C5CE:32D0:2F6:650C (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC). Sorry - this was from me, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. deisenbe (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What are you disputing, whether TU taught classes or what the subjects of the classes were? Here are some sources saying that TU did in fact teach classes:

• Cohan, William D. "Big Hair on Campus: Did Donald Trump Defraud Thousands of Real-Estate Students?". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2016-03-06. Describing courses various enrollees took.
• Cassidy, John (June 2, 2016). "Trump University: It's Worse Than You Think". The New Yorker. "When it began, Trump University offered online classes, but it quickly switched its focus to live classes and seminars, the first of which was free to attend."
• Caldwell, Patrick (July 12, 2016). "Trump University Taught Students How to Exploit Disabled Homeowners". Mother Jones. Describing one of the courses offered.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This was written before the below was posted: The word "class" is not found in the first and third articles. Offering courses is not the same as offering classes. It is mentioned in the New Yorker article, but although it's usually a reliable source, I dispute that in this instance. Certainly it does not give any details or refer to any class anyone took, just "seminars" which were sales meetings (although TU called them classes). A weekend seminar is not a class. Especially if no actual instruction took place. deisenbe (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are some sources describing TU's course offerings:

• Lawler, David (March 1, 2016). "Trump University suit revived after ruling by New York court". The Daily Telegraph. "In fact the online courses in real estate, asset management, entrepreneurship, and wealth creation were run by Mr Trump's for-profit corporation."
• Lorey, Christina (March 7, 2016). "Political Fact Check: The Truth Behind Trump University". WQAD-TV. "For $1,500 to $35,000, aspiring entrepreneurs could sign up for courses in real estate, entrepreneurship, and wealth creation."
• Roesler, Kelly (June 28, 2016). "Trump, me? Trump U: Behind 'The Donald's' online real estate investing school". Ottawa Citizen. "This venture, funded entirely by Mr. Trump, offers courses in real-estate investing and other such endeavours. It’s a virtual campus for aspiring entrepreneurs and working professionals to refine their skills in marketing, wealth creation, self-assessment and real estate."

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2016

This was written before the following was posted: Publications outside the U.S. that have not conducted original research are not reliable sources. The only use of "class" in the second one is "class-action". Incidentally, it puts "school" and "university" in quotes. deisenbe (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Deisenbe, but trying to make a distinction between "courses", "classes", and "seminars" is original research. It's a distinction that our sources do not make, and therefore it's a distinction that we do not make. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

And good luck trying to convince the community that The New Yorker got it wrong simply because an editor here "disputes" it. I don't know what makes Deisenbe more knowledgeable than John Cassidy and one of the most reputable editorial staffs in the country. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that Deisenbe's distinction between "courses" and "classes" is completely moot because the disputed content uses the word "courses," not "classes." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I got confused, I have to rethink it. Good to know that John Cassidy never makes mistakes. He's better than me. deisenbe (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

General Bias

I was completely wowed over the level of bias in this article. I agree with the writer who said that whether it is intended to be a campaign to pick on Trump or not, this is what it turns out to be. The repeated use of "quotes" to "emphasise" points and the utterlack of neutrality is one of the reasons Wikipedia is not considered a stable reference source. Evilpassion (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC) — Evilpassion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Which quotes, in particular, are you objecting to? Toddst1 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the bias. It looks like Trump's legal team sent a couple of paralegals over here to fill this article with their spurious legal arguments, even though Trump has already lost the case and his legal arguments are laughable. This is as open-and-shut a case of fraud as one will ever find. Trump has lost and will certainly not overturn on appeal. The evidence against Trump is stronger than it was against Madoff.Eminent Jurist (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC) — Eminent Jurist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If I can be so blunt Evilpassion, might your beliefs on vaccines help color your understanding of Trump and his legal troubles? (Comments on Wakefield page edit: "deleted initial references to Wakefield being a fraud as the matter is still open to much debate, the BMJ notwithstanding. The recent lawsuit was dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction, not content, so the matter is still open") | MK17b | (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Romney quote in "In popular culture" section

Can someone explain why editors are insisting on keeping the following sentence in the "In popular culture" section: "Mitt Romney called Donald Trump's promises 'as worthless as a degree from Trump University' in his speech of March 3, 2016." This doesn't strike me as popular culture, and it's 100% redundant with what's in the "Issue in the 2016 presidential election campaign" section. Moreover it seems undue to give a sentence to a single mention by one of Trump's political rivals, when it's been mentioned over and over again from various politicians during the course of the Trump's presidential campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because it's on another article doesn't meant it isn't valid to put here. Knowing that Bismark is the capital of North Dakota is relevant on both Bismark and North Dakota. I believe it's relevant to this article, and it's encyclopedic enough, given the quote was widely cited. In fact, it seems like the definition of a "popular culture" section. If various politicians have said it, perhaps echo some of the major names. tedder (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Tedder, maybe you misunderstood. We have the same quote twice in the same article. Not different articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I totally misunderstood. I'm with you on that- one mention is enough. I do believe it is worthy of mention, but certainly not twice. tedder (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, remove it, it is redundant. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, if you believe it should be removed, then why did you add it back? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about lead picture at Donald Trump

You are invited to participate in an ongoing talk-page discussion about the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent move of the article

This article was abruptly and without discussion moved to Trump Entrepreneur Initiative. I have moved it back. "Trump University" is by far the best known entity, virtually all of the existing sources refer to it as Trump University, and this article has existed under that name for more than 10 years. It would require a Requested Move discussion to change the title. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the move should not have been made, but perhaps we should be using the company's current legal name in the first sentence ("Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC") per WP:NCCORP#First sentence? Though I'm not sure we should follow this guideline; what should the first sentence say if/when the LLC dissolves, which seems likely? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

So you're thinking something like "The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC, better known as Trump University and also previously known as the Trump Wealth Institute"? That would be possible. But I note that the BBB says "OUT OF BUSINESS: According to information in BBB files, it appears that this business is no longer in business." [9] And you can't access the website unless you are a "member".[10] So maybe it doesn't matter what we call it in the lede - if it doesn't exist any more. It might be better to leave it as Trump University, since we know that Trump University " offered courses in real estate, asset management, entrepreneurship, and wealth creation.[2]" but we don't really know anything about the TEI's offerings. But using Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC as the first, bolded item in the sentence is fine with me if policy prefers that. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I tried to do a New York search to find out if it is active, but I could only find a search tool for corporations. I couldn't find one for LLCs. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The cited sources say the company is defunct. So maybe WP:NCCORP#First sentence shouldn't apply, given that the company has had multiple legal names over the years. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I also support retention of Trump University as the article title. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the first time ever, I agree with Nomo. Keep Trump University. Toddst1 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Settlement of the Trump University Litigation is limited to US Residents

It should be noted that that the settlement of the litigation provides for compensation to US residents only. There were courses given in at least 8 Canadian cities, with over Canadian 500 participants. (Source - the documents posted by Trump's lawyers on the http://www.98percentapproval.com/ web site) Dunlevy77 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting point. Can you find a secondary source that mentions this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I deleted a sentence from "New York v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC"

I took this sentence out:

"A "former 16-year Counsel and Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Education Department (SED)" stated in "an affidavit in support of Trump" that she could not remember "a single instance during [her] 16-year tenure as General Counsel" in which anyone "was fined, asked to pay restitution to students or assessed a civil penalty for identifying itself as a 'university.'"[22]"

The subject of the Wikipedia paragraph is that the initial letter was sent in 2005, but the 2013 Lord piece—not a news article but an attack editorial which is somewhat famous, or infamous, for having first brought Jeffrey Lord to Trump's attention—indicates that this affidavit was filed with Trump's 2013 complaint, 8 years later. The editorial is the only source for these quotes on the Internet that I could find. It would be a frivolous addition anyway, of a statement that, outside of any context, certainly seems disingenuous. And the sentence is ungrammatical in both the source and the Wiki article. So, I took this sentence out. Fishlandia (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

.

Footnote [32] links to a dead link. New link suggested: https://www.courthousenews.com/class-claims-it-was-rolled-by-trump-u/ Xivray (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Final settlement

Under Settlement, it currently says "Oral arguments in that suit are scheduled for November 2017." How did this situation resolve? Pinging Champion, who I think originally nominated the article for GA. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Bilorv, thanks for pointing this out. The case has now been settled closed and the article says so. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump's opinion about Curiel

In the Lawsuits section, we have a whole subsection about Trump’s comments about Curiel: a paragraph with eight references detailing Trump’s complaints and the reaction of legal experts, and another paragraph with two references about a statement where Trump clarifies WHY he is bashing Curiel. I just added a more recent statement from one of Trump’s attorneys: In November 2017 at an appeals court hearing, one of Trump's attorneys said that Trump had changed his opinion of Curiel and now regarded his actions as a "textbook example of a district court properly administering a settlement.”[11] User:DrFleischman removed it saying "not sufficiently noteworthy". This is not a big deal to me, but I’m curious why this recent comment is not noteworthy while all the others are. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

A number of reasons. The ones that come to mind first are: (i) the recent comment was by Trump's lawyers, not Trump himself; and (ii) Trump changes his mind about everything all the time if he thinks it's expedient to do so. This just seems like a yawner to me. If it receives heavy coverage then I'd be open to reconsidering my position. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, that's fair. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Category needed

I believe there should be a category for certain businesses such as this one, that have not actually been adjudicated as being fraudulent, but which are reasonably alleged to be fradulent. Something like category: educational programs and institutions in the United States alleged to be fraudulent. Another entry for this category would be Famous Writers School, and possibly as a fictional entry, The Music Man. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Or perhaps a subcategory of Category:For-profit universities and colleges in the United States, Category:For-profit universities and colleges in the United States with allegations of fraud. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In principle I'd support this but I doubt it would work as intended. I don't think the allegation was that TU was a fraudulent organization per se or handed out fake diplomas; rather the allegation was that they engaged in fraud (by over-promising to students). So if we rejigger the proposed category to something like Educational organizations alleged to have engaged in fraud, then we'll end up having to throw in a whole lot of legitimate schools that have been accused of fraud over the years. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2019

On the infobox there is a empty owner section that should be filled with Donald Trump. 71.241.207.108 (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think better not. He's listed in the box as founder, but it isn't clear who the owner or owners are. There were at least two other people involved, and Trump's share was probably owned through The Trump Organization - which had hundreds of subsidiaries. It was clear, throughout the legal problems, that Trump himself was the one calling the shots, but that doesn't necessarily make him the sole owner. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about the Settlement

The article claims that Former students can now get a refund of up to 90% of the money they spent on courses. It correctly cites a brief CNN news story. But I have to wonder if that's correct. Does this cover all former students, or just the ones who were part of the class. Earlier in the article, it says that only litigants from three states (NY, CA, FL) were included in the class, because of their states' consumer protection laws. So does the settlement extend to students from other states? The section on the settlement quotes NY Attorney General Schneiderman calling it a "a major victory for the over 6,000 victims of his fraudulent university," but is that accurate or political hyperbole? The settlement section also says $21 million go to the participants in the class action, and another 3 million go to New Yorkers not covered by the class action. So it seems that victims from outside of the 3 states don't get anything. We could change this claim to 'Former students from California, New York, and Florida can now get a refund of up to 90% of the money they spent on courses, but students from other states were excluded from the settlement.' Does this make sense? (I'm not sure about Florida, because it's not mentioned in the reference to the Schneiderman quote.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)