Wikipedia

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 27

< Talk:Donald Trump
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Somedifferentstuff in topic Opposition to Iraq War
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

Donald J. Trump Foundation

Latest comment: 7 years ago47 comments9 people in discussion

According to this new article [1] in a reliable source "...Trump had found a way to give away somebody else’s money and claim the credit for himself." I think it deserves mention (paraphrased) in the subsection here. Thoughts. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does. That the NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, as "the regulator of nonprofits in New York", has opened an inquiry into the Foundation also deserves mention. Buster Seven Talk 06:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree the inquiry should also be mentioned here, although not as in depth as the main article. Sourcing for addition: [2] [3] [4] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding giving away other people's money, it seems to be covered already in this BLP:

This material was apparently added just before this talk page section was started, and I think the new section in the BLP can be shortened a bit per WP:Summary style. As for the inquiry by the New York State A.G., there is one sentence about it at Donald J. Trump Foundation. There are no charges AFAIK, and not even any public indication about what the inquiry into the foundation is about. So I don't think this particular article needs to mention it yet. This article already describes in detail a particular violation by this foundation:

That seems like plenty for now, and it ought to be more concise in view of WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The linked article about the Foundation is 4 days old. The Foundation was founded in 1988. The article is thread-bare with little history and even less information. Not very helpful or informative to our future readers. Time will tell. My guess is both mention here and at the Foundation article will expand. Buster Seven Talk 16:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed some of the content from the section which violates WP:WEIGHT. Also, wouldn't the Donald J. Trump Foundation article be the more appropriate venue? This would seem to be more Foundation related than Trump related.CFredkin (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I say above, The linked article about the Foundation is an infant considering the Foundation has over 25 u years of history. It is thread-bare with little information. Lets not send our readers to an empty closet. Buster Seven Talk 21:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that NONE of the Clinton Foundation controversies are currently included in Clinton's bio. They've been excluded based on the same rationale. I'm not sure why we should treat Trump's bio differently.CFredkin (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comparing the Clinton Foundation to the Trump Foundation is a false equivalency, unless you can prove that the Clinton Foundation violated tax laws, because the Trump Foundation did. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The Clinton Foundation controversies have also been referenced in far more reliable sources.CFredkin (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Per an August 11 news report, "the Obama administration rejected requests from three FBI field offices that wanted to open public corruption cases involving the Clinton Foundation". The fine levied against Trump and the Trump Foundation was not for giving money to Bondi, but rather for giving it from the wrong funds (i.e. from Foundation funds), and these two things should not be confused.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Right. Wrongdoing was found on the part of Trump, and none on the part of the Clinton's. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The Trump Foundation's problems are different than those of Clintons. No charges of acts of intentional fraud have been made against the Clinton Foundation. With the Bondi $25K: she requested the funding, it looks like the Trump foundation found a similarly named charity in Kansas that could be used for book-keeping entries (address and all) but the check mysteriously winds up in Florida instead of Kansas. The fine was for making a political contribution....a no-no for charities. Buster Seven Talk 21:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Depth of coverage on Trump Foundation and current NY inquiry

So we need to decide how much of the material belongs in this article per WP:Summary style. Here are 3 sources ( [5] [6] [7]) and there are others. Looking at the second source it states, "New York state's top prosecutor has made inquiries into Donald Trump's nonprofit foundation after questions about impropriety." Below is the additional material I think should be included at this article:

The same source [8] states "...correspondence with the foundation began on June 9." Aside from stating the necessary initiation date, I don't think there is anything further to add until the inquiry is finished. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again, my concern is that this violates WP:WEIGHT for Trump's bio. Also, wouldn't the Donald J. Trump Foundation article be the more appropriate venue? This would seem to be more Foundation related than Trump related.CFredkin (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
You need to look at WP:Summary style. We already know that the Donald J. Trump Foundation should be discussed in this article because it's his foundation, the only question is how much should we include. I think the dollar figure material I quoted above should be included here. The $25,000 has to do with a donation that was made to a political group connected to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (all nonprofits are barred from making politically-related contributions) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • First of all, no one objects that some kind of subsection and reference to the Foundation must be included. Yes, sure. How much info should be included in the summary? Well, the $2,500 penalty for failing to disclose the gift to the Internal Revenue Service is obviously the key fact of the controversy. Yes, it should be included. Overall, the current version of this section seem to be good at the moment. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
At this point, I think this version is appropriate. Any more needs to be discussed to get consensus. One important point is whether the fine was against Trump personally, or merely against an entity like the Trump Foundation. I have no idea. If the former, then it might be worth including here, but if not then it should probably be keep in the article about the foundation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant, you don't have consensus to remove the material that is currently in the article. You can challenge the material all you like, but the first train has already left the station. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Am I allowed to express my opinion? That's all I'm doing for the time being. And the way things work around here is that people who insert new material need consensus to do that, AFAIK. That's your burden, not mine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah but you can't WP:FILIBUSTER consensus, which is what you and CFredkin have been trying to do on all these related articles (admittedly, more CFredkin than you, but since you guys always travel together it gets sort of mixed up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

In addition to being undue, the following content is not supported by the source provided:

Through its tax returns, the foundation has reported support for organizations including Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy, the Clinton Foundation and the New York Military Academy.[511] The beneficiaries listed by the Trump Foundation erroneously list some non-charities, such as a plane ride and gift valued at about $1000 for tennis superstar Serena Williams."[511]

CFredkin (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Also, I don't see it mentioned in the discussion above. I think it should be removed per Summary Style, if not as a BLP violation.CFredkin (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also these edits were included in VM's blanket revert of my edits. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, but currently the first para in the section does not read like it's part of a biography. Also, substituting "charitable disbursements" for "expenses" would be more accurate based on the source. Any objections to restoring these?CFredkin (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Donald Trump donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Per this reliable source, we should mention something about it in the section. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any references to the Donald J. Trump Foundation in the source.CFredkin (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Just looked again and saw the reference to the DJT Foundation. I still believe this bit of content is undue per summary style.CFredkin (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
So the content IS in fact adequately supported by the source, yes? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear, my previous post was in reference to the bolded content in Somedifferent stuff's last post. The content in the talk quote above, which was included in the content that VM restored (and is currently still in the article) is not supported by the sources provided in the article. It is therefore a BLP violation.CFredkin (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you be more precise about which parts are not in which source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
He was talking about the green quote above that starts, "Through its tax returns..." --- Someone had put the wrong source behind it which I've now fixed [9] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It's STILL a BLP violation.... the source for the second sentence indicates the donation referenced in your content was from Trump personally, not the Foundation.CFredkin (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
You obviously haven't looked at the beginning of the source which has a legend explaining what each symbol stands for; the only one listed that didn't come from the foundation was the New York Military Academy (which I've now removed [10]) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
And please post here the specific text from the source that supports your assertion that the Trump Foundation donated to Serena Williams.CFredkin (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is the source [11] and here is the text: "In addition, many of the gifts on the list came from the charity that bears his name ... Some beneficiaries on the list are not charities at all: They included clients, other businesses and tennis superstar Serena Williams." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow, conflating 2 paragraphs to create a false impression. I'm not sure what to say about that, except it doesn't seem like good faith editing. Here are 4 distinct paras from your source. (Actually the first para below is really the first 2 paras in the source.) They don't seem to support your assertion at all.

Since the first day of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has said that he gave more than $102 million to charity in the past five years. To back up that claim, Trump’s campaign compiled a list of his contributions — 4,844 of them, filling 93 pages.

In addition, many of the gifts on the list came from the charity that bears his name, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which didn’t receive a personal check from Trump from 2009 through 2014, according to the most recent public tax filings. Its work is largely funded by others, although Trump decides where the gifts go.

Some beneficiaries on the list are not charities at all: They included clients, other businesses and tennis superstar Serena Williams.

Trump listed a donation to “Serena William Group” in February 2015, valued at exactly $1,136.56. A spokeswoman for the tennis star said she had attended a ribbon- cutting at Trump’s Loudoun County, Va., golf course that year for a new tennis center. But Trump hadn’t donated to her charity. Instead, he had given her a free ride from Florida on his plane and a free framed photo of herself.

CFredkin (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Serena Williams material

CFredkin, you're going to have to explain yourself better; what is being conflated with what? Here is the Serena source [12] and here is the text: "In addition, many of the gifts on the list came from the charity that bears his name ... Some beneficiaries on the list are not charities at all: They included clients, other businesses and tennis superstar Serena Williams." "But Trump’s list was also riddled with apparent errors, in which the “charities” that got his gifts didn’t seem to be charities at all. Trump listed a donation to “Serena William Group” in February 2015, valued at exactly $1,136.56 ... But Trump hadn’t donated to her charity. Instead, he had given her a free ride from Florida on his plane and a free framed photo of herself." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Now CFredkin has just removed the Serena material from the article [13] while this discussion is still taking place; that's very helpful and collaborative. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Um. It's not supported by the source you provided. Therefore it's a BLP violation. According to WP:BLP, the content should be removed until sourcing can be provided.CFredkin (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
No dude, that's not how this works. What isn't supported by this [14] reference? --- Here is what you removed from the article: "The beneficiaries listed by the Trump Foundation erroneously list some non-charities, such as a plane ride and gift valued at about $1000 for tennis superstar Serena Williams." --- Now what part of this is not supported by the source? --- From the source above: "But Trump’s list was also riddled with apparent errors, in which the “charities” that got his gifts didn’t seem to be charities at all. Trump listed a donation to “Serena William Group” in February 2015, valued at exactly $1,136.56 ... But Trump hadn’t donated to her charity. Instead, he had given her a free ride from Florida on his plane and a free framed photo of herself." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
What's missing from the source is a statement that the Trump Foundation "donated" to Serena.CFredkin (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Are you confusing Trump with his Foundation?CFredkin (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Now you're being straight up disruptive - the material you removed from the article didn't contain the word "donated" --- so now what's your objection? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The quotes in my previous post were not for emphasis. The word "donation" is not the focus of my objection. My objection (as I've stated repeatedly) is that nothing in the source supports the assertion that the Trump Foundation (as opposed to Trump personally) gave anything to Serena. The closest you've been able to come to supporting that claim is by combining two paras from the source to give a false impression.CFredkin (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Do the words "..the charity that bears his name..." lead you to the conclusion? Buster Seven Talk 01:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Description of donees from the Foundation Center

Does anyone object if the following material is restored? It was removed for no apparent reason.


References

  1. ^ "Foundation Center". Accessed September 14, 2016.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. First, that's not what you actually wrote in the article. You wrote " According to the Foundation Center which maintains comprehensive databases on grantmakers and their grants, Trump's foundation gives primarily to "health organizations, youth development, and social services."" You can't inflate the authority of the source, and in the same breath, attribute bare data to the source to pass that authority on. That's original research. There are plenty of better sources available for putting such data in the proper context.- MrX 21:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, it is very likely that the information about who they give to is from the Foundation itself - probably from how it described its intended purpose in the paperwork when it was formed. It may have little or no relation to how they actually donate, and it is certainly not any kind of independent evaluation. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I went to the lead of the article about the Foundation Center to merely grab some descriptors. If people refer inline attribution to the Foundation Center without saying who they are or what they do, then fine, but it looks like y'all object to that as well. So, I will get a more reliable source. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, what must be considered is that the Foundations record keeping is questionable. For instance, the donation to Attorney General Bondi's Justice for All in Florida was on the books as a donation to a Kansas charity, And Justice for All with the Kansas address noted. Somehow the money got to Florida. Probably just a bookkeeping error. A more thorough statement would be:

.

I doubt that the Trump Foundation informed the Foundation Center of the full extent of the Trump Foundations "giving". Buster Seven Talk 06:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

$885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Not sure where this material should be incorporated into the article. Source is here [15] --- Thoughts -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It probably does not belong in this article. The source says, "In seeking those subsidies, Mr. Trump is not that different from many other developers. But the level of subsidies he has received along with his doggedness in claiming them seem at odds with his rhetoric as an outsider candidate...." That's an issue about his campaign. TFD (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The following, from the same source, is not associated with his campaign: "But that book, and numerous interviews over the years, make little mention of a crucial factor in getting the hotel built: an extraordinary 40-year tax break that has cost New York City $360 million to date in forgiven, or uncollected, taxes, with four years still to run, on a property that cost only $120 million to build in 1980." This is discussing the Grand Hyatt.
The next paragraph states: "The project set the pattern for Mr. Trump’s New York career: He used his father’s, and, later, his own, extensive political connections, and relied on a huge amount of assistance from the government and taxpayers in the form of tax breaks, grants and incentives to benefit the 15 buildings at the core of his Manhattan real estate empire." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This is probably TMI for this article. We really need an article about the Trump Group. But for this article - probably not unless it becomes a much bigger, more widely reported issue. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The article currently says, "Donald negotiated a 40-year tax abatement for the hotel with the city, in exchange for a share of the venture's profits. The deal helped reduce the risk of the project and provided an incentive for investors to participate." The New York Times article implies it was a secret sweetheart deal, but in fact the Grand Hyatt was about to close, the negotiations were public knowledge and there was actually animosity between Trump and Koch. (Trump called Koch a "moron.") The city continues to profit from the deal and could actually sell its future revenues. I don't know who came out better, but Trump could not have got investors without the deal and New York City would have lost tax revenue had the hotel closed. It is not actually news, Trump wrote about it in The Art of the Deal and it is in various biographies about him.
Here is how other New York Times reporters describe the deal in another article: "Reviving the city from its fiscal hole, Mr. Koch handed out lucrative tax cuts to developers, including one that Mr. Trump used to turn the shuttered Commodore Hotel into what became the Grand Hyatt on East 42nd Street — a crucial step in the rise of the Trump brand."[16]
TFD (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Although I can see this is a theme throughout his business career, I would like to see other views on this. As I was reading the article, I was wondering how New York City benefited. These 15 buildings are responsible for hiring workers, managers, and I assume executives; which means nearby businesses and restaurants receive customers from this pool of employees, and from those who stay at the hotels and those who live in the condominiums.
The supply chain also employs workers, managers, and executives and sells products to all of Trump's holdings. If any of these supply chain businesses are based in New York they pay taxes; if any of those who are employed reside in New York they pay taxes; and if New York has a sales tax, then when any of these persons purchase items as they go about their daily lives they pay the sales tax, and so on.
I can see perhaps mentioning this in Trump's campaign article if this theme is at variance with the image he is projecting. However, according to the article, one of his mantras is that he hates to pay taxes and he has acted in such a manner. And I am not sure that "$885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies for luxury apartments, hotels and office buildings in New York" is at variance with the image he projects either. Editors who regularly work on this page would know better than me. In any case, maybe the campaign article right now. Then, if this turns out to have legs, well then in this article also -imho. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
NYC currently has a sales tax of 4.5% and commuter tax of 0.375%, including on hotel rooms.[17] There is a 5.875% hotel occupancy tax[18] and 3-4% income tax.[19] Also, improvement of properties leads to an increased tax base and greater tourism and business activity. Higher employment in NYC also leads to lower city welfare rates. Trump also provided free rent at 40 Wall St. to Jesse Jackson's organization. Whether or not the city's approach to real estate investment during the recession of 1980 was advantageous to them is an interesting question, but I think is beyond the scope of this article. I think though we should take the view that it was considered a mutually beneficial policy at the time. TFD (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I had suggested an article about the Trump Group. Turns out we do have an article called the The Trump Organization. Some of this stuff about the tax breaks (without any judgmental appraisal of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing) could probably go there. MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Village Pump Discussion

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is currently a discussion at the Village Pump (Proposals) that may be relevant to the subject of this article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Closed by Ad Orientem per WP:SNOW (essay), 20:44, 21 September 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Minor tweak

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

At present the lede reads:

Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false

Clearly this should be

Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, false, or both

I am sure this is a simple oversight in the original drafting, since it is obvious that many of the statements are controversial precisely because they are false - the two are not mutually exclusive and are very often combined. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - Something along these lines was mentioned during the RfC.- MrX 14:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's unnecessary, and undue emphasis. The word "or" already has an inclusive sense. For example, "If a football coach exclaims: 'We'll beat either Penn State or Army,' his assertion is not false if the team wins both of these games."Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Compare with the first 3 search results for "or" prefix:Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "...linked by this page's menu or listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents..."; "...use the scientific or medical name"; "...employ formats or units inconsistent with these guidelines or with other formats in the same article." --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am trying to wrap my brain around this. On the one hand, the press saying "statements have been false" seems to be the same as "controversial" anyway - because the "falsity" of the statement automatically generates controversy, which is covered by the press. Then saying "or have been controversial", well this would be anything not deemed false that causes a stir large enough for the press to cover. So, adding "or both" seems extraneous, redundant and UNDUE. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Completely undue for the lede of such a high-profile BLP. And as above, a falsehood usually generates controversy so i'm still against the inclusion of "or false", let alone a snide "or both hehe" addition. Zaostao (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary, as false things already usually generates controversy and the "both" part can already be inferred by any reader reading into the linked section. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A bit wordy and technical, and unnecessary. "Or" is not the same as "xor" and does not necessarily denote exclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Age... continued

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

I removed this recent addition to lede regarding Trump being the oldest president, if elected. This was discussed previously in Talk, and the consensus was that it should not be included in the lede.CFredkin (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Commenting since I edited it. No real opinion about it, just that we need to avoid confusion in language. He'd be the oldest inaugurated. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure that consensus was achieved. It was more a case of a conversation that just stopped. Consensus should consist of and is achieved by clear statements of support or opposition for differing editorial offerings...not just a general discussion of wide-ranging viewpoints without clear statements of support or non-support...that all editors can easily discern. Buster Seven Talk 17:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose including such a statement in the lead, for the reasons I gave previously.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to include this is silly. It is a fact, not an opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: Some like to achieve consensus the exciting way; others, the boring way, as described at WP:EDITCONSENSUS: "Any edit that is not disputed by another editor can be assumed to have consensus... The encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation."
@Cwobeel: Another boring policy, WP:FUTURE, says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."
Trump's becoming president would indeed be notable. But it's not almost certain to take place. At this time, it's not even expected to take place. Trump's becoming the oldest -- and orangest -- president would be notable, too. But it isn't expected to take place, either. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
He'd also be the first pres. without political or military job experience, which seems just as significant as age. I have no problem with both being mentioned in the 2016 campaign section, but I don't think the lead needs to address potential or speculative history. And Trump would be younger than Reagan was when he took office for his second term.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree, it looks just fine in the 2016 campaign section. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

New photo

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

So tired of seeing that 1,5 year old orange photo. What about this new one from this month? Looks great to me. User1937 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Given that the image is a copyright violation, no, we won't be using it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Removed per WP:COPYVIO. Also, we don't need an infobox on the talk page.- MrX 21:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Does this sentence belong in the lede?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

"Republican leaders such as House Speaker Paul Ryan were hesitant to support him early on. They doubted his chances of winning the general election and feared he could harm the image of the Republican Party.[286][287]" This is outdated information and probably not relevant for the lede anyhow. I think it should either be removed, or else supplemented with a sentence that says virtually all Republican leaders did eventually endorse him. --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, did you instead mean in the "Presidential campaign, 2016" section? I don't see it in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be removed, also I believe it was added by the redlink user who made huge amounts of changes. Zaostao (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
My mistake, yes, thanks for catching that. It is in the "Presidential campaign, 2016" section of this article. I still think it should be either removed or updated. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

documentcloud.org is a reliable WP:BLP source?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This content

His disclosure filings for the year 2015 revealed that his total gross revenue was in excess of $611 million.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Donald Trump Personal Financial Disclosure Form 2015" (PDF).

As far as I know, documentcloud.org is not a reliable source, especially for BLPs. What do other's think?- MrX 19:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you find it in a better source? How about this?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the Washington Post is fine.- MrX 20:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Jared Kushner

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion at Jared Kushner that may be of interest. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump foundation

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The Trump Foundation is not "incidental". One way to see this is to realize that it is called the TRUMP foundation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Lots of things have "Trump" in their names, but that doesn't mean they all belong in the opening paragraph, for Pete's sake. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph. "[A]void overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I assume you are referring to the recent deletion of this from opening paragraph. I agree with the deletion; "founder of the Trump Foundation" does not need to be in the lede. He is founder or principal of many different entities. The Trump Foundation is one, and it is dealt with in the article, but no need to single it out in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Per anythingyouwant, please read MOS:BLPLEAD. Also, see dervorguilla's edit and my edit then VM readds despite it being challenged by reversion twice. Zaostao (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but not everything "with Trump in its name" has received as much attention in the sources as the Foundation has.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Some or Many

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

We recently had an RfC, the result of which was to include the following in the lead:

Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false.

this has been changed to

Some of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false.

Since the editor who has made this change has violated the 1RR restriction, I have requested that they self-revert. However, I wanted to check to see if I've missed a discussion in which there was consensus to change to "many" to "some".- MrX 22:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you've missed anything. This is from the recent RfC and it shouldn't have been changed. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
What's more, this weekend the media finally caught up with us - and with him. A whole bunch of Reliable Sources came out with the news that Trump habitually tells lies whoppers falsehoods choose your word. Samples: The New York Times: A Week of Whoppers From Donald Trump. Los Angeles Times: Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate. Politico: Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths. CNN: The weekend America's newspapers called Donald Trump a liar. Should we update the section with some of these new references - since some people claimed the original references were not "reliable"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. "Some" would definitely be an understatement.- MrX 00:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Reverted back to the obvious. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Info about tax returns and audit

Latest comment: 7 years ago53 comments12 people in discussion

I disagree with this edit insofar as it removed the following longstanding material:


References

  1. ^ Stockman, Rachel (May 13, 2016). "Legal Experts Side With Trump; It Would Be Crazy to Release His Taxes During Audit". Law Newz. Retrieved July 19, 2016.

The edit summary said, "rmv speculation and non-RS". I don't agree that there is any speculation here. The source says:


As for whether this source is reliable, it certainly is. Here are details about its launch earlier this year, from CNN. The site is run by Dan Abrams, who is the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News. Abrams is also a former anchor of Nightline, and former chief legal correspondent, anchor, and analyst for NBC News.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek added, "During Congressional hearings of IRS commissioner John Koskinen in September 2016, Trump was asked by Jerry Nadler, a Democratic representative from New York, if "there (is) anything that would prohibit someone from releasing their tax returns, if they want to, because they're under audit?". Koskinen's answer was "no"." Can't we just say that there is no legal bar for him to release his tax returns without writing the Great American Novel? Since it is a fact, who cares who said it? In-line citation merely casts doubt. It is as if we wrote, "When asked by X if he would run for president, Trump said, "Yes, I am running for president. X then said that Trump was running for president. Trump then put his name forward as a candidate for president. He then entered the Republican primaries." TFD (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The LawNewz article says that tax attorneys advise against releasing tax returns during an audit, even if it's legal. TFD, why should we delete that from this BLP?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with TFD. This is a simple tidbit of information that can be summarized in a few words, without attribution or speculation from tax attorneys who don't represent Mr. Trump. - MrX 03:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The following sentence doesn't sound like speculation to me: "Tax attorneys who spoke with LawNewz.com said they would advise their clients not to release taxes in the midst of an audit." Sure we could merely say that releasing returns during an audit is legal, but that would imply Trump has no reason to withhold them, contrary to what LawNewz reported. The removed material has been in this BLP a long time (in one form or another), and it ought to remain to prevent readers from being misled, IMO. LawNewz fact-checked what Trump said and concluded "it is true."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Trump said he could not release his tax returns because they were under audit. He never said he could release them but lawyers said it was inadvisable. During the debates, either candidate could plead the Fifth when asked tough questions. Of course, neither candidate is obligated to answer any questions, but that probably would not be seen as a good reason for evading questions. TFD (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
TFD, I don't see that the upcoming debates have anything to do with the present issue. Per LawNewz, Trump said "Almost every lawyer will tell you the same thing, when you are under audit, you finish the audit before you release." And LawNewz provided the following factcheck: "it is true". I see no reason to conceal this from our readers. LawNewz very clearly reported that Trump can legally release the tax returns, but also very clearly reported that lawyers often advise against doing so during an audit. Why should we hide the latter, and only say the former? To me, doing so would seem contrary to WP:NPOV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Law Newz is not a particularly strong source. It's somewhere on the edge of reliability. "Lawyers who spoke to Law Newz" is very weak. How do we know these lawyers are representative? Who are they? Putting in this info based on this single weak source violates UNDUE.
As to Koskinen - this was covered by multiple sources and what makes it significant is that the question was asked by a sitting congressman of the top IRS official. You can't get more authoritative than that. That is the point of including this info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
(and I'm assuming TFD is using "plead the fifth" metaphorically).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not objecting to inclusion of any report about what Koskinen said. It merely confirms the IRS statement quoted in LawNewz: "nothing prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information". There's no need to wonder who the lawyers consulted by LawNewz are, because they are all named. And you haven't produced any source that contradicts them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for the rollback. Watchlist jumped while loading. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think people under audit should not discuss their tax returns? Do you not think that self-incrimination has anything to do with it? TFD (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

TFD, regardless of the answers to your questions, I don't see any reason in the world why we shouldn't include the LawNewz article as a source, and paraphrase its conclusions. I'm not aware that any other reliable source contradicts them. As to your questions, they can be answered by looking at the LawNewz source, in which tax attorneys cite various reasons other than self-incrimination. For example, auditors could show the returns to whoever they want, causing problems for other entirely innocent businesses you do business with, and anyone who has a grievance with you could misuse the released information, and try to intervene in the audit process, for their own personal, financial or political gain; also, business strategies that may need revision during the audit process could be harmed by untimely disclosure, etc. etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The last lawyer in the LawNewz source (Laurie B. Kazenoff, a New York based attorney) states:
If we "paraphrase its (the LawNewz source) conclusions" then we must also cite Ms. Kazenoff's rebuttal. If we use one piece of the source, we are obligated by fairness to consider and note the contrary stands to the expressed consensus within the source. I don't promote inclusion of the entire quote. I included the complete quote so that we could discuss which part is pertinent. And, the fact that Ms.Kazenoff seems to be the only dissenting voice is irrelevant. Had the author of the article interviewed more tax specialists from across the country the resulting consensus may have been different. Buster Seven Talk 06:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The deleted language was, "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though it is not necessarily something that tax attorneys would advise". I would have no objection to clarifying that tax attorneys differ on the issue. For example: "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ as to whether such a course would be advisable".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That does shed a different light on it. The deleted language is easily mis-construed as saying "all" or "most" or "many" without actually saying it. Your clarification focuses more on the known fact that lawyers differ as to the advice they give their clients. Buster Seven Talk 06:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
What about weight? to what extent are these views being discussed in coverage of Trump's campaign? TFD (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

There are other sources besides LawNewz. See, e.g., the following two:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, Anythingyouwant, and The Four Deuces: "Congressman" ranks as the least trusted occupation, so questions asked by a "sitting congressman" can be omitted from the article. (WP:NOTRELIABLE policy.)
Also, the information cited to the Hill piece can be tagged (1) for {better source} (publisher not paying market rate, has to advertise for contributors[1]); (2) for {POV-statement} (placed "after a fact to signify the statement may not be entirely without bias"); and (3) for {undue-inline} ("should not give minority views as much or as detailed description").
Here a minority-party (Democratic) congressman has put a question to a (Democratic) President's agent and the answer relates to the competing party's nominee. So, we remove that information.
  1. ^ "The Hill Contributor Application Form". Capitol Hill Publishing. How do I apply to be a contributor to The Hill? Just fill in the form below and we'll be in contact.
--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, we're starting to mix up two issues (with a reflist in between for some reason). It doesn't matter whether "congressman" is a trusted occupation or not. What matters is if it's notable. Overall, though it's not as important who asked the question as who answered and how.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
No, no... let's follow Devorguilla's outstanding logic a bit further. Lawyers are also viewed by the public as notoriously untrustworthy (nearly as bad as politicians), so opinions offered by lawyers can therefore likewise be omitted from the article. (Perhaps we should also disregard talkpage commentary from lawyers, while instead prioritizing commentary from people whose professions are generally admired for their trustworthiness and integrity. Like, I dunno, physicians...) See, the problem with self-serving logical fallacies is that they can be turned against you. MastCell Talk 23:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@MastCell: Logical arguments, not "logical fallacies". Analogy: We remove Plaintiff's testimony to the Court about Defendant and Defendant's testimony about Plaintiff. (WP:NOTRELIABLE policy: "Sources with conflicts of interest include material (including news reports and articles) released by parties involved in litigation against other involved parties".)
We do include material written by professional journalists and published in high-quality mainstream sources. But the material in the Hill article is a compilation of direct or paraphrased quotations from testimony by one political party against another. The author purposely constructed it without adding fact-checks, analysis, or other alterations. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It just seems that this viewpoint has received minimal coverage for inclusion in the article. If we put in all kinds of things that have had minimal coverage, the article would run into hundreds of pages. TFD (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
"Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ about whether it would be advisable". We're only talking about the last nine words, which are solidly sourced to NPR, thestreet.com, and LawNewz. Moreover, these nine words are uncontradicted by any other reliable source. It's not even close to undue weight, and these nine words ensure that the first eight words aren't given undue weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with that wording.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
"though tax attorneys differ"? This should be changed to "though his tax attorneys differ". - Cwobeel (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
"Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ in opinion about whether it would be advisable to do so while under audit." would be more accurate. Zaostao (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Editor Cwobeel. Not so, I believe. I imagine all HIS his tax attorneys and tax advisers agree that he should not release his taxes....otherwise they would not BE his tax consultants. The proposed wording is about tax experts in general. BTW, I am also fine with the either Suggestion 1 or 2. Buster Seven Talk 16:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

* The deleted language--- "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though it is not necessarily something that tax attorneys would advise".

  • Suggestion 1--- "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ as to whether such a course would be advisable".
  • Suggestion 2--- "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ in opinion about whether it would be advisable to do so while under audit."

Buster Seven Talk 17:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support: "Trump is legally free to release the tax information." and oppose: "...though it is not necessarily something that tax attorneys would advise." per WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL. The only way this would be relevant to the article is if Trump or his lawyers said that he was advised not to release his returns and it received coverage in multiple mainstream sources.- MrX 17:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Mr. X on this issue. I have no issue with the reliability of the source, but we have two problems. First, "it is not necessarily something that tax attorneys would advise" is written in a weird, weasely ("not necessarily"), unencyclopedic style that reads as though Wikipedia is giving its own legal opinion. Second, it doesn't reflect conflicting sources and opposing views. Specifically, tax attorneys Steve Rosenthal (of the Tax Policy Center) and Laurie Kazenoff have said Trump should release his returns. Moreover, tax attorneys don't have a monopoly on the "advisability" of releasing tax returns during a presidential campaign. Various politicians have said Trump should release his, including Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, as well as numerous Democrats of course. We can fix the balance problem by adding all of this content, but then we probably end up putting undue emphasis on this issue, which should be described in summary style as it's covered in more detail in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Survey about Buster's suggestion

Merely including the first part of the sentence (stating that release is legal), while omitting the second part (that tax attorneys disagree about advisability) would not be NPOV because it would imply that there's no valid reason to not release.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support option 2. Both are fine, but I feel that 2 is more accurate/clear. Zaostao (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined toward option 1, but inserting before the comma "during the audit". I'd like the stuff after the comma to be as brief as possible, to address TFD's concern about weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:SPECULATION. The only way this would be relevant to the article is if Trump or his lawyers said that he was advised not to release his returns and it received coverage in multiple mainstream sources. I assume our readers use Wikipedia for facts, not third-party theories and speculation.- MrX 18:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lacks balance with other opinions. Lawyers do not have a monopoly on advice when there are political or other non-legal ramifications. The "though tax attorneys" clause should be omitted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This is basically true-but-irrelevant. The issue with Trump's tax returns isn't really about legal advice. It's about the fact that every major-party Presidential candidate in the last ~40 years has released his or her tax returns, but Trump has refused to do so. Reliable sources generally view Trump's refusal in its political context, not as a matter of tax law (cf. New York Times, New Yorker, CNN, Washington Post, etc). Our coverage should, of course, follow the emphases found in reliable sources. With so many high-quality sources available, one is left wondering why we're flogging Law Newz and the Mad Money guy's website instead. MastCell Talk 23:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
We can flog both. The other major-party candidates over the past 40 years weren't under audit. I'll put up something later today that flogs both. Interesting, BTW, that you don't view NPR as high-quality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think he said anything about NPR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I took MastCell to mean that the sources I cited, including NPR, are not relevant because they are not high-quality. Regardless, NPR is a high-quality reliable source, and its reporting is relevant. The other two sources are reliable too. The sources he cited are high-quality and reliable too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, NPR is reliable. The other two are borderline at best. The thing is, the NPR source doesn't really support the contention. The guy says he could "imagine" such advice being given. That's not the same as "that's the usual advice being given". I can "imagine" myself eating celery tomorrow. But I probably won't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - after reconsideration I do agree that the stuff about "advisability" is UNDUE. Just the first part, that he can release them if he wants to, is sufficient.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose begins to make sense. It just seemed that a part of the "release your taxes" story was Trumps "I'm being audited" reason for his refusal...right from the beginning. That his reason doesn't hold water is pertinent but the fact that it is "almost always" mentioned in sources is, in my opinion, worthy of mention. With that said, I'll support leaving any mention of lawyerley advice out. Buster Seven Talk 02:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Bemused support for either 1 or 2, per Anythingyouwant's point about the other candidates not having been under audit. My personal opinion is that Trump's reasoning is rather hard to comprehend here. Some journalists apparently do think it may hold water, however. And because least two interested and well-informed observers believe it doesn't, the information should be included for the benefit of other such readers. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Is the section on business career the right place for this?

There's a section on this subject at Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Refusal_to_release_tax_returns and so it would be more standard to move this stuff to the corresponding section of the present article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the material, no content change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
That's the better place for it. The BLP is the place for biography, not the campaign. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The two are obviously intertwined. In fact the info that ATW is trying to remove is pretty brief. It's not like we go into the possible motives, the possible connections with Russia or any of that.
Also note that there's a current ongoing discussion about how to properly phrase the material that is being removed. Obviously if people are discussing what the proper wording is, and none of them seems to want to remove it, there is no consensus to remove it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
And frankly, this looks like a case of taking an action because discussion didn't turn out a way one wanted. Above ATM says "I want this wording". Other editors say "no, this wording is better". Then ATM seems to say oh well since I didn't get what I wanted I'm just going to remove it all. That borders on disruptive editing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't modify all the Koskinen stuff at all. It's just located now in the appropriate section. Per WP:Summary style, we're suppose to summarize sub-articles, and the pertinent sub-article here is Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Refusal_to_release_tax_returns.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant's move seems consistent with summary policy. This is Donald Trump's biography remember, not his campaign article. Zaostao (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, I'm a bit confused. Are you moving this info to a different article (the presidential campaign one) or are you moving it to a different section in THIS article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

THIS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Bundling footnotes

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Footnote 281 has just been edited so that it contains a bunch of sub-footnotes:

  • Michael Beschloss (August 29, 2015). "Before Trump or Fiorina, There Was Wendell Willkie". The New York Times.
  • Peter Wehner (January 14, 2016). "Why I Will Never Vote for Donald Trump". The New York Times.
  • Kurtzleben, Danielle (June 14, 2016). "It's Trump's Birthday. If He Wins, He'd Be The Oldest President Ever To Take Office". NPR.
  • Schonfeld, Zach (March 29, 2016). "For Election 2016, 70 is the New 45". Newsweek.

I don't see any need for bundling footnotes like this, and so I plan to un-bundle them. If there are too many footnotes, then we can remove some, instead of creating overkill within a single footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It's an uncontroversial fact, so surely one or two references are sufficient.- MrX 22:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Two relevant resources on this subject are the guideline WP:CITEBUNDLE and the essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill. WP:CITEBUNDLE says, "Within a given article, only a single layout should be used" and that's the key point here; we need to be consistent within this article, and cite bundling is not used elsewhere.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the last two sentences of WP:CITEBUNDLE refer to the format of citebundles, not the use of citebundles within an article. - MrX 22:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Bundling opponent here. Downside exceeds upside. What if we have need for only two of those citations in another place? Not worth it to reduce the number of those ugly numbers in square brackets, which occur in every decent Wikipedia article. And I agree that it's a rare content that really needs more than three cites anyway. And I'm not above using article consistency as my argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Mandruss, I love you! I have spent so much frigging time at this article already unbundling footnotes that have five, ten, or even fifteen sources listed within them. It's totally unnecessary to have bundling, and this redlinked editor who keeps returning in a new guise is going to make me jump off a skyscraper if he keeps doing this. Am a I clear???Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're clear, and it's nice to be loved. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I also think bundling is inappropriate for this article. We have lots of sources because we need them; some of this stuff is very controversial and needs multiple sourcing. I consider that we now have consensus against bundling. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Bundling sources together

Why is this against the "rules"? Can we please stop this rule for this article, who decided that? When for 1 sentence, more than 4 sources are necessary, it's just silly to not bundle them together. Sources with vital information are getting removed by people, I'm assuming because they think there are way too many. But they are all necessary. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1937 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

We ought to be consistent throughout the article, and the custom thusfar has been to not use bundling. One reason for that is so people will reduce the number of refs and only use high-quality ones.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Well in my opinion you can't state "they are all necessary" and ask us to take your word for it. Can you say exactly why they are all necessary? If not, that's an unfounded opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Bundling isn't against da rulez but I'm generally against the practice. It inhibits reusing sources to support other content, and it encourages improper synthesis and citation overkill. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I generally don't mind bundling refs and if it aids the read, than WP:IAR and do it. That said, it's not an excuse for overcite. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Has suggested?

Latest comment: 7 years ago33 comments13 people in discussion

In the lead: Trump has suggested temporarily banning foreign Muslims from entering the United States. He did not "suggest"... See his official website; https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" - Cwobeel (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support has suggested -> is calling for, per OP and WP:PRIMARY. No interpretation of the primary source is proposed. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - More accurate/less WP:WEASELY. This should be an uncontroversial copyedit.- MrX 19:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with all, and especially Mr X - more accurate and less wp:weasly :+) No need to soften the blow (so to speak). Steve Quinn (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Apparently I'm behind the power curve here (see the discussion below). Oh well... Steve Quinn (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Foreign?

Foreign Muslims? Where did that come from? His call was for the total and complete shutdown of Muslims. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the way it's currently written ("Trump called for temporarily banning all Muslims from entering the United States") implies that Muslims who are US citizens wouldn't be able to return to the US if they traveled abroad. I don't believe anyone has suggested that to be the case. Also, at least one source uses the term "foreign Muslims" ([20]).CFredkin (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Gotta disagree with that one, unless you propose that many readers don't understand the connotation of "entering the United States". Maybe that connotation exists only in the U.S., I don't know. But I don't think Americans equate entering and returning to, at least I don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Why ware we parsing his words? That would be WP:OR. This is what is posted on Trump's website: Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". A complete shutdown is a complete shutdown. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

We've already been through this multiple times. See talk page archives 12, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 (all mentioning "foreign Mulsims"). See what the sources say (emphasis added):

Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not feeling inclined to research the archives, and consensus can change. I'm probably going to make this my last comment here. I think Trump's website is a relilable source for his political positions and views, and probably the best and most authoritative one. As long as we don't add any interpretation, using the primary is permitted per WP:PRIMARY. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is this: Trump made this call to ban all Muslims in December 2015. After that he started slowly backing away, but the lead is presenting the continuum: he first called for a total ban, then much, much later, started talking about exceptions. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The reliable secondary sources I quoted above are both from December 2015. And this is from Trump's website dated December 9, 2015: "Trump’s plan would block Muslims from entering the United States, with an exception for U.S. citizens who are Muslim, who would come and go as they wish."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We should adhere as closely as possible to Trump's own words as pointed out by Cwobeel. I've always thought "foreign Muslims" was an awkward construct, and I'm pretty sure I've removed it from the article before but it was reinserted. I would be OK with adding "...with an exception for U.S. citizens".- MrX 00:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"Foreign Muslims" sounds awkward. I prefer "all Muslims except...." I would mention too that when primary sources require interpretation, which they always do except basic information such as addresses, and therefore we should use secondary sources. My reading of Trump's statement is that he said nothing about re-entry, hence Muslims who had entered the U.S. would not necessarily be banned from re-entry. Note for example that entry certificates to the UK are typically valid for 6 months for presentation at a port of entry. But if they are presented, the person is given leave to remain for an indefinite period and may leave the country and re-enter without additional permission. Fortunately, we have secondary sources that interpret what Trump meant. TFD (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There are sources that can interpret what Trump meant? Buster Seven Talk 02:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Any time a secondary source paraphrases what someone says, instead of quoting them directly, it is interpreting what they said. Fortune ("Trump’s proposal to bar foreign Muslims"),[21] The Washington Post ("Trump first proposed banning nearly all Muslims overseas")[22] but then the WSJ just says, "banning Muslims from entering the U.S."[23] TFD (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Let his words speak for themselves. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's the problem with this. There's no context. Trump called for the ban after the San Bernardino attacks. He said he wanted a temporary ban until we find out what is going on to cause these attacks. But that's not in the article. It's by itself, floating out there which implies he just dreamed this up one day, which then implies this man was born racist, xenophobic, evil, nazi, hitler clone, think of the worst thing possible and slap it onto Trump. He did this in response to the terrorist attack in San Bernardino. The context needs to be there. "Following the attacks in San Bernardino attacks, Trump said. . ." and then quote him. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I added it here. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed it. It seems to be WP:SYNTH by implying that Trump's stated policy was the result of the San Bernardino shooting.- MrX 18:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not at all SYNTH. It is exactly what happened. He made this comment in response to the attack. I will find sources that show that and restore it. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Such as this one from CNN SW3 5DL (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, please. His xenophobia has been noted in many reliable sources. He called for a total shutdown of Muslims and in the same call he mentions his opposition to a purported Shariah law, another alt right meme. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cwobeel: "Oh, please. His xenophobia has been noted in many reliable sources." As has his xenophilia. If elected, Trump would be the most xenophilic first-term president. Cf. infobox, "Spouse(s)". --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cwobeel: OK to "let his words speak for themselves".
"Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration", Trump for President, December 7, 2015. "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
"Trump: Muslim Ban 'Just a Suggestion'", Trump for President, May 12, 2016. "CNN. Donald Trump ... said Wednesday such a ban 'hasn't been called for yet' and it was 'only a suggestion'... 'It's a temporary ban — it hasn't been called for yet, nobody's done it, this is just a suggestion until we find out what's going on', [Trump] told Fox News Radio..."
"call. intransitive verb. To make a request, appeal, or demand <he called for an investigation of the facts>."
"call for. [transitive phrasal verb]. To give an order for <legislation calling for the establishment of two new schools." --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There seems to be an undue amount of weight given to the Muslim ban through quotation, and no quotation on his later comments. Couldn't it be simplified to "Trump has called for/suggested a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to the United States, later stating that the ban would focus instead on countries with a proven history of terrorism, until the level of vetting can be raised to screen out potential terrorists."? Zaostao (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    I agree, the over-quoting is awkward reading, odd, poor & unnecessary writing. And "suggested" is verifiable clarification made by Trump. p.s. The proclivity by some editors to quote Trump out of context reminds me of similar effort regarding his original campaign statement where he said "Mexican immigrants" instead of "Mexican illegal immigrants", and at least one editor was adamant about reflecting precisely what was said w/o context or subsequent clarification (as though Trump was also referring to legal Mexican immigrants). Absurd. IHTS (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There must be context for this Muslim ban. Reliable sources show he made that statement in the wake of the 2015 San Bernardino attack. CNN and here, just to name two. He did not come up with the Muslim ban before the attack and he made the comment in response to the attack. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The current version of the Muslim ban does not present what he said and how he said it, both of which contributed greately to the notability of this aspect: "Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". NPOV is not WHITEWASH - Cwobeel (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Quick straw poll (false statements)

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments11 people in discussion

I realize there's been a lot of discussion already over the sentence about Trump having made false statements, so I apologize for yet another false-related thread. I'd like to get a quick sense of whether there is support for modifying the controversial/false/media sentences in a way similar to the following:

Current Proposed
Trump's 2016 presidential campaign has received a significant amount of media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign has received extensive media coverage and international attention, often focused on controversy surrounding many of his remarks. Political fact-checking organizations have singled him out as having made record numbers of false or misleading statements compared to modern presidential candidates.

Among other changes this would attribute the bit about him making false statements to fact-checking organizations, with context for why it's significant, and move the "controversial" bit to the previous sentence about media attention. It also drops the bit about where his remarks were made (interviews, twitter, rallies) in an effort to be concise, though the added attribution makes the sentences a bit longer overall. ~Awilley (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I agree that "the added attribution makes the sentences a bit longer overall", and that seems like a good reason to postpone the attribution to later in the BLP (where it presently exists). The overall length of the proposed material would, in my opinion, bring undue emphasis and attention to the matter. If any attribution is used for this in the lead, it ought to be briefer, such as the one word "reportedly" which is allowed per WP:Weasel. But leaving it as-is seems preferable, because it is not clearly accusing Trump of falsehoods, but rather suggesting that he may have uttered falsities. The long RFC was well-attended, and we probably ought to let things remain as they are for the time being.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this, Awilley; I like your new wording and would support adding it to the text of the article. (One wording tweak: "...compared to other modern presidential candidates.") However, I think it would be UNDUE for the lede. I also think we ought to respect the long and well-attended RfC we just had on the subject and not try to change it further. Incidentally there were a bunch of stories on this topic over the weekend from mainstream newspapers, so it's not just fact-checking organizations now, and I may add something about that to the text. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Awilley, with utmost respect: The first sentence is fine, but the second is not consistent with the widespread view that he has made and continues to make many false statements. That view is not limited to fact-checking organizations, as has already been amply demonstrated. "... singled him out..." has the (unintentional) tone of making Trump seem like the victim. As we know, Clinton's fibs and fabrications have also been exposed by fact-checking organizations.- MrX 17:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the proposed change would be UNDUE for the lede. It is already well said and succinctly said. And I agree that we should respect the RFC. If you want add more in the body of the article based on previous assessments by political fact checking organizations and what just came out over the weekend by other mainstream newspapers, I have no problem with that. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with the others. As MrX says, The first sentence seems fine, and I agree, but the falsehoods are not limited to fact checking organizations. Also, I do think it a bit undue for the lede, but fine for later in the article. Also, I'm a bit bothered by the 'record numbers' bit. Who are they comparing his falsehoods to? Other presidential candidates making false statements over what time period? He lies about his lies anyway. They all do, so I don't know that 'record numbers' is needed. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Far too much weight given, although I agree that some in-text attribution could be given, but it should be more like anythingyouwant's suggestion of having a "reportedly" or similar before false. Zaostao (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback on this. I think most of you hit on my biggest concern and biggest struggle while writing the suggestion...how to include attribution without undue emphasis for the Lead. Having the "false" bit unattributed has been bugging me for some time now, but I can't seem to figure out a good way to fix it. @MrX, while writing I actually looked up "singled out" in a thesaurus but couldn't find a better substitute. @SW3, the "record numbers" is compared to all the other presidential candidates they've ever fact checked. @Anythingyouwant, saying that many of his statements were "reportedly false" just sounds silly. Anyway, I've pushed this attribution issue as far as I care to, and will stop now. ~Awilley (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Undue emphasis for such a tightly packed lead section, and it's not just the fact checkers that have said many of his statements have been false. There is no need for in-text attribution; the verifiability of the content was established in the recent RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Political fact-checking organizations have singled him out as having made record numbers of false or misleading statements compared to modern presidential candidates" makes it sounds like the fact-checking organizations are doing so unfairly, when they are not. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. New wording is plainly non-neutral due to the wording "singled him out", although I'm fairly sure that wasn't your intent. ~ Rob13Talk 23:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "singled him out" does indeed seem problematic in its wording. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 15:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Opposition to Iraq War

Latest comment: 7 years ago26 comments9 people in discussion

I object to this edit. We now say that "Trump endorsed the invasion of Iraq in September 2002." But Politifact says Trump publicly dialed back that statement that he had made on the Howard Stern show, prior to the invasion. Why should we omit that Trump dialed it back? Here's what Politifact writes about it (emphasis added):

I don't think this is a revisonist apology by Politifact, and I don't understand why User:Wikidemon wants to hide that Trump dialed back what he said on the Stern show. Moreover, we are characterizing the words "I guess so" as an endorsement, without saying it was hesitant or weak and without quoting it, and I would hardly characterize such a brief and vague statement as an "endorsement" without explaining further as I did before Wikidemon erased the explanation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump's initial "support" of the war was off-handed and lukewarm at best. The way the paragraph is written makes it look like he travelled back in time from 2016 to 2002 and made a policy decision. I think we should quote him directly and put his comment in the proper (but brief) context. Sean Hannity is not the proper context. Perhaps you can find some sources (in addition to Politifact) that accomplishes that.- MrX 12:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, and therefore I plan to revert the edit discussed above, and add another footnote to the Politifact footnote, such as this: "2003 clip backs up Trump on Iraq War opposition", Fox News (September 27, 2016). Both Politifact and Fox support the material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
"Hesitantly" should be left because it's editorializing. "a future" should be left out. It will be clear from the next sentence that the war had not yet started.- MrX 21:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The word "hesitantly" was used twice by the cited source. Would your term "offhandedly" be better?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, I looked at PolitiFact. I'm fine with 'hesitantly' since that's what a source used.- MrX 21:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
More detail (also from Politifact) that can be used: "The United States invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003. A week later Trump gave differing takes. At an Academy Awards after-party, Trump said that 'the war’s a mess,' according to the Washington Post. He told Fox News that because of the war, 'The market’s going to go up like a rocket.' Trump’s harshest criticism came more than a year into the war, in an August 2004 article in Esquire." – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Details about what he said after the invasion began can probably be located at the sub-article instead of here. As for stuff he said publicly before the invasion, I have inserted a close paraphrase. That way we don't have to get bogged down by deciding which characterizations of what he said are worth including.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The close paraphrase has been immediately reverted.[24] The stated reason is that it is "pro-Trump". I would like to say that I find this kind of reversion deeply offensive, because it is becoming an issue of censorship; apparently it is forbidden to paraphrase what Trump said between his statement on the Stern show and the launch of the war. WP:Preserve is policy, but it is being disregarded here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You are methodically cleansing the article. @Somedifferentstuff: has valid reasons to revert and to request that you discuss your changes on the talk page. This edit you call an update when in fact its more a removal of sources that contradict what Trump is claiming today. You have removed proof of the lie. With this edit you have removed a quote, a rather damaging quote, in order to soften any accusation of wrongdoing. "reducing partisan material" at the rate you are proceeding requires some editor consensus. No need to feel offended. Buster Seven Talk 12:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The first edit you point to didn't remove any sources as far as I can tell; can you please say what in particular you object to about that edit? And the second edit you refer to had nothing to do with Iraq.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind. I'm getting dizzy trying to figure out whats going on. Buster Seven Talk 05:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Directly quoting Trump from 2002 interview

Due to the controversy surrounding Trump's initially stated view on the war, I can think of no better way to clarify this than directly quoting him.

From the present article: In 2002, when asked about whether he supported invading Iraq, Trump responded, "Yeah, I guess so ... I wish the first time it was done correctly."[416][417][418]

I can't think of a more straight-forward or neutral way of presenting this material. Thoughts. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to including that direct quote, provided we also give a direct quote from January 2003 when Trump dialed it back. Regarding Bush's plan for an invasion of Iraq, Trump said in January 2003 that Bush "perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations....I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned." Alternatively, here is a close paraphrase:

References

  1. ^ Carroll, Lauren and Greenburg, Jon. "Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War", Politifact (September 7, 2016).
  2. ^ "2003 clip backs up Trump on Iraq War opposition", Fox News (September 27, 2016).

How does it serve our readers to pretend he never said any of this?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing in that indicates either support or opposition. Saying something could be bad isn't opposing it. In that same interview, he also says that Bush should "either do it or don’t do it" and the only thing he seems to be critical of is the hesitation to go to war. I don't think the article would be served by getting into the weeds of vague statements that neither show support nor opposition, in particular when it's coming from users who previously advocated trimming down the political positions section. The article already includes Trump's statements where he actually opposes the war from 2004 onwards. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Both of the cited sources directly contradict you. They both say he was dialing back his "I guess so" remark.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Fox News is garbage. As for PolitiFact, other fact-checkers don't interpret Trump's ramblings in the same way. Factcheck.org says that Trump "offers no opinion on what Bush should do" in his Cavuto exchange[25], AP says "Trump suggested the economy and threats from North Korea posed greater problems for then-President George W. Bush than Iraq, but he did not say he opposed a possible invasion"[26]. To say that "he publicly indicated that maybe an Iraq invasion should not be launched yet" is unsubstantiated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course it's substantiated. Trump said that Bush "perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet". But you say we should just hide all of it. No quoting, no paraphrasing, no nothing. Wonderful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The same man in the same interview also said that Bush should "either do it or don’t do it". You're cherrypicking vague ramblings across numerous issues to inaccurately give the impression that Trump voiced anything close to opposition to the war, something which every fact-checker rejects. Unless Trump actually voices opposition or support for the war, his ramblings don't merit inclusion, especially given the length constraints that I believe you previously advocated for. It of course deserves mention on the separate Political Positions page where nearly every quote and mention of an issue merits inclusion. To add it to this page would be undue, given the length constraints that have been instituted and led to a massive trimming and simplification of content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You're now making up quotations out of thin air. Trump said, "he has either got to do something or not do something". I indeed don't think that should be included because it's merely a statement of the obvious. I have no idea how you can reasonably get from excluding that to excluding everything that reliable sources say dialed back the "I guess so" statement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you (Anythingyouwant) are playing games with the sources. What you're doing is subtle (and thus all the more pernicious), which is why I think other editors have intuited that you're doing something that's not above-board, but are having trouble putting their fingers on it. To be clear, when it comes to Trump and the Iraq War, the central point emphasized by reliable sources is that Trump has repeatedly lied about opposing the war, and continues to lie about it despite being called out repeatedly. Sources are numerous, and include:

  • Los Angeles Times: "Trump repeated the falsehood that he opposed the war in Iraq since before it was launched, a claim he has frequently made throughout the campaign"
  • CNBC: "Donald Trump again lies about his opposition to Iraq War"
  • Fortune: "Trump has repeatedly and falsely claimed that he never supported the Iraq War."
  • Politifact Feb 2016: Rated Trump's claims about opposition to Iraq War "false".
  • Washington Post: "[Trump] repeatedly claims he opposed the war from the beginning — and thus, earns Four Pinocchios."
  • Politifact Sept 2016: Again rated Trump's claims about opposition to the war as "false": "The record does not support Trump’s repeated assertions that he opposed the war prior to the 2003 invasion."

... and so on. The overwhelming weight of reliable sources indicate that Trump's position on the Iraq War is notable for his repeated falsehoods about having opposed it before its inception. An honest attempt to follow reliable sources would reflect this. Instead we have an editor cherry-picking from sources, even going so far as to use a source calling out Trump's repeated lies to instead water down clear and accurate language in the article. We need language that clearly and proportionately reflects the content of reliable sources, rather than a series of cherry-picked quotes designed to confuse the issue. MastCell Talk 00:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with this BLP stating that Trump supported the Iraq invasion according to numerous reports about his appearance on the Stern show. But I do have a problem with completely omitting his subsequent statement on January 28, 2003 dialing back his previous "I guess so" support for the Iraq invasion. The January 28 stuff has been reported in reliable sources and seems to be uncontradicted. I think it is pernicious for us to censor it. As for what Trump said after the invasion started (up to and including 2016), I have not expressed much of an opinion about how we should describe that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It's pernicious to use the word "censor" when the topic of this thread is balanced weight.
I do not think it is necessary to include the quote. Trump says he opposed the war, reliable sources say he did not, at least in public. If people want to read the arguments about how to interpret his statements in 2001-3, they can go to the sources. If we take the view lets present what he said and let the reader decide, which I think we should not do, then in fairness we should present all his quotes. TFD (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Trump told Howard Stern he guessed it was okay. At least what I've read, and listening to the replay of the Howard Stern show for that interview. Later, there are reliable sources quoting him as not being in support. I think what is more important here is that Trump was not an elected official, he wasn't a member of the U.S. Senate voting for the war in the Iraq, like say, Senator Hillary Clinton. So if we're talking about due weight, then his comments on the war have as much weight as the everday citizen's opposition to the war in Iraq. Wikipedia cannot react to the current over reporting of Trump's comment to Stern. This is an encyclopedia article, not a news report. If Trump had been a senator or congressman voting on whether or not to support the war, then yes, the weight would be there. But his comments at the time did nothing to move the needle one way or the other. And there are sources that take note of the fact that Trump was not an elected official at the time, and if you want to include so much, then include that. And I'd add, that I agree with Anythingyouwant. Trump's statement on January 28, 2003 needs to be included. This seems to be what Trump is attempting to explain, but it keeps getting denied by the media. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
As MastCell clearly demonstrated above, the majority of sources headline Trump's not telling the truth. It is our job as editors, per WP:Weight, to make mention of this. The sources aren't focused on the fact that he was a private citizen at the time (which everyone is already aware of), they are focused on the fact that as a politician today, he is trying to cover up the historical record from his 2002 interview. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_27&oldid=1077843606"