Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 85

Archive 80

←

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

→

Archive 90

Wealth – Fred Trump's estate

Challenging this removal of long-standing version. After JFG removed the second source, only the NY Times obituary remained. I have recently learned that news outlets prepare obituaries of the "rich and famous" years in advance with the assistance of the prospective eulogizees who – of course – want the obit to contain the facts and nothing but the facts (and pigs flying in formation at the funeral). The obit says that Fred Trump's "estate has been estimated by the family at $250 million to $300 million" but it doesn't say who made that estimate or when; the removed article (the only source for the inheritance part) mentions the unveiling of Fred Sr.’s will, which Donald had helped draft. It divided the bulk of the inheritance, at least $20 million, among his children and their descendants, “other than my son Fred C. Trump Jr.” "Estate" and "inheritance" are two very different concepts; for one thing, very little is known about how much of the Trump Organization property was owned by Fred, how much by Donald, how much by uncle John, and how much by other family members (you can give gifts to your children, for example) or how much personal wealth - apart from the business - Fred had. Also, NY has spousal right of election, i.e., Fred's wife would have inherited at least 30%. Mentioning any dollar amount is pure guesswork - we should remove it. We should add that the deceased son Fred Trump Jr. and his descendants were disinherited and that his children sued Trump and his siblings for their share of the inheritance, claiming that they had exerted undue influence upon their grandfather, who had dementia, to exclude them from his will. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along and discuss article contents? — JFG talk 17:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So you decided to edit war/revert instead of discuss here first or talk to JFG about his good faith edits first? That action is the kind of thing that pisses editors off, creates hard feelings, creates dissention, creates disruption. WP:BRD is good, but with DS, just reverting back and starting discussion later ends up creating days, weeks, months of discussion that pretty much hamstrings editors following policy. Ugh. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Huh? Wrong again, Winkelvi. That "kind of thing" is exactly what bullet 1 of the editing restrictions is referring to with "edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." It's called ROUTINE PROCESS. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC) I'm entitled to my opinion on "routine process" and am free to express my feelings about what's becoming a real problem rather than a solution. Further, nothing is written in stone here policy-wise. Things can, do, and should change as the environment changes and as the need arises. Surely, even you - who spends a lot of energy opposing so much of what I say and do in Wikipedia - can see that BRD is increasingly being abused under the current routine process being enforced via DS at the politically-based articles. Fact: talking/discussing first at articles such as this one is always better than reverting first. One encourages collaboration, the other creates animosity. Aren't you tired of this seemingly endless hostile editing environment? I know I am. Something needs to change. Soon. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC) No, I do not see that. What I see is some editors who really hate the process because it stands between them and what they, in their vastly superior wisdom, "know" is right for Wikipedia content. Which is precisely why we need the process. Yes, you can expect strong pushback from me anytime I see you jump in an editor's shit for following the rules. If you want to file an editor behavior complaint, AE is that way. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC) You've been pushing back at me for much more than that and for quite awhile. A couple of years, I think? I seem to remember an incident where you even logged out to do it as an IP and then attempted to justify the behavior when you were caught. So, considering all this, I think it's a fair assessment that your "pushback" where I'm concerned goes beyond what you claim it's about. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Typical. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC) "BRD is increasingly being abused under the current routine process being enforced via DS"??? BRD does not apply, in the normal sense, on DS articles. Get used to it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Don't know how you came to that conclusion. 'B' = edit made; 'R' = revert as edit is challenged; 'D' = bring up the challenge on the talk page. DS = "Consensus required. All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged". (i.e., the 'D' in BRD). And that creates the hamstring: there are editors who revert to their preferred version (usually on the basis of their personal bias and political beliefs), may or may not start a discussion to reach consensus, when they do they keep the discussion going long enough to wear out the one making the original edit that was reverted or go back and forth endlessly with no consensus being reached. Final result: status-quo remains in place - then lather, rinse, repeat. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: You make a good point; it had escaped me that the obituary did not specifically mention the beneficiaries of the inheritance, although it did name all surviving heirs. I saw the contradiction in estate values and decided to keep the obit source for two reasons:

1. It was written in 1999, contemporary to Fred Trump's death, and is therefore immune from Donald Trump's future endeavours and commentary stemming from his candidacy, whereas the other source is from early 2016 in the heat of the primary campaign.
2. Other sources cited in the wealth section indicate that in 1993 Donald Trump borrowed $30 million from his siblings' trust, guaranteed by $35 million from his future inheritance. Considering that Fred's fortune was ultimately shared a few years later among 4 surviving children and a number of grandchildren (and possibly his wife Mary, who died in 2000), it would be contradictory to have the total worth just "more than $20 million". A rough calculation of $35 million times 4 children gives a minimum of $140 million, which is more in line with the obituary's estimate of $250–300 million. (I do understand this reasoning may be construed as OR, but it is OK to cross-examine contradictory sources.)

For both sources, we do not know where their estimates of Fred's estate come from, and that is indeed an issue. We are not privy to any financial arrangements that Fred may have set up before his death, or how the family trusts were structured. Hopefully we can find another source more focused on this aspect, which could replace them both. In the interim, I would agree with your suggestion to simply dispense with a value. — JFG ^talk 18:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I found a couple of sources (they were already being used in the article, for Forbes and the Grand Hyatt, respectively) that answered some questions, but the picture is still murky. I added a paragraph about the trust funds Fred had set up above the business/Forbes stuff and moved the sentence about Fred's will into the new paragraph. $20 million seems to be correct, per Kessler/WaPo and Queens Surrogate Court records; looks like the big rest of the fortune was placed in trusts before then. I had to keep the wording somewhat vague, but I don't think I misunderstood or misinterpreted the sources or added POV. I didn't try to address Fred's loans to Trump, buying of casino chips, Fred Jr.'s children's contesting the will, etc. O'Brien's article is an excerpt of Chapter 6, TrumpBroke, of O'Brien's book Trump Nation; it has a lot more detail about the Trump's history with Forbes, so I'll be rereading in light of recent revelations (Greenberg etc.). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This is very constructive research, and these are the kinds of sources we need to avoid editorial OR decisions as to weight of primary and contemporaneous secondary references and other less reliable less carefully researched narratives. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Good job, thanks. I tweaked the wording a bit,[1] especially to avoid repeats. — JFG ^talk 22:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You did more than tweak the wording, you changed it so that it no longer accurately reflects the sources. We need to stick to the sources; please self-revert. Important distinction: The sources say that the Fred's children anticipated each one’s share to be around $35 million, not how much was in the trust funds then or later. Trump's siblings were able to loan him a total of $30 million in 1993 against an IOU on his anticipated share of Fred's fortune, but we don't know whether that money came from the trusts, the banks, or their own personal petty cash. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have amended the wording according to sources and placed everything in chronological order for clarity.[2] Also noted that sources put the amount borrowed between $10 and $30 million depending who you ask. Tell me what you think. — JFG ^talk 22:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Mixing up Trump’s inherited wealth with Forbes 400, Deutsche Bank etc. assessments in one big paragraph based on chronological order is muddling the issues. They’re separate issues and for clarity’s sake should be kept separate. As for the loans from the siblings, the sources concur on loans totalling (d’Antonio) $30 million: $10 million in 1993, another $20 million a year later (O’Brien). For the first loan he had to "sign a promissory note pledging future distributions from his trust fund", for the second one his siblings made him agree "that whatever he failed to pay back would be taken out of his share of their father's estate" (I don't know what that distinction means). As an aside - not planning to put that into the article: According to O’Brien he needed $10 million a year just to cover "his living and office expenses" (Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago, other estates, the jet, alimony, child support, etc.); presumably even Deutsche Bank would have balked at forking over money for those purposes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you'd rather have a paragraph on trusts and inheritance, and then a paragraph on the part of his fortune that he built himself. As a reader, I prefer a chronological description of events, so that for example when discussing the 1999 inheritance, we can refer to what was written earlier about family trusts established decades earlier, or the Fortune listing of the 80s. No intent to muddle at all, quite the contrary: because the story of Trump's fortunes is complex and shrouded in secrecy, it's our duty as encyclopedists to try and bring some clarity and order based on a well-written digest of nuggets of information distilled from available sources. I'd love to continue our dialogue towards improvement of this section; no energy to work further today, though. — JFG ^talk 20:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

"public statements were controversial or false." This is an uncited claim, and as such falls under "opinion," especially the "false" part. Please either cite the claim or remove it, and ensure that proper distinction is provided between controversial and false claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.36 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done – This issue has been discussed extensively in many threads, and the wording has reached a clear consensus (see current consensus item #7 for links to relevant archives). Also please note that the lede section does not require citations per WP:CITELEAD, as long as the appropriate citations are included in the article body. — JFG ^talk 18:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"Passing" the Montreal Cognitive Assessment

The very last sentence in [Health section] needs to be edited.

I administer the mental health assessment in question (as a geriatric social worker), and it's not an assessment that you can "pass" or "fail." It's used in patients with cognitive concerns to assess their level of functioning, either at one moment in time or relative the points in to past. A score of at least 26 out of 30 is considered "normal," and this is the wording that should be used, if results must be described in such terms. However, the scores on this assessment are usually used in conjunction with other observations to assess a patient's overall cognitive state. A score of 26 or above isn't just a clean bill of cognitive health.

For example, a patient might make an appointment to see a neurologist because of concerns over her failing memory. The neurologist would administer this assessment at her first visit. The results would give a picture of the patient's current cognitive functioning. This score would be recorded as a baseline. At future visits--maybe once a year or every 18-24 months--the neurologist might RE-administer the assessment to track the patient's decline in cognitive functioning. Over time, a patient with a degenerative disorder would see their score fall gradually from the baseline.

Neurologists will combine the results of this assessment with other information to take various actions and make various recommendations (e.g., that the patient stop driving, or that the family secure in-home help to ensure the patient's safety, or that the patient seek supportive housing or a nursing home placement).

Anyway, in short, there's no score on this assessment that's considered passing or failing. Even when using it as a shorthand for having gotten a score on the assessment that's 26 or above, using the word "pass" in this context is misleading and inaccurate, intentional or not. I'd recommend something like:

Trump was administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and received a score of 30/30, indicating a normal level of cognitive function.

Or

Trump was administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the results of which indicated a normal level of cognitive function.

"Pass" and "fail" are not only misleading terms in this context, but they're also heavily biased--lending subtle but undeniable credence to the politically skewed narrative of his excellent health. Not very Wikipedia-y.

ps: I also recommended changing the "Trump requested..." part of the sentence, because there's no way of knowing whether that's actually true, and it doesn't matter anyway--why inject the unnecessary bias in there? The only thing we "know" is that he was given the assessment during his exam, so that's all we should write. Just a personal gripe there though.

Heykerriann (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer the former restatement, namely: "Trump was administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and received a score of 30/30, indicating a normal level of cognitive function." Properly cited and sourced, this sentence would bridge the gap between the medical facts and layman readability. (I agree with the postscript, but that's for another time, perhaps?) — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 13:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with "normal level of cognitive function" instead of "passed". I think we could keep "30 out of 30". I think we should keep the "Trump requested" part of the report; that's important because to leave it out might imply that Jackson gave it to him because of some doubts about his cognitive function. What is now in the article is "Trump requested to undergo a cognition test, and received a score of 30/30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.[77]" I think we should add "indicating a normal level of cognitive function." Without that it sounds like "ooh, perfect score!" as Trump himself bragged. We should make clear that it merely indicates "normal". --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I prefer Javert2113's edition of the content, but would like to see "...received a score of 30/30, indicating a normal level of cognitive function" to be tweaked as "...received a score of 30/30, indicating cognitive function within normal limits." -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Having read the above comments, I have two options to present:

1. "Trump requested, and was administered, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment; he received a score of 30/30, indicating cognitive function within normal limits."
2. "Trump requested, and was administered, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment; he received a score of 30/30, indicating no cognitive impairment."

Thoughts on either one? I'm partial to the former. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 15:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the first but would accept the second. Both are improvements over what we had to start with, so thank you everybody for the productive discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

3. Remove from the article. It's really only meaningful because we know that there was background chatter about POTUS being senile or stupid or something. But we don't state that. So by itself, this is really adding no value to the article. It's not meaningful or informative any more than his shoe size or similar details. Besides, its highly doubtful that Trump would waste his time or Ronny Jackson's actually working through the Assessment. This was all just for post-exam spin. That's how RS describe everything about Trump's medical "reports". SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I have often seen you mention your theory that Trump didn't really take the cognitive test, i.e., Jackson lied about it. I have never seen a Reliable Source mention that possibility. So when you cite it as a reason to omit something, I for one don't give it any credence. There has been far more speculation about Trump's mental competence than about his cardiac health, so IMO this is a valid thing to include in our report. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe, SPECIFICO, that we can necessarily assume Rear Admiral Jackson lied: such a thing would chip away at his credibility, and thus (possibly) harm him at his next review for licensure. And that would be bad for him. All in all, I suppose we must believe Admiral Jackson based on the reliable sources doing so. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 18:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I do admit, the sudden change from cholesterol to possible cognitive decline is somewhat jarring... — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 16:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why Trump would lie about taking the test, but I agree with SPECIFICO that there's no real need to have this information in this article. We wouldn't include information about a standard health check revealing no health concerns on any other person. I'm happy with either of Javert2113's wordings if the sentence is kept. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why lie? Less work. But anyway I think the way this would fit into the article is in a general discussion of the unusual statements Trump is known for making, whether provocative, false, ignorant, or seemingly confused. All of these behaviors relate to an underlying phenomenon that has been discussed in RS sources. Citing the instances of this behavior (including individual reactions "he's a moron" "he's a racist", etc.) is not encyclopedic unless a single such behavior turns out to change the course of history. So far so good on that one, but the behaviors have been widely discussed. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole sentence should be removed. This cognitive test was requested following intense speculation by the press on Trump's mental faculties. Now that all the fuss has died down, this episode lacks weight for this BLP. — JFG ^talk 20:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, the "remove" folks are right: let's not give this fact too much weight in our overall analysis. As I put it in, I'll take it out; no doubt discussion will continue occurring, but given my earlier worry about the sudden change in scope, I think this merits removal for now from this BLP. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 22:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm just going to repeat my post from last time this topic came up: In addition to this book, take a look at this, which highlights it and notes both the conclusions and the limitations of the MoCA test. I think that the book combined with that paper is sufficient to devote a sentence to the concerns about his mental health, to note the test, and finally to note the test's limitations. Additional coverage of it is here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I think we should absolutely note the concerns about his mental health (but cite them to better sources than op-eds and to WP:PRIMARY press speculation; we have better sources than that available.) Then we can mention the test score and the discussion of what it means, probably with one sentence for each of those three points. (Possibly this would require a new RFC on how to cover his mental health; note that the vast majority of sources linked above are from 2018 - after the most recent RFC there was a lot more coverage. Though either way, my reading of the RFC outcomes is that we can note that general concern about his mental health exists in coverage and among political commentators provided we do not specifically mention any opinions by mental health professionals who have not examined him.)--Aquillion (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE chitchat from Marketwatch.com

This edit [3] reinstates content that amounts to idle chatter of the sort routinely published on financial markets daily information websites. Our text says "experts" wheras the sources named in the article appear to be non-notable, self-interested parties such as real estate brokers unqualified to make such predictions. The following sentence makes a broad statement about condominiums, whereas the cited source is discussing possible demand for Trump-affiliated properties due to conflict of interest favor-seeking. This speculative content is UNDUE, poorly sourced, dubious, and inessential to POTUS biography. It should once again be removed. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The Market Watch article was originally published in Mansion Global, a professional real estate publication; I will update the citation accordingly. This article reports on interviews with several experts of the NYC real estate market, and is therefore a credible source. The only problem is that it's speculative; as I said in my edit summary, we should look for a more recent source that would show hard data about the purported rebound in the market value of Trump Organization-owned property. The second article cited from USA Today is a bit more recent (April 2017); again it interviews real estate agents who give their on-the-ground evaluation of the market. If all of this is considered undue, then we should also remove all the prior reporting on reduction in value of commercial properties due to diminished bookings and foot traffic allegedly following boycotts. I believe it is more informative for our readers to keep it all in. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Mansion Global is most definitely not RS for economic or market forecasts. It's a sales organ for retail brokers and intra-industry promotion. There is no expertise, critical evaluation or other editorial process at that publication that would qualify its predictions as RS. I already explained why those brokers are not "experts" on economic trends or privce predictions. They are salespeople. There is no rational basis to assert any equivalency between what you recently re-added and the other content whcih relates to factual reporting. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The source does not pretend to engage in "economic or market forecasts"; it specifically examines the dynamics of NYC real estate demand, and what is happening to Trump-branded properties, based on their daily experience on the ground. That's RS enough. — JFG ^talk 05:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Not only is that particular comment "undue chitchat", I think the whole paragraph may be "undue chitchat". No one has any numbers to prove that his brand has gained or lost value, it's all speculation. What would people think about removing the whole paragraph? Or at least moving it to The Trump Organization instead of here in his biography? --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, 2 in a row. I removed that whole bit when I first saw it, and if anything it's getting less relevant and more stale with age. To the extent any of that is relevant to this article, we now have actual empirical data that relate to the same phenomena. One interesting development has been the ongoing battles of tenants and condo owners in Trump-branded projects to remove the Trump name from their properties. There is growing concern that it impairs the resale value of the apartments, even in Trump Tower, where some listings have languished. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. For now, I've changed the wording to reflect the sources more accurately. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A web search on "Trump condo sales" gives lots of top-tier RS discussion of the glut of Trump condos, the taint of his unpopularity on resale values, and the fall in sale price per square foot. The only Trump-branded condos that appear not to have suffered these declines are in a building in Las Vegas, NV, USA. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's three of us saying, remove the paragraph that tries to track what has happened to the value of the Trump "brand" due to his campaign for and election to the presidency. Does anyone object to removing it? Let's wait a little longer for people to chime in. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Make that 4, MelanieN. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Aye. Remove it, please. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 15:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the current content needs to be removed, for sure, but there may be well-sourced relevant content if indeed there's a documented pattern of distress in the market for Trump condos and it is reliably attributed to the branding. That will need some further research. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

WTH, MelanieN - you removed the wrong section!!! ............ didn't want you to feel left out. Seriously, wouldn't it be wonderful if it could always be this easy? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Amazing what calm, civil discussion can accomplish. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Now you know why we missed you during your seemingly endless vacation - off having fun in the sun while the only tans we got came from the light of our LCD monitors. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Late comment, just to say I agree with removal by MelanieN. Wealth section is long enough. — JFG ^talk 20:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Unconstructive chatter — JFG talk 21:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Surely you're aware you could have self-reverted at any time. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 1) You removed content and I reverted it; that's called a "challenged edit" and the onus was on you to obtain consensus, not on me to self-revert. 2) You opened the discussion to seek input from other editors than you and me. 3) The discussion ended up erasing the whole part dabbling in the purported impact of Trump's election on his fortunes, whether positive or negative; my initial edit was restoring a positive impact after you had deleted it in order to keep only the negative impact. 4) NPOV = either mention positive and negative impact, or none; this is why I agree to the full removal, while I disagreed with your partial removal. — JFG talk 13:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC) We all know the sequence of events -- no need for the handy recap. The point is it that this was obviously bad content. So by reinstating it under DS restrictions, it you forced a needless thread that accomplished nothing but a waste of editor time and attention while other more important issues are pending and unaddressed. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Please do not lecture me about what you consider "bad content" and "needless threads". — JFG talk 14:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC) SPECIFICO, it is incorrect to say that this discussion accomplished nothing. It accomplished the removal of the whole paragraph. That was not even on the table to start with, but came up during discussion and was then agreed to. In other words this was a productive discussion with a consensus result, and the outcome was different from what would have happened if JFG had self-reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC) I'm not following that, Melanie. I had already removed this obviously UNDUE content the first time it was put in the article. How are we better off repeatedly inserting stuff that had no consensus and then repeatedly dredging up arguments and going through the process of removing it again? And then for the re-inserting editor not to put us out of our misery once he changed his mind makes no sense at all. I would hope that, once JFG realized that the reinsertion was a mistake, the whole thing could have been self-reverted to end the pointless relitigation. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC) The diff you cite at the beginning of this discussion only shows him restoring a single phrase to the paragraph. So presumably that is what you meant this discussion to be about. And that is what you and JFG then began to debate - that one phrase, that one source. And just now when you suggested JFG self-revert, that one phrase was presumably what you were talking about. If you intended for this discussion to be about removing the entire paragraph, you didn't make that clear - and the idea didn't explicitly come up until I suggested it the next day. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Yes, Melanie, you did good with that one, but I doubt JFG's insistence in favor of the keeping bad sentence was intended to work against keeping the whole bad paragraph. 👩‍🔧 SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Presidential salary

I recently added a mention of Trump's unusual practice of donating his presidential salary to various government agencies.[4] SPECIFICO disagreed,[5] so let's hear from other editors. I believe that a short mention of this fact is relevant. I placed it at the end of the Wealth section, just after we show Trump's annual revenue from his business, so that readers have a better understanding of his sources of income. — JFG ^talk 22:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was already in the article. It's worth a mention (although not an update every quarter when he announces his latest donation). BTW it's not THAT unusual. John F. Kennedy and Herbert Hoover did the same; in fact we have a whole article about such people.[6] --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was there earlier too; did not care to check when/how it had been removed. — JFG ^talk 14:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not "unusual" at all. Please tell us why you think this is "relevant" and relevant to what and why this would go in his bio rather than in his Presidency article? A $400,000 pre-tax donation is not unusual for a person of Trump's wealth. Thousands of Americans donate more than this amount annually. Also, what's the relevance to his business income? Scripture tells us to donate 10%, not 1/10 of 1%. It doesn't diminish his after tax income enough to invalidate the preceding figures. It's trivia at best. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Only 3 presidents out of 45 forgoing their salary is definitely unusual. Relevance is in the eye of the beholder, so let's wait for more comments by other editors. And what's the relevance of scripture in this discussion? — JFG ^talk 14:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Please respond to the given question Please tell us why you think this is "relevant" and relevant to what and why this would go in his bio rather than in his Presidency article? A $400,000 pre-tax donation is not unusual for a person of Trump's wealth. Thousands of Americans donate more than this amount annually. Also, what's the relevance to his business income? This bit is already in the Presidency article. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Correct, and so is yours. We happen to disagree, no big deal. This is why, after your revert, I opened the discussion to the wider community of interested editors. — JFG ^talk 18:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't state my personal opinion. I have none. This is pretty simple: You proposed to include the bit about the "donation". I asked you to justify your POV according to the editorial standard of relevance. The onus is on you. If you decline to respond, the content is not going to remain in the article. Please tell us why you think this is "relevant" and relevant to what and why this would go in his bio rather than in his Presidency article? A $400,000 pre-tax donation is not unusual for a person of Trump's wealth. Thousands of Americans donate more than this amount annually. Also, what's the relevance to his business income? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It is fine in the wealth section, as long as we don't make any comment saying it unusual or something along those lines. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Why does this trivia belong in an encyclopedia? We don't mention the amount of the Presidential salary, so it's not like we need to mention some purported offset. SPECIFICO talk 12:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem to have enough weight/importance to me. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Sure, if you include the fact that Trump continually violates the emoluments clause(1,2,3) and the amount he charges the secret service to use his golf carte at Mar Lago far exceeds the 400k salary he donates.(1,2) Dave Dial (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Expenses related to the presidency are not income for the President; you may find Trump's golfing unfair, but that's not what we are discussing here. Regarding the emoluments clause, it is prudent to wait until one of the legal cases raised produces some kind of outcome. — JFG ^talk 18:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

First, you're wrong. Second, it's context. If Trump is donating his 400k salary, but costing the taxpayers X-amount more because of his golfing trips to his private golfing resorts, while profiting from those trips(you know, because he owns the place), it's about context. Expenses related to the president are most definitely income, if you are paying yourself. You don't put in one thing without mentioning the other. They are not separate, contextually speaking. Now that, is weight and NPOV. Dave Dial (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Requirements for inclusion: widespread coverage by RS, and relevance to the article. That appears to be the prevailing inclusion argument for inclusion of the occasional trivial material such as heel spurs and not asking God for forgiveness, along with all the speculation and unfounded claims. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The source does not say Trump donated his salary, but that Sarah Sanders told the press he did. So there is no reliable source for the claim. Based on past claims by Trump about donations to charity, the claim is dubious. Probably best to ignore unless there is confirmation one way or another. TFD (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting you should catch that, TFD, cause I was about to remark that this sounded like one of SHS's canards. At any rate this is a long article that needs lots of less newsy content with more breadth and perspective. I hope you'll be more active here because, as you know, I have long valued your contributions in many topic areas. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources confirm he did donate [7] [8] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Glad that's cleared up, thanks. Now we just have the UNDUE, contextualization, irrelevancy, and insignificance issues to resolve. SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• This belongs in "Presidency of Donald Trump", once his term has ended and there is proof that he has actually donated his entire salary and where the donations went. So far - after some prodding by the media - he has made some tax-deductible donations of his tax-payer funded salary to tax-payer funded government agencies whose "official" funding he has slashed by much more. Also, it isn't uncommon for independently rich office holders to donate their salaries; just to name a few: Kennedy (presidential and Senate salaries), mayor Michael Bloomberg, governor Mitt Romney, governor Schwarzenegger, and their bios don’t mention it. Meanwhile, the airfare alone for Trump’s 2017 trips to Mar-a-Lago was more than $6 million. For Trump’s 2017 Mar-a-Lago New Year’s eve bash, the Secret Service "spent $26,457.28 to rent lights, generators, tables and tents from companies near President Donald Trump’s Florida estate…" Maybe the next check should go to the EPA; they need it to pay for Pruitt’s $43,000 phone booth and a few bottles of moisturizer with ylang ylang, jasmine, and just a spritz of that "uplifting bergamotte" so Pruitt won’t have to deploy his security detail again. And here I thought that Minnesota was the "gofer" state. New movie being released: To grift and lie in D.C… Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I agree this is all unencyclopedic self-promotion and it's one of many instances of WP acting as adjunct to the White House press office repeating misrepresentations, self-promotion, or undue and unverified chatter simply because it's stated by officials and employees of Trump or the Trump Administration. To the extent editors feel any of this content really is relevant to this biography, it should be fully contextualized -- as for example we are beginning to do with Trump's implausible and unverified claims of personal wealth. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:UNDUE. And the point Dave Dial makes about giving a teeny amount of cash with one hand and taking a hundred bags of cash with the other is well made. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

How was the victory " a surprise"?

According to this revert, I need to have a consensus. Shouldn't there be a neutral point of view? It may have been a surprise to the democrats, but not the republicans... Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed very recently, and is the result of a solid consensus among regular editors here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye75: The discussion can be found here. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

An overwhelming majority of sources in worldwide coverage called this particular election result a surprise, sometimes in much stronger words such as a "stunning upset". Per WP:PEACOCK we are using "surprise victory" as the mildest term possible. @Computer40: a.k.a. Hawkeye75: you should change your signature to reflect your new user name, and allow editors to more easily communicate with you. — JFG ^talk 16:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: The latter issue has been addressed on their UTP,[9] and I expect their next talk space comment will show an updated signature. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m far more inclined to see it as an upset than a surprise. I’m sure the media and Dems were surprised as were the pollsters, so that probably should be mentioned considering a great deal of credibility was lost as a result of them not being in touch with the American people...and it appears the media still hasn’t learned from their mistakes, and with this debacle, it has gotten worse. If anything, that is the angle receiving widespread coverage in RS and probably should be included, not the stale tax info which is inconsequential. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Not being in touch with the American people."

Yes, it turned out there were more horrid racists and gullible idiots than Democrats had assumed. Also, the lack of the (promised) release of Trump's tax returns is still a HUGE deal that should be covered, but it hasn't received coverage recently because of the several thousand other shocking things said or done in the interim. There are too many bad things happening for the media to keep up. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentations RE: tax returns

This revert [10] of well-sourced highly significant content relevant to Trump's election, the Mueller investigations, and Trump's business career and purported personal wealth, was reverted with the irrelevant edit summary that some of it is already mentioned within the body of the article. That is not, however, a valid reason to remove it from the lead nor to remove the part of it that is not in fact stated elsewhere. @JFG: if it is your intention to challenge this RS content by removal under DS, please justify why it should not be reinstated as written. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It's already in the article. I said that much in my edit summary. — JFG ^talk 20:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. Some of it was in the article text. Some of it was not. Please respond to the stated concern. Also, when you remove text from the lead and are intending to challenge only its placement, it would save lots of time and trouble to relocate the remainder -- all or part -- to what you feel is the appropriate location in the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

My edit did not duplicate content already "addressed elsewhere" as your edit summary incorrectly stated. The financial disclosures section is part of the 2016 campaign section. Trump has been in office for 16 months now; he still hasn’t released his tax returns and continues to falsely claim that he can’t because "audit" - strictly according to the sources. It belongs in Trump’s personal bio, it’s Trump being Trump - say anything, the suckers will buy it, and if some of them don’t, trot out Kellyanne Conway to say that people don’t care. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:, your statement, to wit It's already in the article. I said that much in my edit summary is false. Please check the text and edits and inform us whether you still believe there's grounds to keep this out of the article. Otherwise if nobody else has any concern, I think we should consider this a mistake and affirm that 432x should restore this sourced content. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As stated there is existing content about the tax returns issue at Donald Trump#Financial disclosures. I see no rationale to include content about the tax returns issue in two different sections. To whatever extent there are bits in the contested content that are not present in the existing content, those bits can be added to the existing content subject to challenge. Or, one could propose moving the content (I think that would be too large a change to BOLD it at this article), but content in two places should not be on the table. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually no, Mandruss. You're just repeating JFG's equivocation. But he doesn't get two bites at the kumquat. His presumed (AGF!) error thinking that 432x's content already was in another part of the article was kindly explained to him as such. He responded by doubling down on his equivocation here,[11] denying the indicated difference in content that might have escaped his attention in his initial revert. Now we have nobody opposing the improved content that JFG reverted, and you, Mandruss are really telling us that if we go by the consensus and relocate it as JFG and you seem to prefer, that you reserve the right to do a second revert?? Really? That is not how the page restrictions work here. Otherwise folks could game 1RR and "consensus required" by playing hopscotch all across the sections of the article claiming they're within their rights. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Now we have nobody opposing the improved content that JFG reverted - Nobody except me and JFG (so far). Contrary to your statement, we are not "nobody". The AGF vio is all yours, and you are also constructing an elaborate policy-free rationale for completely discounting the views and arguments of opposing established editors, conveniently allowing you to assert a consensus that does not exist. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO seems to be utterly confused. Let's recap. Space4Time3Continuum2x added the following text:

Trump did not release any tax returns, in contrast to every president since Jimmy Carter,[80] and contrary to his 2014 promise to publish his tax returns if he ran for office.[80] He falsely claimed that he was unable to do so because his tax returns were under audit by the IRS. [80][81][82]

I reverted, stating that this information was already in the article. And it is indeed there, in much more detail:

Trump did not release his tax returns during his presidential campaign,[423] contrary to usual practice by every candidate since Gerald Ford in 1976.[424] Although it is tradition to do so, presidential candidates are not required by law to release them.[425] Trump's refusal led to speculation that he was hiding something.[426] He said that his tax returns were being audited, and his lawyers had advised him against releasing them.[427][428] However, no law prohibits the publication of tax returns during an audit.[429] Tax attorneys differ about whether such a release is wise legal strategy.[430] Trump has told the news media that his tax rate was none of their business, and that he tries to pay "as little tax as possible".

So I don't see how my edit summary was "irrelevant" according to SPECIFICO, or why I should provide her with "a valid reason to remove it from the lead" (we're not discussing the lead section).

Space4Time3Continuum2x is raising a different point, namely whether the information about Trump's tax returns should be placed in the "Wealth" section or in the "Campaign" section. This can surely be debated, however it seems to me that we have already had a similar discussion. As Mandruss says, duplicating the contents is a non-starter if we want to improve article quality. Minor details such as "since Gerald Ford" or "since Jimmy Carter" can be corrected if needs be. — JFG ^talk 16:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with JFG & Mandruss...we really need to move past this trivial material. The American public is not protesting or rioting over Trump not releasing his tax returns. Of far greater concern is the G7 and N. Korea. Whenever the tax return argument surfaces, I’m reminded of this, and I’m probably not alone. Enough is enough already. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the initial edit: I agree that "Financial disclosures" under 2016 campaign, and not "Wealth" under Personal life, is the correct section for tax disclosures; it is expected that prominent politicians release their returns and notable when they don't, but for general biographies it is not. Separately, the line about Trump being audited due to his being a "strong Christian" is absurd, but I don't think anything about it can be justifiably included at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The non-release belongs in both sections. It was relevant during the campaign, and it is relevant now because of the continuing situation. Maybe I should have used a different tense: "Trump has not released", "he is falsely claiming that he is unable". Why would anyone looking for current information on Trump's wealth and/or tax returns look in a section dealing with events prior to November 8, 2016? BTW, Gerald Ford is the one modern president who did NOT release his tax returns, but then he wasn't elected vice-president or president, but all other presidents & presidential candidates from Nixon to Hillary Clinton did. The sentence about tax attorneys differing about the release being a wise legal strategy should be deleted - legal strategy? Is someone getting sued? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It was relevant during the campaign, and it is relevant now because of the continuing situation. That is a viable argument for moving the content out of the "2016 presidential campaign" section, not to say that I necessarily support it at this point. It is not a viable argument for addressing the tax returns issue in two places. As far as I can tell nobody is suggesting that we would have to remove reference to the campaign if it were moved out of that section. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We should not have the same information redundantly in two places. I favor the campaign section, which is the context in which it got covered. It's not really relevant to his "wealth". --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Kim Jong Un photo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can see what the Left is trying to do... put a photo of Trump shaking the hands of a murderous dictator (Kim Jong Un) so that the masses are subliminally persuaded that Trump is a dictator. Remove this garbage! Because this is sectarian rubbish 101.183.21.131 (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not see that at all. The setting is perfectly framed. Flags of both countries are symmetrically arranged. The two face each other as equals. There is no suggestion that I can see of Trump being portrayed as a dictator. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather have a photo from the Singapore summit where Trump and Kim are facing the camera, but I don't feel the photo is subliminally offensive and see no reason to remove it unless there's consensus for some other image. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Since this photo has been heavily promoted by the White House, it's hard to imagine that there is anything offensive about it or that it somehow promotes an anti-Trump message. Eye of the beholder, apparently. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

OP's argument is not policy-based. Concur with MelanieN et al. I see what the Right is trying to do, stuffing the article with images of Trump smiling to make him look like a nice, amiable guy. That BS bias argument cuts both ways, which is why competent editors refrain from it and should not tolerate it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This IP's contributions to the encyclopedia seem to be focused on trolling talk pages.[12][13][14] Let's just ignore this rant. — JFG ^talk 06:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Art of the Deal

It is an abject lie to say that Donald Trump co-authored the Art of the Deal, when it was actually ghostwritten... He wrote absolutely nothing in it. Not one sentence... That is an enormous misrepresentation of reality. Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, but the reliable source is...?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This was previously brought up on talk and blocked by a small number of editors who claimed that it was disparagement of Trump if we informed our readers that the book was ghostwritten. Check the archives. You'll most likely need to post an RfC with references because this baseless opposition is very likely to recur in one form or another. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Helpful translation: SPECIFICO was on the losing side of a consensus. I second her suggestion to check the archives. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

From the lead section of WP's most thoughtful and extensively researched page on The Art of the Deal:

The book received additional attention during Trump's 2016 campaign for the presidency of the United States. He cited it as one of his proudest accomplishments and his second-favorite book after the Bible. Schwartz expressed regrets about his involvement in the book, and both he and the book's publisher, Howard Kaminsky, said that Trump had played no role in the actual writing of the book. Trump has given conflicting accounts on the question of authorship.

SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The January discussion shows that the situation is not nearly as simple and clear-cut as you wish to make it seem—which is why you were on the losing side. I see no reason to revisit this unless someone has new arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mandruss: I have expressed no wish here, and at any rate editorial decisions are not about anyone's "wishes". Please address your remarks to the editor who raised the concern. This is not a closed circle of editors and articles improve greatly when new editors join the discussion with fresh perspectives. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I welcome new perspectives. I don't welcome resurrection of settled issues based on old perspectives. Neither you nor the OP has presented an argument that wasn't made and defeated in prior discussions. They have introduced another vote, but consensus is not about votes. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be great to see a source or two that clearly explains Trump's role in writing the book. His own account would obviously not be reliable for our purposes.- MrX 🖋 16:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mrx: Read the January discussion, it isn't exceedingly long. We have such a source from Jane Mayer at New Yorker. A couple of editors assert that source as the definitive end-of-discussion, despite the fact that Mayer used the word co-author in another piece referring to the book around the same time. And ten or so other solid sources were shown to use the word. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Re-ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Myer wrote: "Schwartz had ghostwritten Trump’s 1987 breakthrough memoir, earning a joint byline on the cover, half of the book’s five-hundred-thousand-dollar advance, and half of the royalties." and further "In my phone interview with Trump, he initially said of Schwartz, “Tony was very good. He was the co-author.” But he dismissed Schwartz’s account of the writing process. “He didn’t write the book,” Trump told me. “I wrote the book. I wrote the book. It was my book." So why the heck are we treating Trump's account as factual, while ignoring Mayer's plain statement of fact that the book was ghostwritten by Schwartz? The OP is exactly right about this.- MrX 🖋 16:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We are not "treating Trump's account as factual". We are not even considering Trump's account. We are evaluating the body of RS on the subject—including Mayer herself. See my previous comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to go with reasoning over the totality of sources, it would be incorrect to say the book was ghostwritten, per the dictionary definition:
"to write for and in the name of another"
"to write (a speech, a book, etc.) for another who is the presumed or credited author"
If Schwartz had written the book and published it with only Trump's name on it, that would be a ghostwrite. That is not what happened, as the book clearly shows both names. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources? I don't see any citation to a dictionary that discusses this book? SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have already made the non-cherry-picked-sources argument—the same argument that prevailed in the January discussion—and that should have been enough. But if that is not enough, we don't need sources for the definitions of English words. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Co-authored means he helped write it. Did he, or did he simply pay the ghostwriter for co-author credit? If the latter, it should be made clear in the article. Facts matter.- MrX 🖋 17:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We could discuss changes to the existing content at Donald Trump#Books, which already uses both words. But we can't go into that much explanatory detail in the lead, and ghostwrite is incorrect as shown above, so the only option there is to remove reference to the book from the lead. I would not oppose that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this the discussion in question? Ghost-writers usually wind up buried in the acknowledgments without mention of what their actual involvement was, along with family, friends, editors, publishers, etc. Schwartz is not only mentioned on the cover, he also wrote two thirds of the acknowledgments. Trump got 10 lines, thanking wife, kids, S.I. Newhouse (owner of Random House). Schwartz got 20 lines, thanking wife, kids, agent, Trump’s secretary Norma Foerderer, Trump’s brother Robert, several other people who "gave generously of their time", and five women who typed, photocopied, copyedited, researched, and fact-checked. Schwartz also made it quite clear that he did all the writing: WaPo, NewYorker, The Guardian, Independent. That included:

• Rephrasing: By his own description, his father, Fred, was relentlessly demanding, difficult and driven. Here’s how I phrased it in "The Art of the Deal": "My father is a wonderful man, but he is also very much a business guy and strong and tough as hell."
• Euphemizing: As Trump saw it, his older brother, Fred Jr., who became an alcoholic and died at age 42, was overwhelmed by his father. Or as I euphemized it in the book: "There were inevitably confrontations between the two of them. In most cases, Freddy came out on the short end." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

PS.: Trump also threatened to sue Schwartz but never followed up on it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: We most certainly can explain in the lead, with just a few more words, that Trump received co-authorship credit but Schwartz actually wrote the book. Your claim that "ghostwrite is incorrect as shown above" doesn't bear scrutiny in light of Mayer's clear statement that "Schwartz had ghostwritten Trump’s 1987 breakthrough memoir...". or these:

• "Trump's Art of the Deal ghostwriter explains why Trump's big North Korea deal went south"
• "And similar to the deal he struck with Schwartz to write his book"
• "Tony Schwartz, who wrote The Art of the Deal for Trump"
• "Schwartz, who spent months of one-on-one time with Trump while writing their 1987 bestseller"
• "And while The Art of the Deal might be the book that helped Trump garner quite a bit of fame, the person who ghostwrote it, Tony Schwartz, is a regular critic of the president."

While there certainly are sources that say that Schwartz "co-authored" the book, none of them seem to suggest that Trump actually "wrote" anything.- MrX 🖋 17:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Several confirm that he didn't, including Trump's lawyer. From Jane Mayer's interview on July 25, 2016: Howard Kaminsky, the former Random House head, laughed and said, "Trump didn’t write a postcard for us!" Trump's lawyer: Greenblatt’s letter does not actually refute Schwartz’s claim that he, not Trump, wrote the book. Instead, Greenblatt writes that Trump "was the source of all of the material in the Book and the inspiration for every word in the Book," rather than the author. Greenblatt acknowledges that Trump provided Schwartz "with the facts and facets of each of these deals in order for you to write them down." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: My claim that "ghostwrite is incorrect as shown above" bears scrutiny in light of the English dictionary, as I said. If you want to look to sources and ignore the dictionary, then look to all of the sources, not just the sources that support your position. Some of the other sources are linked in the January discussion, including one by Mayer. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO it doesn't really matter if we use the word "ghostwrite" or not (with the main issue here being that Schwartz is credited), what matters is that we make it clear whether Schwartz wrote all of it or not etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing in this area while this is under discussion violates the remedies, particularly with edit summary rationales amounting to "I've made the case in talk, the correctness of my position is self-evident, no further discussion is necessary"—typically a rationale seen from low-time editors—six hours after start of discussion. This is where I get off, and admins can use their discretion for sanctions or not, I don't really care. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss I didn't cherry pick sources. I searched for Trump Schwartz "the art of the deal" and reviewed to top sources from publications regarded as reliable on Wikipedia. Irregardless, we don't need to say that Schwartz ghostwrote the book; we simply need to say that he wrote it.- MrX 🖋 18:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say that high quality sources use ghost-write just fine, so I wouldn't say like Mandruss that it is "incorrect" to say so Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Noting that the end result of my fiddling around is basically modifying the #book section and reverting MrXs edit to the lede Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I disagree with your assertion that "sources appear generally to say closer to "Schwartz says he wrote the book" not directly state that)". I quoted several source above that state as a fact that Schwartz wrote the book. That fact is not contradicted by other sources saying that Schwartz said he wrote the book. Now if someone wants to produce some sources that say that Schwartz did not write the book, then we would have reason to question the other sources.- MrX 🖋 18:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, even then I'd consider it too much for the lead (and co-author is used by well-enough sources, including the hill source you cite just above, that it doesn't necessarily need qualification or clarification) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we need to have an RfC. - MrX 🖋 19:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it was fine to drop the disputed word "ghostwriter" and just relate the mainstream view that Schwartz and Trump are credited as co-authors and that Schwartz has said he wrote the book. That really sidesteps any of the disputed content in WP's voice. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

From a common sense perspective, which should be an integral part of good editorial judgment, one guy was contracted to write - the other guy was the subject. The subject happens to be a billionaire businessman who has been making deals all of his adult life, which he flamboyantly calls "the art of the deal". How would a book author know how to make the successful deals Trump made without hearing it directly from Trump? Better yet, looking at the rephrasing/euphamising mentioned above, it seems pretty obvious which of the sentences are closest to Trump's own vocabulary: *Rephrasing: By his own description, his father, Fred, was relentlessly demanding, difficult and driven. Here’s how I phrased it in "The Art of the Deal": "My father is a wonderful man, but he is also very much a business guy and strong and tough as hell." Knowing how Trump talks and tweets, the latter is far more Trumpism and closer to the way he talks than the former. The same with the euphemizing: As Trump saw it, his older brother, Fred Jr., who became an alcoholic and died at age 42, was overwhelmed by his father. Or as I euphemized it in the book: "There were inevitably confrontations between the two of them. In most cases, Freddy came out on the short end." Writers write what they're paid to write, and if the person who pays them doesn't like what they wrote, they make changes - it's called editing - and guess who was the chief editor? Now that Trump is president, everybody has their own version of a story, and publicity pays well - ranging from "professional ladies" to doctors to ghostwriters - they're involved, therefore they are likely biased. The latter is what we take into consideration. Who cares whether or not Trump sat hours upon hours at his computer hammering out his book, or if he paid someone to write what he dictated? What long lasting encyclopedic value does inclusion of that information have, especially considering it is based on nothing more than claims of he said-she said arguments? A sentence or two...maybe...nothing more. It's trivia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, are you telling us that Trump was a billionaire in 1987? You get the scoop on that one. Or do you have a source? BTW, "ghostwriter" is not the same as "amanuensis" -- but anyway we got rid of the ghostwriter bit. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Uhm...recognize the tense and spare the tension - "happens to be" and "was" have different meanings...I did not say he was a billionaire in 1987, so the answer to your question is "nopers". I also know the kind of work an ethical ghostwriter produces but that doesn't change anything here. It's still an allegation that can't be proven otherwise, so we follow what our PAGs tell us to do about such material. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC) PS: all that fringy ghostwriter material belongs over at The Art of the Deal, not here in the bio. 22:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wasting time here. Seems just another trolling or cannot drop the stick. We repeatedly have discussed ghostwriters (Clinton, Obama, Trump) and how the credit depends on the terms of the agreement and not on any unproven (unprovable) claims, and we have what the book and official publishing records said. Anything else seems too trivial to even discuss, never mind something going against prior consensus and all the hard evidence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Content on G7 summit

A section was added by SPECIFICO, removed by JFG, and restored by Casprings. I've removed it again. The material in question can be read here. Should the summit be discussed in the article? If so, where, in an existing section or its own section? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's too early to determine its real significance. But juxtaposed between Afghanistan and Russia, I would strongly lean towards against inclusion. Based on what we know here and today, it's nowhere near as important. This, obviously, can change in the future. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This page is about Donald Trump, the man, right? Might be better to make mention of it in terms of his presidency. Unless this becomes a major thing later, compared to the Russian matter and the Afghanistan strategy, this is somewhat trivial. (Quotidian stuff, for now, the President and Twitter.) As such, against inclusion here, for now. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 01:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it's necessary to once again remind editors about the ArbCom editing restrictions. This revert by User:Casprings violated bullet 1 of those restrictions. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeh but Trump reverted the Communique and the G-6 reinstated it w/o asking him. Also Kudlow and Navarro were not civil, and so forth. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea what ArbCom remedies have to do with Trump, G-6, Kudlow, or Navarro, but thanks for the very creative response. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. I would self-revert if it wasn't already reverted. That said, there should be more content on this general subject. Trade wars and alienation of long allies is historically important.Casprings (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That's right and don't forget the Canadian national security threat that we just found out about as well. I agree that it should be included. Gandydancer (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

All this is better discussed at Talk:Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. — JFG ^talk 04:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I just watched the CNN Kudlow interview and this bizarre POTUS behavior goes far beyond a foreign policy issue. Gandydancer (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

RS description of Trump"s mien and interaction.[15] SPECIFICO talk 07:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• According to WP:NPOV, this material merits inclusion in some form, probably with as few quotes as possible. The extensive international coverage shows that this is yet another unprecedented unpresidential action by Trump that has left the world stunned. Trump has personally and publicly insulted a leader of a major ally nation and escalated a trade war that could have damaging consequences for generations. [16][17][18][19][20][21] Astonishingly, while alienating Canada, Trump has seized the opportunity to cozy up to Russia again [22], the country that is actively trying to hack the US democracy. Let's not bury this on some policy article that few read. This is about Trump, the living person, and it's significant.- MrX 🖋 10:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  According to NPOV it is does not warrant inclusion here, but perhaps in the Presidency of article or as JFG above states the Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration it does.MONGO 11:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  @MrX: Chill, bro. — JFG ^talk 12:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• JFG, that is not a civil or appropriate response to MrX providing RS to support his editorial judgment. It's evasive and unconstructive. Here's one more reference, Trump Goes to War Against the Democracies, that takes a broader perspective to establish DUE WEIGHT for this content. It's time for you to drop your objection to this content, which relates to the statements of Trump over the course of many years and his actions as President to weaken the US' ties to its allies of the past 100 years and to key international agreements. This is not a case of an isolated event and no editor can credibly argue against this content with the false claim that it's "recentism" "sound-bites" or irrelevant to Trump's biography, compared to say his cholesterol test or pasting his name on an ice rink Zamboni. SPECIFICO talk 12:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And like 1,000 prior "unpresidential" incidents, this will be forgotten in a week. We are WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:There is no deadline. Regarding MrX's alarmed comments, he may just be having a bad day. It happens to all of us, no big deal. — JFG ^talk 12:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

JFG, I didn't read MrX as "alarmed". My take on it was that he took your deletions at face value and was informing you of references to the longstanding and noteworthy Trump policies and actions that establish DUE WEIGHT for recent events. In the face of such sources, it's increasingly clear that there is no credible policy-based justification for further denials that this content belongs in Trump's bio. Every denial, in the face of the increasing accumulation of evidence and RS citations, diminishes the likelihood that your POV will prevail. It would benefit your case to respond in substance rather than empty dismissal. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, JFG, that was not a helpful response. It was rudely dismissive. If something of this magnitude is not important enough for this article, then I have no idea what we're trying to do here. - MrX 🖋 13:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought my tone appropriately conveyed that I meant no offense and was trying to bring some levity to the discussion. Sorry. On the edit itself, the "magnitude" will be easy to assess if/when the situation escalates into a bona fide trade war. As we have seen repeatedly (and not just with Trump), fiery rhetoric rarely leads to catastrophe. — JFG ^talk 13:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

What tone? You made a comment that plainly suggested that I needed to calm down. As it happens, I was completely calm when I wrote my comment, and I don't appreciate you effort to undermine my argument by suggesting otherwise.- MrX 🖋 17:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And you still sound nervous. Never mind. I have already given my thoughts about the argument, so all we can do now is wait for more editors to voice their positions on the importance of this event. — JFG ^talk 19:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, actually you could just undo your revert and then either propose additional RS contextualizing content or not as you choose. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Leave it out for now. It's this week's news; we should wait to see if it has actual repercussions (for example if they sign a G6 agreement leaving out the US, or otherwise formalize a split between the US and its allies). It he does precipitate an actual break with our allies, that belongs here. If he merely triggered a spat with them, that goes in other articles as suggested above. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Did you see where Larry Kudlow claimed that the reason Trump beat up on our allies was so that he would look tough when he went to meet Kim? 0;-D In any case we are not likely to see any additional news or analysis about the G7 meeting while the Korea meeting is going on. The networks are in hyperdrive about North Korea, they can't talk about anything else. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, I think there's a problem with that extreme wait-and see approach: What are the real repercussions of pulling out of TPP, of renouncing Joint Iran Deal, of Spilling secrets to Lavrov+Kisliac, of dropping the Paris Accords, of ... and so forth? They don't ring a bell when the repercussions kick in. We have to take the measured and balanced assessments of RS as to what's significant and how to convey it. RS talk a lot about the apparent agenda of destabilizing the post-WW2 world order and US hegemony while at the same time acting weird about Putin and other dictators with investment dollars in their coffers. Many such discussions and much reportage is in this thread and more is readily available. Nobody is going to tap us on the shoulder next year and say "this is the result of Kudlow goofing out on Trudeau" or some such. But -- because there is a clear pattern, clear statements from POTUS and advisors, clear media and scholarly discussion of this constellation of facts and events -- we must include them for our readers, with appropriate caution and sensitivity to future developments of course. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• The G7 is inappropriate for this article as it is not biographical material -- just not a mjor life event. Try asking at the Presidency article instead. Even there I suspect it's just a momentary flash and not got as much coverage or lasting effect as 'covefefe', but that at least is where whatever amount should be. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The G-7 and the larger issue of the degradation of the global post-WW2 alliance has now been scrubbed entirely. Clearly, it needs to be reinstalled in the article in some form and some location(s). This article is full of content that relates to the Presidency, and this may well be Trump's enduring accomplishment, according to current mainstream discussions. One of the editors who removed the content could help us all out by proposing what they would feel is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump foundation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's absurd that this isn't even mentioned in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And the rationale for removal of this info given by User:Atsme is even more ridiculous: how is info on a foundation he started in 19freakin'88 "NOTNEWS" or "RECENTISM". This is such blatant WP:GAMING of the "no consensus" restriction that displays how dysfunctional this article and editing environment is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - For all the denials that there's any evidence of wrongdoing by Trump and all the "witch hunt" chatter, here is a tangible case of a prosecutor directly publicly filing suit against this Trump entity. Yes of course it belongs up top. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, BTW knee-jerk wholesale reverts of new content is undermining the legitimate functions of DS and weaponizing them. Specific selective discussion is constructive. "NO" is not. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Doesn't belong in the lead beyond a mention of the existence of it. Any more than that falls into the category of WP:FART. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - it's speculation, does not belong in the lede or in this article for that matter. It is being looked into litigated as a civil suit...nothing more. See how we're treating the Clinton Foundation material considering it is also investigation (and there's much more coverage and proven facts that can be added but were not), and follow suit for consistency in our presidential articles. Yes, consistency in what we include/exclude in the lede and in the article regarding allegations and investigations is important. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC) ^{strike & underlined material added 16:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)}

• Please do not post misstatements of fact. The NY State Attorney General has filed suit. It is not speculation it's not being "looked into". It's nothing like the Clinton Foundation. Do not post false statements on article talk pages. People might get confused. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Of course there is no speculation; there is a suit filed--that is real. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Eh. This should absolutely be covered in the article body, as it is. But, the process is ongoing and I'm sympathetic to the argument that putting it so prominently in the lead is a bit WP:UNDUE without resolution of the suit. Please point to this in the future any time people accuse me of editing with a liberal bias. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose this diff - give me a break. Piling excessive detail about trivial crap like this is why it's so much work to have short descriptions of more notable events in the lead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Mild oppose, hence no bold. It's hardly a fart, nor is it trivial crap, but per Muboshgu I think it's premature. Trump has had a million law suits filed against him, so relatively speaking this isn't all that much; if something comes out of it we can reconsider adding it to the lead. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for lead right now per Muboshugu and Drmies, unless and until something actually comes of it. I could see mention in the body which, by the way, should of happened before it was jammed in the lead. The lead should reflect the body, and if nothing is in the body it cannot be in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it is mentioned in the body, compare: in June 2018 [the New York Attorney General's office] filed a civil suit against the foundation for $2.8 million in restitution and additional penalties.[223] The suit names Trump himself as well as his adult children Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka.[224] (body) to On June 14, 2018, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood filed suit against President Donald Trump and his three eldest children, Donald, Jr., Ivanka, and Eric, alleging "persistently illegal conduct" with respect to the Foundation. She ordered the charity dissolved, and demanded $2.8 million in restitution and penalties. (Marek's addition to the lead). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:Thanks for showing me, looks like it was added a couple days ago here and then added to. I must of missed it, sorry about that. PackMecEng (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for the lede. It should be and is in the article, but the lede is reserved for more consequential information. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Willfully and repeatedly violating State and Federal Law.] Consequential. Fraud. Not a big deal? SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Civil accusations. If it results in a massively covered lawsuit or the downfall of his presidency or something like that, we can put it in the lede. Right now it's one more lawsuit against The Donald, comparable to the ones against Trump University. Put it under the Foundation or under Legal issues or both. Not the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we could just include a summary, along the lines "Trump and entities he controls have been sued for fraud and other civil offenses and have paid $XXX million in damages to date." or something, with proper attribution to RS. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Not in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this is goddamned WP:UNDUE. Are we going to write a paragraph in the lead for every one of his controversies, even if well covered by RS? L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Once again per UNDUE. If everything were in the lede, we wouldn't have a lede. A 20-paragraph lede is essentially just another article. We need to weigh each item carefully.--v/r - TP 00:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - If it were any other US President this would be in the lead. Unfortunately, the ability to add new content to the article has been hindered as an unintended consequence of the page editing restrictions and a few editors corrupting the consensus process with dismissive opposes, off topic rambling, and stonewalling. At some point, someone might invest the substantial time and effort to document and bring these conduct issues to Arbcom or AE, but for now, this is reality. As the Trump Foundation scandal develops, I think there will be a very strong case for including it in the lead. For now, given all of the other coverage of Trump, it's an uphill fight get this on the short list in spite of the extensive international coverage by the press.- MrX 🖋 11:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  The lede is already too large per WP:LEDE which recommends 3 - 4 paragraphs. We have five, if I'm being generous, but really six. Four of those paragraphs already cover his presidency. But he has fourty years in the public spotlight and only barely two as president. There is already an UNDUE problem. If you want to include more about his presidency, something else about his presidency has got to go. Regarding your behavioral concerns about editors here, you say while in the middle of casting aspersions and poisening the well. Regarding your "any other President" concern, that would depend on the person's life as a whole. A junior senator from Illinois might have less of a history in the news than his political career whereas a businessman and television personality might've been in the news for many decades. These all have to be weighed individually.--v/r - TP 13:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  I don't agree that the lead is too long in proportion to the article. Of course, paragraphs are not really units of length anyway. The length of this lead is 481 words; George W. Bush: 549; Herber Hoover: 611; Richard Nixon: 517. The third and fourth paragraphs could be combined, but it doesn't really matter. We could trim his non-noteworthy academic achievement, how rich is, and the some of the extensive listing of what his company built, judicial appointments, etc. I don't think you understand the meaning of poisoning the well, not that it really matters. I stand behind what I wrote as an accurate portrayal of what has occurred here and in related articles.- MrX 🖋 15:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, the WP:LEAD is supposed to include "any prominent controversies", but this article is the exception, they are kept out because of the special "discretionary sanctions" arrangement. zzz (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. The "special DS arrangement" is here to improve article stability; it does not prevent any solid content to be added. In fact, the current lede section is the product of extensive discussions involving hundreds of editors, so that virtually every word in there has gone through scrutiny by the community, ensuring neutrality, due weight and encyclopedic tone, irrespective of individual editors' opinions. This is Wikipedia working at its finest. — JFG ^talk 16:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose In any BLP our quest should always be to do no harm and therefore until this does (if ever) manifest itself to be a lede worthy event I cannot support inclusion.MONGO 11:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• That's a circular and unconstructive approach -- this is an example of what MrX has just described in his comment. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• No it is not.MONGO 14:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for the lede at this time. For one thing, nothing in the lede should need references. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: too much information for the introduction. Perhaps a sentence saying it existed; as it stands, right now, it's a bit WP:UNDUE. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as TMI. Looks like a WP:SNOW situation against this proposal. — JFG ^talk 17:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed heading adjustment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently "immigration" is a sub-section of "Presidency > Domestic policy". This isn't entirely accurate, as foreign policy concerns play a much larger role in immigration than in other domestic issues. Immigration also has multiple sub-sections, I would consider it a major topic of his presidency. I propose changing "Immigration" from an L4 to a L3 header, positioning it between "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" (under "Presidency"). The sections on DACA and the travel-ban would remain as subsections of immigration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support - Trump's views on immigration were a key component of his campaign, and the policies that have resulted from those views have had a major impact on his presidency. With that in mind, immigration is clearly of key biographical significance. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, this makes a lot of sense and I was actually pondering it myself. It's an obvious and necessary improvement to the article structure.- MrX 🖋 13:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Given the prominence of immigration in Trump's agenda, and the interplay between domestic and foreign policy, a level-3 section would make sense. Beware of not making contents too long, though; there are plenty of detailed articles, and summary style is our friend. — JFG ^talk 17:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - good plan...along the same lines as what JFG mentioned, and adding caution about RECENTISM, like with the complex issue underway now along the southern border. Let it incubate so editors can summarize the outcome instead of making it a play-by-play call with all the details. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Good suggestion. It is both domestic and international so it doesn't really belong in either category. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Done power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Louis Farrakhan support for Obama

Has very little to do with Trump. Not a serious suggestion, methinks. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Probably the entire "White supremacist support" section violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, known for his public anti-Semitic remarks, endorsed Barack Obama's presidential run in 2008, but I dont's see any "Nation of Islam support" section on the Barack Obama page. Louis Farrakhan backs Obama for president at Nation of Islam convention in Chicago What Is the Nation of Islam? Barack Obama Photo With Group's Leader Emerges 13 Years Later Clinton hits Obama over Farrakhan Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close, Ex-Aide Says Why did Barack Obama meet with Louis Farrakhan in 2005? - Tobby72 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC) This is not the Obama article. I suggest you withdraw that comment. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Farrakhan has also praised Trump[23][24]. I don't see why Farrakhan merits mention in either article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Kim Summit in Lead

Is there a reason that the North Korean summit is not mentioned in the lead under foreign policy? It is clearly noteworthy enough to be there. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It may be noteworthy, but we have no idea what to say about it at this time. I would await some clarity from RS reports. SPECIFICO talk 13:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Give it a few days for reports to come out and RS to say what actually happened. Seems rather important but who knows at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources lead, we follow. We'll have it up in a few days, no doubt, but the summit just ended. Give it some time. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 13:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

For now, we can just say, "Trump is the first US President to meet with the North Korean leader." Simple and gets the point across, once more RS come out we can expand if needed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is too early. The meeting may be the first, but that smacks of trivia. I bet we don't have the first meeting of other countries leader with the President.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think it's too early. NK and the US is not just a regular pair of countries. It is indeed quite significant for the US leader to meet the NK leader and one sentence in the lead is certainly acceptable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a clear pattern of when NOTNEWS and RECENTISM apply and when they don't as it relates to Trump - this is one of those times when both actually do apply...go figure. Besides, Trump hasn't had a chance to consult with his Twitter & FB followers to make sure they approve of his attempts to thwart a potential nuclear WWIII. What were you thinking, Sir Joseph? We also need to give his political detractors a bit more time to mull over this historic event, and for those who deem it necessary to consult with their media contacts as to how they should best present why Trump's efforts are a complete failure according to De Niro but with input from Dennis Rodman after he's had time to dry his tears, and to somehow include a Russian collusion angle to the meeting. On a serious note, I agree that we should wait at least a week. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No way should this get a mention. Two politicians meet. There is lots of talk. Absolutely no impact yet on anyone anywhere in the rest of the world. It is not our job to give them the publicity they seek. Maybe in years to come.... HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Note I wasn't arguing that it didn't belong in the article, I'm arguing it is premature to mention in the lead.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the "wait a little bit" group, though even 24-48 hours may be enough. The two men met and took a photograph together, that much is certain. It is still unclear whether anything else was actually agreed to, or if there was simply bravado and restatements of current positions. Once there's something to say beyond that they met in the article body, it probably should be in the lead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Leave it out of the lead until there is a tangible impact, per HiLo48 and others. Or we can add all of his firsts from the G7 summit... - MrX 🖋 00:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Tangible impact? Like the impact of the Trump-Russia collusion allegations against Trump? Oh, wait - there was no impact on Trump, and no proof of collusion. Does that mean it should be left out? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

What? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• No - Belongs in Kim Jong-un. Possibly belongs in some other Trump related article. But, makes no sense at all for this article. I don't think it should be here at all until something substantive occurs, much less the lead, as we have other more closely related Trump articles. O3000 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude from lede for now - There's no question the meeting was historic, and there's a multitude of reliable sources that speak to the meeting's significance, and certainly this should be highlighted in Presidency of Donald Trump; however, the result of the meeting was largely vague statements of intent with no guarantees that have (thus far) made little biographical impact. I certainly anticipate this will become ledeworthy, as the full effect of this Chamberlain-esque debacle becomes apparent. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Why did you remove it from the article? It is certainly worthy of inclusion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't. I haven't edited the article itself since the end of May. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely lede worthy. First meeting ever between a sitting US President and a leader of NK is historic and a notable achievement even if it goes sideways.MONGO 13:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Wait per RECENTISM and NOTNEWS. Give the media an opportunity to figure out what actually happened so we can include substantive material (that we can include in the lede) instead of speculation and media's breaking news tendencies which are prone to errors. Give it time to incubate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Very notable and of lasting significance. Text should be brief and note that it was the first meeting between leaders of the US and NK. No text on the agreement reached at the meeting though, as it's unclear what's significant about that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude from lede for now, at least until someone has translated this into English: They will be doing things. I think he wants to do things. You would be surprised. Very smart. Very good negotiator. Wants to do the right thing. He brought up the fact that in the past they took dialogue or never were like we are which has never been like what has taken place now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Was that a bad translation or just how he talks? PackMecEng (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Transcript of press conference – verbatim what he said. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I see it in a few places now... oy vey PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

All it requires is a blue collar translator...not a biggy...it's simply a different form of broken English. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Oy vey sums it up very nicely. Another quote: We probably have some notes or something. They have actually detailed notes I imagine. We had a great conversation. A very heartfelt conversation. I have one of the great memories of all time. I don’t have to do that. Okay. I don’t want to discuss it. We have had numerous discussions. We had very important relationships established at Mike’s level and other levels. In fact, a couple of people are here from, as you know, from North Korea. They were in the room. We have a few people in the room. When we went into the final agreement, we did not go in cold. We went in with tremendous leadership and knowledge. That’s why we got it done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Support putting that in the lead. It kind of sums it all up. - MrX 🖋 18:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

What, have you not seen his tweets :), or this gem? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I try to stay away from twitter as much as possible. I honestly thought it was a bad translation of a Korean newspaper. lol PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with most people above on waiting for something substantive, which doesn't appear to have occurred; per sources, he gave away concessions, but only earned a "vague promise not unlike others the North Koreans have broken in the past" Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is another instance in which we are too absorbed with individual events and not the sinewy substance surrounding them. We now have had editors remove the entire Trade section, despite leaving all sorts of other less longstanding and less signficant personal and political material. The central RS narrative concerning the Singapore event is that it is another chapter in the ongoing capitulation to Russian and Chinese geopolitical and military interests. At some point days or years from now, such information will be found in this article. Today would be a good time to start. SPECIFICO talk 17:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes -- the amount of coverage and content seems to match what else is in the lead so go ahead -- but just a mention of it in the lead is all that would be appropriate. Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Murals

So are we going to say something about the Trump murals at the Brownsville, Texas child detention camp that look like the propaganda murals of communist nations and dictatorships? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

So far you're not eliminated from editing the article.MONGO 15:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Revolting. But, I wouldn't add it. O3000 (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not think they belong but also a side note they have murals of several presidents there including Obama from slide 3 in the link. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't be added. There are murals of various presidents and it's extremely biased to put this as a Trump issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

But the one with Trump looks more evil than the others...maybe? It actually a big deal really, not the murals of course but the shelters are a point of contention. [25]MONGO 16:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not "extremely biased to put this as a Trump issue." Only Trump's administration detains refugees, separates children from their parents, puts them in camps where they only get to go outside for two hours a day, and then parades a bunch of people on TV that falsely conflate asylum seekers (what these people are) with illegal immigrants (what these people aren't) by saying this is being done to discourage illegal immigration. With that said, I never really had any expectation this would be a thing we added, even though Trump is weirdly the only president featured in the murals with an American flag. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There was that one Hillary mural in that slide show with an American flag. Though that was even more disturbing. PackMecEng (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"Only Trump's administration detains refuges"...wrong. "separates children from their parents"...wrong. then a couple maybes but not likely that this has happened "only" under Trump. Seems these issues were overlooked during Community Organizer Obama's terms? In the 90s during Clinton's administration we employed "expedited removal" all the time and that meant parents were sent home on next flight back or sent back across the border..and the kids, if US Citizens were, well, put in facilities till foster homes or legal relatives could be located..which could take months...etc.MONGO 17:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

How was it treated in our WP articles about Obama when it occurred during his administration in much larger numbers - see Newsweek???? Odd...but I haven't been able to find anything about that all-important information in any of the Obama articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Atsme - (side remark for this article, but ... you can try editing 'deporter in chief' in at Obama articles.) Markbassett (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@MONGO and Atsme: Separating children from their parents (often lying to them by claiming they need to see a lawyer, get bathed, get pictures taken and stuff) has not happened in recent memory. You are both confusing actions taken with these REFUGEES with the actions taken with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS in the past. They are NOT THE SAME THING. This is a new Trump administration policy that is arguably illegal because of the 1951 Refugee Convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You can add whatever you wish to the article and see if it stands or someone "challenges" it. Your characterization that this is a refugee crisis and not an illegal immigrant one must be muddied up by some over the pond notions on what we are talking about.MONGO 17:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

First, I have no intention of adding anything. I am the kind of editor who proposes things on the talk page and seeks consensus before adding something. Second, it says in the article I linked to at the top of this thread that the children are processed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (which, strangely enough, deals with refugees). Finally, I may be British, but I have lived in the United States since 2001 - I have no idea why either detail has any relevance to this discussion, or my understanding of the issues. In fact, as a person who spent YEARS going through legal immigration at a cost of THOUSANDS of dollars, I am opposed to illegal immigration. I have a different view, however, of refugees seeking asylum from persecution/death in their own countries. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum about immigration policies. Please stick to article contents. — JFG talk 17:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The majority are immigrants seeking asylum which is faster and easier than going through routine immigration channels. Our US Immigration system sucks and needs to be fixed. Read the section "The Mexican government cracked down on the caravan — but some people decided to continue through to the US" - it's not that we're refusing refugees from war torn countries....regardless, wouldn't it be a shame if they fled Central America to escape drug dealers and murder, and then ended up in Chicago. Nope, the proposed material does not belong in this article. Atsme📞📧 18:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Well done for shitting all over Chicago, which is a favored pastime of His Royal Highness too. Also, nobody has actually proposed any material. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC) They are self-shitting...the media just reports it. As for not proposing any material - read your own question at the top of this section. What do you call it? Atsme📞📧 19:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC) I was asking if anyone was interested in mentioning it. I did not propose any text at any point. And how is you shitting all over Chicago any different from me shitting all over dumbass voters, BTW? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC) (1) Proposal = a suggestion put forward for consideration or discussion by others; (2) - If you are unable to see the difference between your unwarranted allegation that I shit all over Chicago which I cited to a RS vs your own unwarranted derogatory asinine allegations, specifically that "there were more horrid racists and gullible idiots than Democrats had assumed"...well, WP:CIR. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, which does not include teaching editors how to behave in a civil manner. You are certainly entitled to your own strong opinions, but not your own facts, so stop trying to force them on me. This discussion is over. Atsme📞📧 20:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC) @Atsme: And wouldn't it be a shame if a DACA kid, about to graduate from high school in Des Moines, got deported to Mexico where he was promptly murdered?[26] These things work both ways, my friend. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC) You're preaching to the choir and hitting a bit too close to home when you bring up DACA, which has become highly politicized, so let's move away from that discussion. My response to Scjessey's snark was related to the recent rise in undocumented immigrants coming into the US from Central America and Asia. This country can neither afford nor keep under control the growing plague of tent cities resulting from poverty and homelessness, many of which ironically are located in the very cities where citizens welcome undocumented immigrants with open arms, and then forget they exist. Reminding myself, NOTFORUM - stay on topic. Atsme📞📧 03:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC) @Atsme: The overall number of immigrants crossing the border is the lowest it has been since the early '70s and the number continues to drop, so the "can't afford" argument is bullshit, but I guess we don't want the facts to get in the way of a good narrative, do we? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC) You do know the "can't afford" put was in relation to "poverty and homelessness" and not necessarily to illegal immigration right? Past that, so what? It has nothing to do with the purposed text or this article. This should be closed at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Wait...thought they were "refugees", but now they are "immigrants". Glad we got that straight finally....excepting you forgot the "illegal" part in front of that.MONGO 15:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC) @MONGO: I understand that the sole purpose of your comment was to antagonize me; nevertheless, let me put you straight. I used the term "immigrants" because I was responding to a specific comment about, well, immigrants from Atsme. Secondly, I know people of your obvious political persuasion like to brand all immigrants as illegal, but the only "illegal" immigrants are those who cross the border illegally and/or stay in the US without the proper paperwork. When I say the "overall number" I am not breaking out illegal immigrants from the total number. To be clear, this has nothing to do with the completely separate refugee issue we were discussing earlier, although I suspect you knew that anyway, didn't you? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC) MelanieN ummm ... a bit nuts at "if a DACA kid, about to graduate from high school in Des Moines, got deported" -- since eligibility is HS graduate, and they're basically in their late 20s or early 30s now (time has passed since 2007). Some TV coverage giving you these mis-impressions ? (Well, they all do but still.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Mark, I'll reply on your talk page since this is off topic. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Not in this article. If there's an article about that location, it can be discussed there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's creepy as hell, and it has been covered by other sources,[27][28][29][30] but it's not really biographical material and I doubt that Trump had anything to do with it.- MrX 🖋 17:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What MrX said, except I actually don't find it creepy, just completely pointless. Must be my Autism getting the better of me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I can hardly say how angry these murals make me. These children have been separated from their homeland and then from their parents. And then these (goddamn) gigantic murals that only rub salt into their open wounds by making sure that they know that they are aliens in this country. The American Academy of Pediatrics rightfully says, "We can and must remember that immigrant children are still children; they need our protection, not prosecution.” [31] That said, I can't see that this information belongs in this particular article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we add the famous G7 photo to the foreign policy section?

Or is it copyrighted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Everything is copyrighted. See below. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

What famous G7 photo? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This[32] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Interesting photo; but it's not cherry picking season. O3000 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think there's a very strong argument to be made for using that photo. Right now, it might have a WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENT smell about it, but there's no doubt the image is getting massive, worldwide coverage in all forms of old and new media. It perfectly illustrates the G7 summit, and the photo itself has become something of a phenomenon. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Give it a month and see if you feel the same. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There's not enough importance for a fair-use claim, and I don't know whether it's public domain or not. I don't see any rush to add it, but if it's public domain we may want to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Half the photos currently in the article should be replaced with better images or images of more significant subject matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the source, FYI: https://twitter.com/RegSprecher/status/1005475391920844801 Casprings (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment - The Berne Convention, of which the USA (jurisdiction for Wikipedia) has been a signatory since 1989, establishes that copyrights for creative works are automatically in force upon their creation without being asserted or declared. An author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. quote from our article, not the convention itself. The operative questions are: a) has the work been released under a license which allows free use?; b) do we have a fair use rationale?; c) has the copyright expired? Of these, a) requires positive evidence of release, not absence of counter-evidence; c) is a fairly obvious "no"; and b), for mine, is a less obvious, but clear "no" for this article at this time, but a possible "yes" for an article on the 2018 G7 Summit. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for further reading. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The HuffPo article has links to six photos of that in-between sessions mingling scene, taken by six different photographers accompanying the German, French, Italian, US, Canadian, and Japanese teams, respectively. They show people small-talking and studying papers. No idea whether any of them are free to use, and I don't see the significance for this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we add the famous G7 photo to the foreign policy section? In a word, no. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Too many different POV captions floating around. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I said no above as I thought it was cherry-picking photos to make a point. But, I think I will eventually change my mind on this. More is coming out about the discussion at the time of the photo. The pic is iconic and is likely to last the test of time. Personal aside, there are probably political cartoonists that wished they had drawn this. Let’s wait a bit, and not yet reject it out of hand (assuming it passes copyright). O3000 (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You make the best comment yet for the "Worst Thanksgiving ever" photo, and I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

For anyone still curious, it looks like German government works only enter the public domain when they are what they call "official works", which are really just government documents that pertain to the business of government itself and which the public needs access to (e.g. legislation, decrees, flags). So no, this is not in the public domain, and we can assume the German government retains all rights to this image. The United States government is very unique for releasing all creative works produced by it into the public domain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Thanks for the useful details on copyright practice. That settles the discussion. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

At 594x396, it costs $175 in the US for non-commercial, non-promotional use. O3000 (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Photo with Kim Jong un

Can someone include a photo with Kim into the article? It’s pretty significant. Sovietmessiah (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Sovietmessiah just to note that it's been done. Looks like the photo seen at whitehouse.gov.

p.s. URL is https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/POTD-June-12-2018-1024x683.jpg

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)