Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Request move to Donald J. Trump

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 seems pretty clear that Mr. Trump prefers to be referred to as Donald J. Trump rather than just Donald Trump. His campaign websites [1] [2], literatures, and his own social media accounts [3] [4] [5] all refer to him as the former. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's naming convention, but there are certainly plenty of precedents for this, such as George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy. A more recent example is Hillary Clinton, who was previously better known as Hillary Rodham Clinton before dropping her maiden name in November [6]. It's also worth noting that The New York Times refers to him as Donald J. Trump. Regards--Cuckservative (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Opppose - Article titles should follow what sources commonly use when referring to the subject. The current title meets all five criteria of a good title: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. According to Google, "Donald Trump" is a far more common search term. Google News shows about a 10:1 preference for "Donald Trump" over "Donald J. Trump"- MrX 12:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Using Google search as a criteria? Come on! George Bush is also a more common search than George W. Bush. Heck, even Dubya is more common.--Cuckservative (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Google search is very valid way of determining common names for people and things. I won't argue with you about other articles, as it has no bearing on this discussion.- MrX 14:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Citobun (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I would argue he's been more commonly known as Donald J. Trump in this election cycle, especially on reputable media sources such as The New York Times.--Cuckservative (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - in actuality most media sources refer to him as just Donald Trump. --Ches (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Most credible media, such as the BBC and the The Guardian refer to him as "Donald Trump". If the NYT does something different that is the anomaly not the rule. It is clear this weird thing of referring to himself in the third person as "Donald J. Trump" is some bizarre publicity stunt. AusLondonder (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the Independent article you cited is uncalled for and shows a lack of understanding for American politics. And more American media calls him Donald J. Trump than British media. There are plenty of precedents of past American presidents and political figures who include their middle initials as their official names, such as George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson, Warren G. Harding, all the way back to the 19th century of James K. Polk, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur. A few even included their entire middle names (William Howard Taft, John Quincy Adams, William Henry Harrison). Barack Obama is one of the exceptions, not the rule.--Cuckservative (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You have cited one media outlet, The New York Times. Can you cite a few more? AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reuters [7], The Weekly Standard [8], The Nation [9] have all called him Donald J. Trump recently, especially in more formal settings. Also keep in mind that many less formal websites and outlets don't call George W. Bush by his full name either but rather Bush Jr, George Bush, President Bush, or simply Dubya (W). Robert F. Kennedy is referred to as Bobby Kennedy or RFK. John F. Kennedy is commonly referred to as Jack Kennedy or JFK. Dwight D. Eisenhower's middle initial is almost never mentioned unless in the most formal setting and is sometimes referred to as simply "Ike". In my opinion, Trump is referred to as "Donald J. Trump" often enough to warrant a move in light of past precedents.--Cuckservative (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: He is generally not referred to by his middle initial, and the current title is shorter anyway. As for the presidential precedent, we're being a little hasty now, aren't we? pbp 15:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is just about "presidential precedent" as he hasn't been elected president, but rather a debate between common name vs. preferred name by the person himself. Hillary was more often referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton until she dropped her maiden name this election cycle [10]. Bradley Manning was still referred to as such until he/she let it be known that his/her preference is to be called Chelsea Manning. In both instances, Wikipedia went with the person's preferred version and in fact was ahead of the most mainstream media in some cases [11].--Cuckservative (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning is transgender, and in such cases we do use the preferred name of the person, but Trump is not. If Trump were to outright say "I'd like everybody to call me Donald J. Trump", I'd have a different opinion on this matter, but of course, he is unlikely to say that. Hillary Clinton's article doesn't have the title of Hillary Rodham Clinton, even though she is occasionally referred to in this way. --Ches (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Hillary's Wikipedia article's title was in fact Hillary Rodham Clinton until Washington Post and a number of others ran articles saying she dropped her maiden name for the 2016 presidential campaign. Maybe we should contact Hope Hicks to get a clarification.--Cuckservative (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose & Speedy Close: There is no need to drag this. It's against WP:COMMONNAME, his common name is Donald Trump. This request might have been filed because of poor information about Wikipedia policies and everybody is wasting their time voting on it. (alt. signature) King Julien of Wikipedia | do not make a move | 21:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done pbp 21:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Are any of you even an admin? If not, what gives you the standing to unilaterally close and archive a discussion?--Make America Great Again (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Look up WP:SNOWBALL. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I will in a sec. Still learning the ropes here. Btw is it really necessary for this user to vandalize my signature [12]?--Make America Great Again (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism. That was a mistaken edit. See this for explanation:[13] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

My username doesn't include the word Trump but you somehow changed my signature. I find that highly unlikely with an automated program that only alters Mr. Trump's surname.--Make America Great Again (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The drumpfinator extension also changes that phrase into John Oliver's hashtag. It was only a few edits ago you said someone else should AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Olivier's work but I will take your word for it for now. Happy editing--Make America Great Again (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You as well. You can read about his segment, and watch it, at Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sports

this needs to be corrected Trump bought the generals AFTER the 1983 season, He was not the original owner, he was approached to owned the team but declined . the league sold the team to ducan. ducan sold it to trump how it should read

In 1983, Trump purchased the New Jersey Generals after the inaugural season of the United States Football League (USFL). The Generals hired former New York Jets head coach Walt Michaels. Prior to the inaugural season, Trump had consider buying the franchise but declined. The USFL sold the franchise to Oklahoma oil magnate J. Walter Duncan. After the 1983 season, Duncan sold the team to Trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyearbaby (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Link to organized crime: Speculation or verifiable?

@Purplebackpack89:, you said that we should delete the section on organized crime or at least pare it down to one or two sentences, and you said that it amounted to non-neutral speculation. I dispute both of your assertions. I think this is a good time to work on these questions as Wikipedians openly and fairly. SocraticOath (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

1) "The section is too long." I don't dispute this, but I don't think it should be deleted, either. This is why I'm proposing a spinoff.

2) "The section is non-neutral." If this was true, then why weren't the edits removed when they were originally added? If the material passes the Wikipedia standard of verifiability, I think that NPOV becomes a weaker principle in choosing what Wikipedia records. Again, if we had to use NPOV for political campaigns so that each candidate was represented neutrally, we would have to make the article about Donald Trump look in some real way similar to the article on Ben Carson or Hillary Clinton. Would it really be NPOV to try to make Trump's lawsuits, over 150 in federal court and uncounted in state court, not to mention any suits in other countries where he does business, look about as notable as Carson's acts of violence as an angry young man?

3) "The section is speculation." I'm OK going into details here, if you want to continue along this point. The allegations were made through government hearings and several biographical books. The book by Timothy O'Brien uses citations 383 times (the total is fewer because many are used more than once), similar in count to this article. Timothy O'Brien based much of his book on personal interviews, which he documents. The book was published by Time Warner Book Group. SocraticOath (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The information connecting Trump to LiButti is the result of recent investigative reporting by Yahoo News, in which they obtained government records through the New Jersey Open Public Records Act. This is why the Michael Isikoff article is the only source for the information. SocraticOath (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The link to the Scarfi family was developed by investigative journalist Wayne Barrett for his unauthorized 1992 book, 'Trump: The Deals and the Downfall'. The allegations were acknowledged by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, which declined to pursue any charges. SocraticOath (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The link to Felix Sater or Satter is pretty clear, as it appears through the business relationship Trump had with Sater's company, Bayrock LLC, and their various developments in the 2000's and 2010's. What is questionable is whether Sater is involved in organized crime.SocraticOath (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's very clear Felix Sater cultivated ties and later ratted on members of the Italian-American Mafia. That's in Relable Sources. What's not (yet) reported or stated in the article is that Sater's father is himself a major Russian mob figure, which could well be the reason he's so handy for Trump to have around the office. A lot of this will come out if and when Trump gets the GOP nomination. Trump's kids are mixed up with these players as well. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) currently redirects to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, but sources have been collected at Talk:Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) if anyone is interested in creating an article from the redirect. I think the segment is obviously notable. Tobacco (Last Week Tonight) shows what an article about a single segment can look like. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe creating that article will lead all the John Oliver fans to stop trying to insert "Drumpf" into this article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

We should probably create this article, as it is notable. epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've created the article. epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm admittedly unclear on Wikipedia policy, but when does a show segment become notable? Shows run segments all the time which are then summarized by bloggers or other news outlets. What makes this segment more notable than others? That being said, I don't think I have a problem with a blurb about John Oliver being in the article somewhere. My issue is that people keep trying to add "Drumpf" to the Early Life section of the article, which IMO is clearly inappropriate as this was hundreds of years before the guy was even born. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say the test for notability of a segment would be whether or not it has long term lasting effect, or has *substantially* changed the parameters of how a person is seen relative to others. E.g. a show where somebody admits to a crime, or a segment like Netflix's Making a Murderer that completely changes the level of public awareness or consciousness about an issue. As it stands I do not believe that has been met with Oliver's commentary yet, and we should be weary of including it so that we don't fall victim to WP:RECENTISM Spudst3r (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Article is now subject to Arbitration Enforcement sanctions

Just so that all who watch this page are aware, I've now imposed article-level Arbitration Enforcement discretionary sanctions on Donald Trump. This enforcement action is done in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator to prevent disruption to the editing process, and to ensure strict policy adherence when editing this contentious article. Please read and familiarize yourself with the sanctions now in effect before editing the article further. Thank you all for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit vs. Ivana: too personal for Wikipedia?

Another editor deleted the bullet item on Trump's lawsuit against his ex-wife Ivana in the first few years after their divorce in the '90s. The other editor claimed that because the lawsuit was related to Trump's personal life, it wasn't suitable for Wikipedia. I dispute this idea: if it was too personal for the public to hear about, then why was the lawsuit done in US court? Public reporting of US lawsuits is part of our tradition and I'm pretty sure it's an important part of our legal system. Furthermore, wouldn't hiding such a lawsuit somehow be unfair to Ivana herself? SocraticOath (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If it belongs in this BLP, it would be better in the section about his personal life, along with context. See Johnson, Brent. [http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/trump_never_raped_me_ex-wife_says_in_criticism_of_news_report.html "Trump's ex-wife downplays report detailing old rape

allegations"], NJ.com (July 28, 2015).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Putting this personal issue in with all of these business lawsuits is shoehorning. The issue never really went anywhere and only has one source so it may not be noteworthy enough for the personal section, at least for an article that already has many WP:WEIGHT issues with all of this legal stuff VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

SocraticOath needs to read Wikipedia's content guidelines or risk admin action against their account; Saying things like this: "wouldn't hiding such a lawsuit somehow be unfair to Ivana herself?" to justify edits are evidence that this editor is editing this page for political posturing and not what's appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Content inclusion in Wikipedia is only dictated by Wikipedia's content guidelines. This user is literally making hundreds of edits a day on this page - many of which are reverted - and if you continue to try to use this article as a method of political activism we may need to request an admin to ban the account. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The wiki policy for biographies of living persons, under public figures, clearly supports the inclusion of facts such as Donald Trump's 1992 lawsuit against Ivana for $25 million, whether or not the story puts its subjects in a good light, because the facts are verifiable. Because the story was public at the time, because it was in court, because several news outlets still publish contemporary accounts of the story, because there is no concern for privacy if the story also appears here, this item is well within the guidelines of WP:BLP. SocraticOath (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Politician status

Is it right to call Donald Trump a politician? He has never held an elected office. This is his second-ever political campaign. epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe Donald Trump has only once been a candidate for political office, and Trump is currently a pre-selection Republican Presidential candidate; how does this warrant describing him as a politician? User:Brisbane1965 15:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That is also what I am trying to say. If he was only ever a candidate, how is he a politician? epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just re-iterating/supporting your point of view. User:Brisbane1965 15:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• From our article: "A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government". Dictionaries define it similarly. There is no need to have actually held office. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  There is no way he is a politician. He is a bombastic ****** who talks a lot of **** (censored due to BLP).

  But joking aside, I understand that by Wikipedia's own article, he could be considered a politician. What do other reliable sources say, though? epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Holding office is only one definition of politician. The etymology of the word is " a person skilled in politics", while definitions include "a person who is active in party politics.....a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles...a person who holds a political office." Cambridge dictionaries gives the British definition as "a ​member of a ​government or law-making ​organization" but the American definition as "a ​person who is ​active in ​politics, esp. as a ​job"

As for sources, The Washington Post, The Independent, The New York Times, The New Yorker all describe Trump as a politician. Valenciano (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Since this can be a contentious label, I suggest we add these sources to support the fact that he is a politician in the lead, despite it violating policy. epicgenius (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no... we shouldn't allow the media to influence these definitions. User:Brisbane1965 15:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too, but we should see if other reliable sources do not mention him as a politician as well. That may influence whether it can be included in the article. Otherwise, I guess "politician" has a looser meaning these days. ;-) epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, my definition may be different, but that's a different discussion. Trump being a former Mayoral candidate qualifies. Many thanks. :-) User:Brisbane1965 15:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Stating in the lead that he is a "politician", even before stating that he is a "TV personality", is misleading since it suggests to the reader that running for or holding office has been a major feature of his life. And that is not the case. (This sophist justification to specify "politician" is the kind of coat-rack POV argument that turns people off to either editing, or reading, or referring to, the WP.) A "politician" as the 2nd descriptor in the lead suggests a significant stake in career politics in his life. That's just not reflective of the fact regardless what the WP politician article says. IHTS (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

For those who feel Floquenbeam's use of WP definition ("active in party politics, holding or seeking office", where "no need to have actually held office") justifies identifying Trump "politician" as descriptor in the lead, then for a little consistency, perhaps the same people s/ feel compelled to go over to the Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina articles, and make the same claims there (that they are/were "politicians"). (Or maybe consistency is a *bad* thing, and I just haven't learned that yet ...) IHTS (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think politician is restricted to those who hold office. Clearly as the leading Republican candidate, he is a serious political contender. This is not a new, looser definition. The Shorter Oxford dictionary defines politician as "An expert in politics; a person engaged in or concerned with politics, esp. as a practitioner." It says this definition goes back to the early 17th century. An earlier meaning was a "schemer" or "intriguer". It is a misnomer to use the word to signify only a member of Congress or a holder of executive office. As for sources which describe Trump as a politician:[14][15][16]etc--Jack Upland (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that politician is appropriate because it sets the sphere as politics, which is true. But I think "xxx is a politician" really does imply some time spent doing politics, which Trump does not have. So I think that 'aspiring politician' is a good identity for Trump today. SocraticOath (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I also think that politician is appropriate. 'Aspiring politician' is good too, and should address the most of the concerns raised here.- MrX 21:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"Aspiring" is wrong. He is one of the most prominent politicians on the planet at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In the US, since the electorate grants politicians their consent to be governed, it's my feeling that calling Trump a politician can mistakenly imply that he already carries that warrant, which he can't unless actually elected. I think this is a meaningful difference between candidates and politicians. SocraticOath (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, since Trump is "running as an outsider," doesn't that pretty much mean that he doesn't identify as a politician himself? I clarified this with six words at the end of the first lede paragraph. Any objections? SocraticOath (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As one (not American) who considers it unusual of Trump to be a serious candidate for Presidential office in a major party without having ever served as a Representative, Senator, State Governor or city Mayor (commonly found in the CVs of Presidential front-runners), I think it would be more accurate to describe him as an aspiring (less formally would-be or in vernacular, wannabee) politician.Cloptonson (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Foreign Relations: dealings with dictators

I just added a sentence under political positions relating to Trump's treatment of Muammar Gaddafi in NYC in 2009, and his comments in retrospect in 2011. My sentence was placed next to a sentence about closer international relations with India. Trump did not treat Gaddafi generously in his dealings, and I am using an unusual word to describe this kind of political positioning: shrewdness. If other editors think this sentence needs help, I would be really glad to hear suggestions. However, I think that Trump's assertion about his preferred style of foreign policy with this type of leader is appropriate and notable for the article, if not exactly here in this section. SocraticOath (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think shrewd is a good substitute for screwed. It looks fine to me.- MrX 19:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor removed the addition, saying it's not really a political position. Any comments, MrX or others?SocraticOath (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a political position, but it could be said to be indicative of his position on foreign policy. It does, however, pre-date his campaign, so it's inclusion in the main biography is probably not a priority.- MrX 00:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

loser.com

I have removed the content about loser.com being redirected to this article. It's trivial and has very little relevance to the biographical coverage of this subject. It's also WP:UNDUE.

Removed content
In February 2016, the website loser.com began re-directing to this very article on Wikipedia.[17]

If this is to be re-added to the article, there needs to be consensus for doing so.- MrX 12:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No, there doesn't. It's in the pop culture section and you can't get anymore "pop culture" than that! It's sourced (by TIME, I might add) and definitely notable. Google it and see for yourself! Welcome to the world we live in. 'Tis the internet.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. This is new content and requires consensus for inclusion. Any idiot can redirect a domain to a Wikipedia article. It doesn't make it a pop cultural phenomenon.- MrX 12:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

MrX: This does make it a pop culture phenomenon, though. Time Magazine, Snopes, fortune.com, Daily Mail, Yahoo News, NY Daily News, Huffington Post, and more have all reported it! It is most definitely notable! The fact The Washington Post has written up a history of the website proves it is not just some domain "any idiot redirected to Wikipedia!"Cebr1979 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it has been reported by several news agencies. Many other trivial things have been reported about Trump that we also don't put in his encyclopedia biography. Sourcing is not the only requirement for including content. Editorial discretion, demonstrated through consensus determines what content makes it to the article and what doesn't. So far, there is no consensus so it must remain out. If you feel strongly about this content, you may want to start an WP:RFC to get more input.- MrX 11:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything with "Trump" in the article title gets tons of clicks for these sites. The redirect has zero relevance to the Trump biography. Honestly, it sounds like you're more interested in associating the word "loser" with Trump for your own biased political purposes than anything else. Doorzki (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Separate pages

Why are we adding every little detail about his campaign on this page when we have pages like Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016? There should be just one paragraph to sum up his campaign on this page with the link to these other pages and all extra details should go there! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably because there are far more readers of this article than the campaign article. I agree that this material here can be trimmed, but not to a single paragraph. I would support condensing paragraphs 3, 4,5, and 6; removing paragraph 7; and reducing the material under 'Proposed ban on Muslims entering the U.S.' down to a single paragraph (without a sub heading).- MrX 11:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump vs The Trump Organization

It is my opinion that Donald Trump (the person) so well personifies The Trump Organization that it is common to treat them as one-in-the-same. In fact, everything I have learned about the man leads me to believe he has intimate control of what the company does. I think it might be important, however, to remain cognizant of the distinction between the person and the organization. Reading this article, I feel at times the distinction is not adequately maintained throughout the article. Trump may be chairman and president of the company, but he is not the same as the company. Giving him too much credit for the successes and failures of the organization may not be fair. Looking at other large privately held organizations like Dell and Mars, and reading the pages of Michael Dell and Victoria B. Mars I feel a greater effort is made to maintain the distinctions between the organization and it's namesake leader. I would just like to ask that any edits be careful to maintain some distinction between the two. Doorzki (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

See above (Lawsuit section too long...) for some of my thoughts on this subject, please. SocraticOath (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for backup of citations

Would our friends outside the United States please consider creating electronic and hard-copy archives of the source material for this Wikipedia article? Thanks, SocraticOath (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-threatens-to-weaken-first-amendment-protections-for-reporters/ SocraticOath (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The first amendment has multiple parts including freedom of speech and freedom of the press. These are two distinct freedoms. I believe Trump is referring to press rather than speech. I believe the problem to Trump is libel in the context of news, not the idea that speech should be restricted. Per my understanding, a reporter simply requires a source to publish a news story but cannot be made to give up that source. I believe Trump's position is that the current standard makes it easy to disguise malicious intent in reporting news. A reader might make important decisions based on content being characterized as "news" (such as voting decisions), but might be more wary of "opinion" content or another context not marketed as "news." There are other highly consequential contexts where presentation of information is important to its interpretation in law. For example, investment advice is distinct speech versus business news, even though the two can be exactly the same. Presentation can provide legal liability or legal protection. Trump seems to me to want a higher standard for news content, specifically. Anyway, I know where you're coming from, but I don't think the concern has been well defined in most reporting. Doorzki (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So it's my thought that if today's standard for libel protection were raised, that a variety of publishers might take a hard look at their material and withdraw some things that they think wouldn't pass muster anymore. Since the reporting used here has passed Wikipedia's standard, I thought that the public would benefit from having these articles still available after such an action by the government. SocraticOath (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal Issues Section Needs to be shortened way down or made its own separate article

The legal issues section at the bottom of this bio take up way too much of the article's space and consequently violates WP:WEIGHT (and possibly other Wiki rules) for a bio.

That's not to say that some (or all) of what is documented in this section shouldn't be included, but it needs to be shorter as obviously these issues have not been a dramatically defining issue in Trump's life thus far.

However, if some editors are plastering the end of this article with legal issues for political reasons, that obviously has no place on Wikipedia. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If that was intended as a directed comment, please allow me to note that I added only one lawsuit to the list, the $500 million one against Univision, a recent addition. I did separate the paragraphs for readability purposes and give titles. SocraticOath (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I do object to the idea that Trump's lawsuits have not been a dramatically defining issue in Trump's life. If you want to establish that point, please do it here on the talk page. It seems clear to me that the lawsuits are notable. SocraticOath (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with SocraticOath that Trump's lawsuits have been a big part of his public image, and think this should be a separate article; see further discussion and links under 'proposal for new articles' below. ABF99 (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the sheer volume of content in the lawsuit section is overwhelming to this article and seems to cast Trump in an unfairly negative light. I do think the lawsuit section is important to preserve but in a separate article as this content will only grow as more interest develops on Trump's past. It might also be good to consider a separate article on his business accomplishments eventually as that content will probably grow in volume as well. Doorzki (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Doorzki, can you expand on the idea that the lawsuits seem to cast Trump in an unfairly negative light? It seems to me that the way the legal affairs section is written doesn't go against Wikipedia's principles of fairness (WP:BLP / public figure), neutrality (WP:NPOV), and WP:verifiability, although I agree that the section is long. The article is larger than the threshold for Wikipedia's article split procedure (WP:Split). SocraticOath (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

SocraticOath, thank you for asking me to expand. I think the problem I see can be fixed by condensing all the sections into readable paragraphs. Right now, the Legal Affairs section reads like a bullet-point list with repeating, related, bold titles like "Housing discrimination" and "Tenant mistreatment in New York City." I feel this over-emphasizes these related events to the reader. Moreover, the list format does not flow with the rest of the article. I would suggest a few broad sections like "Real Estate Litigation," and "Family Matters" over the current chronological chart. Further, I would urge caution in using lists of titles that simply name crimes like "Antitrust" because the list of bold titles give a feeling of NPOV to someone skimming the article and not closely analyzing each charge. Doorzki (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, condensation makes better sense. The section doesn't need so many categories and subheaders. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've objected to the split before, being wary of offloading Mr. Trump's history of litigiousness (an essential component of his biography) into a separate and little-trafficked sidebar. As it stands the legal section, while long, is at the end of his entry. It is there for readers to examine or not, but it is still part of the whole. To take it out would be to imply that Mr. Trump's so-called business success story has been relatively free of acrimony, scandal, and perceived legal abuse. I would not approve a split unless the main article includes both 1) a comprehensive summary of his lawsuits and legal maneuverings, and 2) prominent mention, preferably in the lede, that his history of litigiousness has also brought him in and of itself a level of notoriety. Anything less would be a disservice to readers. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Vesuvius Dogg, the only weakness I see with the current presentation is the BLP concept of "broadly neutral", which applies to individual items as well as the entire article, including the table of contents. Although I think the article is broadly neutral, it seems that this is the most likely argument for making this kind of change. SocraticOath (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Am a little confused by what you are saying. Is there a BLP problem with any individual item? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not in favor of splitting the article and (broadly, today) I don't see any issues. I'm trying to frame the discussion by going over the applicable rules in advance of the debate. SocraticOath (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a pass at removing headers. SocraticOath (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've mentioned this in a new section but I'm posting my concern about it here as well. I feel this article could do more to distinguish between Donald Trump and The Trump Organization. While many of the legal affairs include a great deal of Trump's personal involvement, others seem to be related to common business activities within Trump's industry rather than being highly related of Trump as a person. I admit that I struggle on where to draw the line. I will say though some of the content like "Vs. Ossining, New York" describing relatively minor disputes of zoning, building code, and property tax valuation seem to me to be of little relevance to Donald Trump (the person). I highly doubt Trump himself has spent any considerable time worried about a small town's drainage system (though people in his organization may have). Doorzki (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doorzki, I think it's important to remember not to get stymied by the details of the lawsuits, some of which are quite trivial. The point of the Ossining lawsuit is that Trump was accused of using financial maneuvering to inappropriately pay lower taxes to the local government. Whether this is actually what happened, the courts will decide. But like the incident with the flagpole, the accusation (Trump attempted to use the legal system to do something that's legally shaky for his own benefit) is a common theme for many of the lawsuits. The legal shakiness can seem neutral at times, as when he wanted a helicopter manufacturer to pay for the costs to his company resulting from the death of three top executives in a helicopter accident; or it can seem less-than-neutral, as when he did things that resulted in the firing of an analyst who had predicted bad returns on a Trump project, and subsequently settled a defamation lawsuit when the project did have bad returns. I suppose these little differences are what make the details more than trivial. By the way, since Trump frequently counter-sues when he's sued, it doesn't really work to separate the article into "as defendant" and "as plaintiff" sections, in my opinion.SocraticOath (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

More to your point, I'm not really struggling to differentiate between Trump the man and Trump the company in my mind. I would feel differently about, say, Texaco, which was bought. One example where you may be on to something is with Trump Entertainment Resorts, which is now owned by Carl Icahn. Still, I don't think it's sensible to separate the Taj Mahal stories from the man Trump. I suppose that if Icahn takes the company in a really different direction, which he may do (he's only had it for a few months, if I remember right), then it would probably be less confusing to say, "while Trump was chairman and president of TER, a project was...." instead of simply, "in 1992, Trump began a project to...". SocraticOath (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I used to think that Trump's father's investment in the casino by purchasing chips was clever. But really, there is such a thing as the spirit of a law, and Trump eventually paid a fine for that incident. SocraticOath (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Political commentary in lead

I've removed this commentary on Trump's politics from the lead. The lead should consist of facts, not subjective discussion. In lieu of this content, I think it would be fair to mention a few of his most prominent political stances (e.g. opposition to illegal immigration).CFredkin (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends on how you define 'subjective'. Would it be fair to call Donald Trump a politician running on a conservative platform, or would that be a subjective label? If saying he's running on a conservative platform is okay- would saying populist be okay too? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin removed this sentence from the lede:

"His plain-spoken style and controversial comments have led to extensive media coverage, where his politics have been described as populist, nativist, protectionist, and authoritarian by a variety of pundits and media outlets."

Overall this sentence is well sourced and its content is undisputed -- though its wording could be improved somewhat.

You might be right that a specific breakdown of Trump's major positions within the lede could be appropriate, but I don't think it's correct to remove the above summarization of Trump's political views from the lede either. One approach would be to follow the Bernie Sanders article lede, where Bernie progressive label is mentioned in addition to an overview of his major priorities. Spudst3r (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

References

I believe that we should not only list what his critics say, but what his supporters say as well. When we only give voice to his critics, it can give the tone an unfair partisan edge. So instead of only saying that his policies have been described as "nativist," we could say that "Critics portray his policies as nativist...while supporters..." I'm pinging Winkelvi on this because he recently changed another addition to the lead containing the content in question. Display name 99 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with listing what his critics or his supporters say. There is a problem if it gets included as encyclopedic content when it really is nothing more than WP:POV. Which is why I removed it. Encyclopedic tone is all important, after reliable sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, let me propose this:

His plain-spoken style and controversial comments have led to extensive media coverage. Some have criticized his policies as nativist, protectionist, and authoritarian. However, his supporters applaud his seemingly bold ideas and straightforwardness, and see his proposals as a means to end what are considered corrupt and inefficient establishment politics.

I think that this gives accurate weight to both sides. Hopefully, you, Spudst3r, PeterTheFourth, and CFredkin can agree on this or something rather close to it. Display name 99 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

References

"His plain-spoken style and controversial comments have led to extensive media coverage." That is POV wording and certainly not encyclopedic. Please read WP:PEACOCK. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, after reading that over, I think that the first part of the statement that you have quoted above is fine, although the second may require revision. A lot of people support Trump because he "tells it like it is," and does not seem to have a filter for political correctness. Meanwhile, some of the things he says have certainly created controversy. As for the last part, I can see how you may want to change the tone to something less loaded. Would you approve of the statement if "extensive" was dropped in favor of "significant?" Display name 99 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the first part is not okay. It's in Wikipedia's voice that Trump has a "plain-spoken style" and is "controversial". That's POV. Perhaps you should also read WP:PEACOCK. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to mention something about Trump's political stances in the lead, then I think we should avoid labels (either good or bad) and stick to facts and his actual stances on issues. For example, I think something like this from one of the existing sources might be appropriate:

Trump first campaigned for the U.S. presidency in 2000, winning two Reform Party primaries. On June 16, 2015, Trump again announced his candidacy for president, this time as a Republican. He quickly became the front-runner in the Republican contest, due in part to his skepticism of immigration, free trade, and military interventionism. As of March 9, 2016, he has won 15 contests in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries.

CFredkin (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good except for "He quickly became the front-runner in the Republican contest". "Quickly" is making a quantitative judgement. It would be better to give a time-frame ("after entering the race, he became the declared front-runner by <name of the month, year>") than to say "quickly became". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, it is true that after Trump declared his candidacy he speedily moved to the top in most polls. I consider this an unbiased and true statement. I think that "declared front-runner" sounds rather confusing and awkward, although I would not be opposed to saying something like "by late July he had become the front-runner." I think that CFredkin's version is fine, although I would replace "skepticism" with "opposition." Display name 99 (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Consider it true if you'd like, but it's not an unbiased statement from Wikipedia's standpoint on POV. There's nothing wrong with "declared front-runner" as it is not only grammatically correct, but it is correct in the sense that he was declared the front runner by the media at a certain point. I don't think it was or could be by July 2015, because there had been no debates held at that time and no caucuses or primaries. Polls do not make a candidate a front-runner in American politics. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Debates don't decide frontrunners any more than polls do. I think it was clear by the end of July that Trump had more support than any of the other candidates. We can't wait to say that he emerged as the front-runner in March, because he was the most-supported candidate well before that. What would you suggest? Display name 99 (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, they do. When did the media start to declare a front runner? Before or after the debates? July is too early to declare a front runner, in part, because not everyone declares their candidacy by mid-summer. Regardless, Wikipedia can't say who was the declared front-runner and when, we go with reliable sources. What do the sources say and when did the most major ones start to say it? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this summary is removing critical points that should be mentioned in the lede, in particular summarizing (similar to how Bernie is a progressive) Trump's key ideological descriptions. I'm open to also including commentary on his "controversial comments", but because there isn't a consensus yet on that wording I'll exclude that for now. I propose modifying the lede sentence to:

Trump first campaigned for the U.S. presidency in 2000, winning two Reform Party primaries. On June 16, 2015, Trump again announced his candidacy for president, this time as a Republican. He quickly became the front-runner in the Republican contest, due in part to his skepticism of immigration, free trade, and military interventionism. His supporters applaud his seemingly bold ideas and straightforwardness, seeing his proposals as a means to end what are considered corrupt and inefficient establishment politics. Others have described his campaign as populist, nativist, protectionist, and authoritarian. As of March 9, 2016, he has won 15 contests in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries.

This incorporates sentences from both Display name 99 and CFredkin because both their summaries contribute to the lede in different ways, while also adding the well cited descriptions of his politics from media sources that leads his political positions section. Overall I think it's quite balanced, but let me know what you think, Display name 99, PeterTheFourth, Winkelvi, and CFredkin. Spudst3r (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, although I would replace "skepticism of" with "opposition to." Also, allthough I do not mind the use of the word, Winkelvi may want "quickly" replaced with "eventually," as was previously agreed. If he suggests it, I think it would be best to go along with it unless someone else agrees that there is no issue with it. Display name 99 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be an improvement over the version that has already been agreed upon. It appears to re-incorporate language that has already been objected to by multiple editors. I'm not sure why this is being re-litigated. (I also don't understand why this proposal was buried in the middle of this section in Talk.)CFredkin (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but looking over your objections and the current state of the article I've amended my proposed lede to as follows:

Trump first campaigned for the U.S. presidency in 2000, winning two Reform Party primaries. On June 16, 2015, Trump again announced his candidacy for president, this time as a Republican. He emerged as the front-runner for the Republican nomination. He became known for his skepticism to immigration, free trade, and military interventionism. His supporters applaud his criticism of the party establishment and his straightforwardness, believing he can end what they consider corrupt and inefficient establishment politics. Others have described his campaign as populist, nativist, protectionist, and authoritarian. As of 16 March 2016, he has won 20 contests in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries.

This proposal: (a) favours skepticism over opposition because that's the wording used in the citation given, (b), removed quickly emerged as it was criticized for adding a voice, and (c) adds "His supporters applaud his criticism of the party establishment and his straightforwardness" because the original sentence was not backed up by the citation given, so I replaced it with this one. I'm open to different wording, but overall I think the His supporters applaud.., and "others describe..." sentences within the lede is a good way of approaching describing his campaign. (d) Continues to use the words to describe his campaign used in political positions that no one has disputed. Let me know what you think Display name 99, PeterTheFourth, Winkelvi, and CFredkin. Spudst3r (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

How about we simply leave it the way that it was agreed upon? Display name 99 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem I'm trying to address is that I believe the lede should contain more than just one sentence about Trump's politics given the notability of his run, similar to what you see with the Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz articles (they all show that good biography's for presidential candidates should contain at least a few sentences of political commentary as a bare minimum). Donald Trump's current lede in my mind is inadequate because it should have more details about his Presidential run. Trump's lede should at the very least: (1) describe his major expressed political priorities, (2) describe notable aspects of his media/political personality / campaign (e.g. his straightforwardness that has become a major notable aspect of the Trump "story"), and (3), wrap this in with a description of how to classify his political identity (e.g. Trump's expresses views consistent with 'nativism' or 'authoritarianism' similar to how Sanders is seen as progressive). The current lede only achieves number 1 and we definitely have room to expand what is said. My lede is a first attempt at achieving all 3 of these goals but I'm very open to amended wording.Spudst3r (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Spudst3r, I understand your point and agree with your basic goals. I had supported the inclusion of some detail-mainly that he received extensive media coverage and quickly became the front-runner. Other editors, though, objected to some or all of these details. I also notice that someone removed the sentences concerning how his supporters and opponents see him, respectively. I do not believe that I was aware of that when I made the above comment. I believe that this summary of how he is seen by the different groups-as "nativist..." or someone destroying the "corrupt establishment..." are appropriate. Display name 99 (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Winkelvi, please see here, here, and here. Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a reliable source, the CNN link doesn't say Trump was the frontrunner, and the CBS This Morning link only quotes yougov.com, which is an online blog, not a news source - that makes it also unreliable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, the CNN article repeatedly refers to Trump as leading the other candidates. But to avoid disagreement regarding time, could we simply say that "he eventually emerged as the front-runner?" Display name 99 (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You were the one who claimed Trump had been declared the front-runner since July. The CNN link did not say anything about Trump being a front-runner. Yes, saying he eventually emerged as the front-runner makes sense and is non-POV. As long as it can be sourced as such, it should be fine, although including a time-frame would be best. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)'

Winkelvi, I have made the changes. After examining them, please let me know if you have any further concerns. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi and Display name 99, because the two major political parties haven't nominated anybody yet, I thought it would be more appropriate to say that Donald Trump has emerged as the front-runner for the Republican nomination, rather than the Republican front-runner. This makes it clear that his rivals are still other Republicans and not yet the members of other parties. SocraticOath (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

SocraticOath, It looks fine to me. Thank you for clarifying that detail. Display name 99 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Leona Helmsley

I added Trump vs Leona Helmsley with two good refs, and it was changed and moved to another section. I undid the change because the word, "rival" was deleted, and my main reason for adding the material in the 1st place was because this page had no mention of Mrs. Helmsley, and there are numerous refs including one of Trump's own books which mention the contention, animosity, between the two. I think that my original addition was respectful of all WP:BLP policy, added to the topic, and see no reason for the meaning and content of my addition to be diluted and changed into more puffery for DT.TeeVeeed (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the content was returned to the section on Legal Affairs, since there don't appear to be any references to legal issues in the sources. Personally I don't object to the inclusion of "rivals".CFredkin (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC) However the sources indicate that the property was sold to a partnership that included Helmsley. So characterizing it as anything else would be inaccurate.CFredkin (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

OK-I thought that the 2nd ref made the legal issues clear, but I can look for a definite (more "legal"-ref). I took that as Trump surrendering to Helmsley's partners, specifically, NOT Mrs. Helmsley? I was trying to use exactly what was said there. There was no mention in this article about DT's involvement with the Empire State Building either, or the fact that he gained a certain amount of control of it with the help of (foreign) Japanese investors. Calling-on WP:ReverRestore.... please read the purpose of that policy statement. I believe undoing/warring--is not the intended use of the policy, please read where/when it is appropriate to apply.-thanksTeeVeeed (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:teeVeeed: WtF? I stated above that the source provided indicates that Trump SOLD the Empire State Building, and yet you continue to restore your preferred, unsourced language. You've also completely disregarded policy regarding restoring edits on BLP's. I've referred you to WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which clearly states that the burden lies on YOU to obtain consensus here BEFORE restoring your edits and yet you restored your content twice without obtaining consensus here.CFredkin (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Tendentious behaviors aside, you are right about that 1st ref. wow. Forbes let a typo stand on their site since 2001. They, (quote) said, "surrendered", and I used the word-something else, which was actually MORE NPOV than "surrendered". The typo was where they said, (paraphrase) surrender to partner-of Leona Helmsley, Leona Helmsley.....when really the 2nd LH, sb/Malkin! (the current controllers of the Empire State Building-mentioned further-down the referenced page in Forbes). So-I can see if you would prefer another different ref there! And--NO. Just NO. I asked you to please read the reason for WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which I guess you did not so I will C&P----->

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies......it isn't so that editors can use it to war. In any event-done, done, and done. If anyone does not like the Forbes ref, due to the admittedly confusing typo in their article, let's fix it otherwise what is the problem?TeeVeeed (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph from the ref Forbes article, mistake bolded "Trump said today that he will surrender control of the Manhattan landmark to a partner of his bitter rival Leona Helmsley Leona Helmsley . It may not be a bad deal for Trump, although exactly how well he will make out could not be determined because all the details have not yet been revealed. ".........................OK?

So they said, "no details"-on the deal. The way that I had worded it changed, bitter rival to rival--(and believe me it is an understatement), and, Here is the paragraph from the ref Forbes article, mistake bolded "Trump said today that he will surrender control of the Manhattan landmark to a "surrendered control"---I worded-as "giving-up control of Empire State Building to partners of his rival Leona Helmsley."........technically, I'm not sure that Trump had any ownership?? He was the leasing party afasik? So I worded it very precisely and carefully, TRYING to be as NPOV as possible while still including the important facts, that he had an interest in the Empire State Building, new to this article, That he had a TREMENDOUS public FEUD with Helmsley-also new here for interest also not mentioned here, and threw-in that he was partners with Japanese investors on his Empire Site deal. I have added links to suits that were filed, so I think it is good now? But edits are welcome, I'm just butt-hurt that new important facts to the article were discarded without attempting to improve the content and I'm feeling bullied by the way it was done and the threats of block.TeeVeeed (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the full para from the source that you neglected to include:

Trump said today that he will surrender control of the Manhattan landmark to a partner of his bitter rival Leona Helmsley Leona Helmsley . It may not be a bad deal for Trump, although exactly how well he will make out could not be determined because all the details have not yet been revealed. The Donald and his Japanese partners, the heirs of onetime billionaire Hideki Yokoi Hideki Yokoi , have agreed to sell the building–all 102 floors and 365,000 tons of it–to real estate magnate Peter Malkin Peter Malkin for $57.5 million, some portion of which will accrue to Trump.

The source is clear that Trump and his partners sold the Empire State Building. If you can't agree that the content in his bio should reflect that, then the content should come out of the article until consensus is achieved here.CFredkin (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ahh-OK, so Trump and his partners DID sell it. Got-it. My bad. There are some weird things about that building, a 99 year-lease thingy, and it just goes on and on. I guess that Helmsley and her partners were the leasers? I was purposely trying to be a little dicey there without being weasley, because it is such a complicated story. I was just trying to get the refs up, and the basic facts so that readers can do their own research if they want about the particulars. So, can we at least agree that the vs. Helmsley should stay? But may need editing for clarity?TeeVeeed (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you've adequately sourced the reference to the Trump - Helmsley lawsuits, and as I stated above, I'm ok with keeping in the reference to Helmsley being his rival. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you too. I think it is good now. The article needs to be cut way back imo, and this page archived?-but with the 2016 elections it will suffer from bloat and worse anyhow for the foreseeable future. TeeVeeed (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT suggesting that Mr. Trump will become President of the United States, nor am I suggesting him as my preference, and I am not looking to advertise his campaign in any way.

---

For some time now, it has been within my attention that, in the event that Mr. Trump becomes President, massive changes to not only his article, but the article infobox, will be implemented.

My concern is that, if he wins the election, his infobox will be changed "INFOBOX PERSON" to "INFOBOX OFFICEHOLDER". The reason for my concern is that if it is changed to an officeholder box, information of his net worth and salary, etc., will not be displayed, since the officeholder box does not support those credentials (and therefore does not display them).

In order to avoid this, I am proposing beforehand to allow the infobox to remain a person box, and utilise the person/officeholder module; like the one on the Clint Eastwood page.

This way, information of his net worth, etc., will remain displayed, and information of his political offices can be seen without sacrificing that information.

In any case, thank you for your consideration. Frey's Fray (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of ways to address this, including using multiple infoboxes. I don't think we have to worry about it until around January 2017, if at all.- MrX 21:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm only opening this matter so we are prepared to address the issue before the result of the election, rather than after. I am aware of the prospect of using multiple infoboxes, but it seems less convenient than my proposed method. Frey's Fray (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Your proposed solution certainly seems valid, but if Mr. Trump is elected president, there will be plenty of infobox warriors who will vocally object to having any of his personal financial information in the infobox. After all, he wouldn't be the first wealthy president, but I guess he would be the wealthiest.- MrX 12:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of, these 'infobox warriors'. That's why I wanted to establish a decision beforehand to prevent this. Frey's Fray (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

New articles proposal

OK, I think that Wikipedia's long-format reporting on Trump's various activities is valuable and should not be simply deleted for the sake of WP:Weight. Maybe there should be several new articles to avoid this problem. I propose a new article, Lawsuits involving Donald Trump. Perhaps Alleged links between Donald Trump and organized crime would be another good article to add, as well as Donald Trump real estate ventures, Donald Trump in pop culture, and Donald Trump in US politics. Clearly, this active 69-year-old mogul requires extra attention in order to be the subject of good Wikipedia articles. SocraticOath (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I object, because his lawsuits and Mafia history are critical to understanding his record as a businessman. He is a politician at the moment, but business is his main claim to fame. To offload the lawsuit section into a separate article would be to minimize their importance, to bury the record and seriously diminish a reader's understanding of his character and history. Why not offload the wrestling or golf sections instead? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's more important to present information fairly and to let the reader form an opinion rather than to color content in such a way that conveys conclusions on topics such as character. Doorzki (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support the proposal for a new article on Lawsuits involving Donald Trump. The subject of Trump and his lawsuits, brought by him or against him, itself is a notable topic and has been brought up by sources and commentators across the political spectrum. Here are a few examples: http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/donald-trump-and-the-lawsuits-following-him-516283971890, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/the-lawsuits-of-donald-trump/273819/, http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/donald-trump-lawsuits/, http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/05/05/4478/donald-trumps-lawsuits-could-turn-conservatives-who-embrace-tort-reform, http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/we-investigated-donald-trump-is-named-in-at-least-169-federal-lawsuits/. Instead of brief mentions in the general Donald Trump article, a well-sourced, more detailed NPOV article on this topic would be doing a service to Wikipedia readers. ABF99 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support this idea because the volume of content overwhelms the other content of the article, unfairly overwhelms Trump's considerable accomplishments (most of which are not tied to these lawsuits), and is sure to grow rapidly over the next few months. Doorzki (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Your "sure to grow rapidly" argument rings hollow to me. If you anticipate that much more of Trump's litigation history will be reported in the coming months, why are you making a pre-emotive argument to offload the issue altogether, deferring instead to his "considerable accomplishments"? That's just not NPOV or balance. "Considerable accomplishment" is hardly a phrase likely to be used by plaintiffs, defendants, and members of the many communities this man has bullied and victimized over the years using legal means. He is a most prodigious and unpleasant litigator. That's part of who he is. We can't avoid the subject without ourselves violating NPOV. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know this for sure, but I have a feeling based on previous elections that as the DNC ramps up opposition research on Trump, more and more details will emerge. Of course, I do not want to "offload" this information. I just don't want it to overwhelm this article. I think sometimes the only way to be NPOV is to present only the facts and to provide the benefit of the doubt to the subject. I don't agree with your statement that he "bullied" and "victimized" "many communities," but I also don't consider the man an angel by any means. To me he did what business people do in the highly litigious American legal system, especially within his industry and within his desires to be promiscuous (not that I care to judge him on it). Highly relevant cases should be mentioned here either in their own section or within other sections, but minor cases should be in their article as they are just that: minor. The intent of this article should not be to make the point that Trump goes to court a lot, especially if the purpose of that is to convey a negative light on him. One of my favorite articles on Wikipedia, Barack Obama, is written in a careful way to give the president the benefit of the doubt and to not tread into the weeds of interpreting legal intricacies. One of the problems with presenting long lists of legal cases is people interpret them as guilty verdicts. People also might interpret settlements as admissions of guilt (because, we might conclude, there is no reason to settle if you are right). Both of these are inaccurate. Trump is in a position that requires him to have many legal disputes as is the president. That doesn't mean the quantity of the legal disputes should reflect on either man. However, having a separate page with the purpose being comprehensive in terms of legal affairs provides a way for the interested reader to get into these legal details without getting an incorrect impression while reading the main article. Doorzki (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Doorzki, let me say: I don't think your statement that Trump "is in a position that requires him to have many legal disputes" is easily reconciled with his track record of suing the little people. Case(s) in point: the $1 million defamation lawsuit against student and Trump University litigant Tarla Makaeff for statements made on Facebook, the $5 million lawsuit against pageant contestant Sheena Monnin for (truthful) statements made to the media about pageant rigging, the $5 million suit against Bill Maher for his "orangutan" joke, the $5 billion lawsuit against the journalist who may have lowballed his net worth (though Trump couldn't prove it). None of these lawsuits were "required" by his profession. And certainly his profession didn't require he sue his ex-wife Ivana for $25 million for an alleged violation of a divorce non-disparagement clause. Further, I'd argue that his Rancho Palos Verdes, Miami airport, and Ossinning lawsuits have all been leveled against communities (and organizations) with relatively modest legal budgets, demanding outsized community resources to combat; I would argue these lawsuits indicate more than just a small tendency toward bullying and legal abuse (and also demonstrate his propensity for settling, particularly when he is himself the plaintiff, despite what he's said during the campaign). However: I do appreciate that the section risks developing into a rather tedious laundry list, with some of the matters relatively trivial in comparison to others, and that a comprehensive summary (with weight toward the most important as well as current cases) might be in order. Maybe we could begin writing that summary here on the Talk Page, in anticipation of an eventual article split? But I don't want to trivialize the issue with an inadequate and/or superficial summary. Even Trump's most ardent good faith supporters, currently signing lifetime non-defamation contracts in exchange for the privilege of volunteering time to the campaign, ought to know that Trump had a record of suing former friends and fans ("pour encourager les autres"). So let's put this all in proper NPOV perspective. There's no way this is a normal part of doing business. It's part of his character. It's who Trump is. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• SupportA separate legal issues page would fix the serious WP:WEIGHT issues with this article. Especially if Trump gets the nomination, let alone president, devoting half of his BLP to law suits his company has been involved in will not be justified in taking up half of his article. Secondly, a big issue with putting this exhaustive list of lawsuits in his BLP is that many were done by the Trump Organization - which is owned by Carl Ichan's company - and not Trump itself. Trump many not have been directly involved in many of the lawsuits the Trump Organization was involved in. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support The Legal Affairs section seems long enough to support being its own article at this point.CFredkin (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Bankruptcies

Currently this article states that Trump's businesses have declared bankruptcy five times. However that is not supported by sources, such as this one already cited in the article and which was published in June 2015. It says that Trump's companies declaried bankruptcy 4 times. This article includes a reference to the bankruptcy of Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2014. At that time, according to the sources provided, Trump was not directly involved with the company and only owned a 10% stake. I'm editing the article to credit him with 4 corporate bankruptcies until a source emerges that states otherwise.CFredkin (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)