Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Trump allegedly encouraging Russian cyberwarfare against the US

I think the widely discussed statement by him in which he encourages authoritarian Russia, a hostile country, to conduct cyberwarfare against the US government merits inclusion in the lead. For example, there seems to be a widespread opinion among legal experts that he has committed a federal crime, namely treason.[1][2] --Tataral (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I included that in one of my earlier edits (it was removed). See the discussion above on this talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump said that he hopes Russia could find emails that have already been deleted from the Hillary Clinton server, and which Hillary Clinton claims were deleted because they were not work-related; Trump then added that he was being somewhat sarcastic. Right? Some reliable sources have described the incident that way, whereas others have described it as encouraging cyberwarfare, committing treason, et cetera. Given the very different characterizations in reliable sources (some newspapers even started with the latter characterization and then switched over toward the former), I think this is better dealt with in the usual Wikipedia way: describe it in the sub-article about the campaign, and then summarize briefly in this article per WP:Summary style. While Trump committing treason would surely be appropriate for the lead of this main BLP, I don't think the weight of reliable sources suggests treason or serious advocacy of cyberwarfare.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see that the other editor wanted the inclusion of "treason". I don't think it's fair to add claims of treason to this article, particularly the lede. In my proposed edits, I just quoted what Trump said and quoted NYT's description of what this means. No mention of treason from me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not treason. The expert opinion I have read is that treason is so narrowly defined in the Constitution that there is no way this meets it.[3] [4] I think including it somewhere (maybe under the campaign section) is appropriate but not in the lede. It is only one of many outrageous/highly controversial statements he has made. And the various explanations afterward ("he meant give it to the FBI", "he was joking", "I was being sarcastic", etc.) are too extensive for the lede --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The comment itself seems pretty clearly to be sarcasm, rather than a serious call for Russia to hack the US government.Perhaps it should be mentioned at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, but I don't believe it's noteworthy here per WP:NOTNEWS.CFredkin (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If Trump merely meant that Russia ought to help us find the emails by turning them over if they have them, then it seems kind of non-outrageous to me even if he wasn't being sarcastic. Let's wait a while to see if this recent event has traction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been covered by every single news outlet in great detail and spurred a great deal of uproar from politicians, national security experts and journalists. That you two have your own interpretation of what Trump meant (unsurprisingly, you go along with Trump and don't find this issue noteworthy at all) is besides the point. It clearly fitsl the criteria for an exception to WP:NOTNEWS Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"seems pretty clearly to be sarcasm"? Really? It took him a long time to come up with that explanation. He invited Russia to find the "missing emails" and give them to the press, in a press conference on Wednesday.[5] Later the same day he repeated the invitation in a tweet, this time saying the material be given to the FBI (as had been suggested by one of his surrogates).[6] The next day, after 24 hours of uproar and outrage, he decided to claim he was being sarcastic.[7] If that's the case, he certainly concealed it well and for a long time. (And if it really was intended as sarcasm, that's almost scarier than if he meant it: As pointed out here, sarcasm about national security is a luxury that presidents can't afford.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I propose we write something along these lines just after the last line in the Russia paragraph on his foreign policy subsection:

• In the same interview, Trump stated that he hoped Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, saying: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." The New York Times reported that Trump was "essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyberespionage against a former secretary of state." The next day, Trump said that he was being sarcastic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

At this point, unless the story keeps going (and perhaps becomes a turning point in his candidacy - but that would be crystal ballin'), it does not belong in the lede, but it definitely belongs in the article itself. The idea that it was just "sarcasm" does not belong in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a fair wording and I support it, including the "sarcasm" defense. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Marek, I think it's always worthwhile to let the candidates explain what they meant. Readers will be free to interpret. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

First, have any well-known Republicans who aren't in Clinton's camp responded to Trump's comment in any way that it would suggest it was a serious request on his part? Second, it is absolutely inappropriate to include the NYT's interpretation of his statement here in his bio (any more than we would include statements from the WSJ calling Clinton's explanations regarding her email server "lies" in her bio).CFredkin (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@CFredkin: To answer your question, yes they have. Here is one such response, from the NYT article already cited here: Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican who led the House oversight committee that looked into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, was more critical. If Mr. Trump’s comments were meant literally, he said in an interview, “I think he was absolutely wrong and out of line. I would never have said it that way, and I think it was ill-advised.” If the remark was tongue-in-cheek, he added, it failed at political humor. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

NYT is a reliable secondary source by any standard. The conservative Chicago Tribune characterized it as "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton's emails". Without having read Clinton's page fully, I don't see why fact-checks or characterizations of states from reliable secondary sources shouldn't be allowed on her page. It would surprise me if her page and the e-mail controversy page don't include statements from Comey contradicting her. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a fair wording at all. Drop the NYT stuff, because balancing it out would result in undue weight for this recent news item. There's obviously no way that Russia could get the emails from hacking Clinton now given that they were deleted long ago. As proposed, we should say at most that Trump hoped Russia already hacked the emails, which is very different from Trump hoping that Russia would do so in future (as the NYT amusingly implies).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The conservative Chicago Tribune characterizes it in the same way. As does the centrist Washington Post. I think we should look to reliable secondary sources on this, not you or any other editor's interpretation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post corrected their original headline — "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton’s emails" — to "Trump invites Russia to meddle in the U.S. presidential race with Clinton’s emails." NPR also corrected its original headline — "Trump Calls On Russia To Hack Into Clinton’s Emails" — to "Clinton Campaign Says Trump Encouraged Espionage With Hacking Comment." If you really want to pursue this, I can find lots of further info from reliable sources about how maybe Trump didn't really urge Russia to hack anyone.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

How about we note the NYT characterized it that way, WaPo as an invitation to meddle in the US election and WSJ as inviting Russia to unearth some of Hillary Clinton’s missing emails? Every reliable news outlet covers it in one of those three ways, and most (including the conservative Tribune) see it as urging Russia to hack his opponent. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to just keep the first sentence which summarizes the matter, and leave further details to the main article about Trump's 2016 campaign. If reliable sources are still talking about those recent details months from now, then we can revisit it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, if I understand you correctly, we have agreement that the text should read like this: "In the same interview, Trump stated that he hoped Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, saying: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." The next day, Trump stated that his comment was sarcastic"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly a more concise version, which I appreciate. I think it would be more accurate to say "In the same interview, Trump stated that, if Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton's now-deleted emails, then Russia should make those emails public, saying...." Or just give Trump's statement without commentary. It's not clear to me that Trump was saying a Russian hack of Clinton's emails would have been a good thing, especially since he has often said it would have been a very bad thing that Clinton should have taken steps to prevent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with that statement. It adds a bunch of cautions and interpretations that were nowhere in his comment. How about we add a variation of the Wall Street Journal's description ("Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump invited Russia on Wednesday to unearth some of Hillary Clinton’s missing emails from her time as secretary of state") so that the text reads like this: "In the same interview, Trump stated that he hoped Russia would unearth Hillary Clinton’s missing emails from her time as Secretary of State, saying: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." The next day, Trump stated that his comment was sarcastic"? Is that OK? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't involve "interpretation". Anyone with non-dysfunctional listening comprehension can see Trump was referring to what was possibly hacked in the past, not what might be hacked in the future. If you stole some furniture and I told you to "Please, please give it to [the police, or the poor]", am I encouraging you to steal again?? The fact that major medias misinterpret to the level that gradeschool kids could identify, doesn't mean we s/ replicate their biases on WP. Jimbo said long ago that WP editors s/b "thougthful". He didn't mean being "kind". He meant to use our heads, to screen out crap like this. The fact these medias didn't and don't, s/ give you a clue as to their integrity and bias. IHTS (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Like most Trump supporters, it seems as if you just make up in your mind what his positions are and what he means, doesn't mean (see also on the talks above for a clear-cut example). In the real world, we go with what people actually say. If Trump wanted to clarify, he could have. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. And once again, you miss my point. (Trump didn't need to clarify. There was nothing unclear what he said re the 33,000 Emails. And your logic is corrupted: "In the real world, we go with what people actually say." So why not Trump too then, when nothing was unclear? Only in the minds of biased media which have agenda to cook him, wasn't it clear. Also according to your logic, nothing Trump can say can stand on its own, anything he says requires "interpretation". Even if he said he needed to use the restroom because he had to pee.) BTW, your "like most Trump supporters" slanderous dig, you can go fuck yourself. IHTS (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

hatting irrelevancy

Two of the candidate's three wives were born and raised Bolshevik. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC) And? This is looking like some OR stuff... Doc talk 05:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Hitler had a mother. He was a Nazi. Trump has a mother. Therefore Trump must be a Nazi same as Hitler. (The illogic isn't trivial. Remember this major media news story?: "Trump tweeted a quote by Mussolini. Mussolini was a fascist. Therefore Tump must be a fascist, or have fascist tendency.") IHTS (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Folks, let's try to avoid personal attacks and stick to discussing what wording to use here. Our job as encyclopedists is not to figure out what Trump "really" meant. It's not to judge whether the unanimous reporting by Reliable Sources was correct or not. Our job is to reflect what Trump actually said, and how Reliable Sources reported it, and what followed. What he said at the press conference was "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing". This is clearly a direct suggestion to Russia to search for and retrieve those emails - in other words, hacking - and that is how it was reported by literally every source. Later he modified it to "They probably have them. I’d like to have them released" - which is not a direct invitation to hack, rather an assumption that they already did hack.[8] Eventually he decided to take it all back by claiming "sarcasm". But when a president or presidential candidate says something which is massively reported and heavily reacted to, and they later modify it, that doesn't make the initial comment and the initial reaction and reporting go away. In this case, what we need to do (in the body of the text, not the lede) is to report what he said, what the reaction was, and how he later explained it. That's not being pro-Trump or anti-Trump; it's just being good Wikipedians. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

In the wording suggested above, using the actual quote from the NYT may be overkill. How about a paraphrase of the general reaction, something like this. Comments, anybody? --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC) @Snooganssnoogans, Ihardlythinkso, Anythingyouwant, CFredkin, Neutrality, Dervorguilla, and Volunteer Marek: Pinging regular contributors for comment. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• In the same interview, Trump referred to Hillary Clinton’s email, saying: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." The comment was widely denounced as an invitation to a foreign power to conduct cyberespionage for partisan political purposes. The next day, Trump said he was being sarcastic.

I agree with that statement. If someone has concerns with sources for "widespread denunciation", there are are a dozen or so reliable sources that we can add that includes comments from across the political spectrum, academia and journalism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually not clear on where in the text this should go - i.e., what the phrase "in the same interview" refers to. Can you show us the context? --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The only issue I have with that text, which is otherwise good, is the phrase "partisan purposes". I think this is misleading given that a good chunk of Trump's own party opposes him and "partisan" refers to party v. party. Perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be "for political purposes"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I've changed it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly object to the inclusion of interpretation of Trump's comment by third parties. As noted by Anythingyouwant above, a number of media sources are already backing off their initial assertions regarding Trump's message. There are indications that the initial media interpretations were influenced by Clinton's campaign (“This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent,” said Jake Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton’s chief foreign policy adviser, whose emails from when he was a State Department aide were among those that were hacked.). The "condemnation" was by no means bipartisan (Mr. Hoekstra said he was untroubled by Mr. Trump’s goading of a foreign power, particularly in light of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server while she was secretary of state.) or consistent in their interpretation (”Trump is bringing up a fairly valid point: Hillary Clinton, with her personal email at the State Department, has put the Russians in a very enviable position,” Mr. Hoekstra said. “Most likely the Russians already have all that info on Hillary.” - Hoekstra).CFredkin (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You're cherrypicking the statement of one former GOP congressman to make the argument that there wasn't bipartisan condemnation. In that same link, you have another congressman, Jason Chaffetz, condemning the statement. There are plenty more condemnations from the GOP side. PBS described it in terms of "Democrats — and some Republicans — quickly condemned the remarks by the Republican presidential standard-bearer." The idea that the media only reports on this due to the Clinton campaign's sinister influence is ridiculous. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Well you're cherry picking Chaffetz to support your assertion. The Republican establishment has shown no qualms with denouncing Trump's statements when they believe them to be inappropriate. I'm not seeing that here. And Trump has made a very valid assertion that this whole kerfluffle has been whipped up by the Clinton campaign and sympathetic media to distract from the real issue which is the content of the hacked DNC emails. The fact that you're so adamant that Trump's comment only be included with commentary suggests that you're concerned that the reader may not draw the conclusion you like without it.CFredkin (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't cherry-pick anything. I read the source that you provided as evidence that there wasn't bipartisan condemnation only to find that you excluded condemnation from the GOP side. Commentary needs to be added to explain what the context is for readers who are not aware. That you think this is a "kerfluffle... whipped up by the Clinton campaign" is amazing. Your feverish conspiracy theories and failure to comprehend the significance of statement does not mean that all reliable secondary sources can no longer be referred to on this matter, which is basically what your argument amounts to at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

1 RR restriction and recent spurious reverts

It seems that User:Doc9871 after making his comment above that I "have no business editing this article" (because... not sure) has decided to arbitrarily revert any changes I make.

Here he reverts my edit with the edit summary Not in the source. However, the source clearly states (this is even mentioned right in the discussion above) Though he was not enrolled in Wharton’s prestigious MBA program

Here he reverts my edit where I replaced a non-reliable source with a reliable source (without changing article text) with a claim in the edit summary that "Can't swap a source that doesn't support the content with one that does". However, the source I "swapped in" [9] clearly states: "The Republican presidential candidate tells Scott Pelley the free trade agreement between Mexico, Canada and the U.S. is a "disaster." and "He says he will either break or renegotiate it " which is exactly the text that is being cited. Hence, the edit summary is false.

Here he also reverts an edit where I replaced a non-reliable source with a reliable source (without changing article text) with the edit summary "Blogs? Yeah, not a RS. Yeesh". Yes, this is a blog, but it is associated with a reputable news source by an expert in the field. That makes it helluva better than a non-reliable source that was there previously. Even if there is a valid objection to using Schooled as a source, the proper thing then is to remove the claim until reliable sources can be found rather than restoring shoddy sourcing.

I would appreciate it if Doc refrained from blanket reverting my edits just because he feels, for some reason, that I "have no business editing this article" (which isn't up to him to decide).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You can't just add stuff to this article and expect it to be safe per the 1RR restriction. It will be struck down by a higher authority. I listed specific reasons each time I reverted you for adding content that I guess you just assumed would be unchallenged. Doc talk 08:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What is this "higher authority" that you are referring to? You?

I addressed these "specific reasons" you gave above - they are false.

1RR restriction applies to the article whether you like it or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Shut. Up. (signed, Everybody) Doc talk 08:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is egregious.[10] Swapping a source and adding negative content without any sort of attempt at consensus from an unabashedly biased editor. Who is watching this? Doc talk 08:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If you disagree with the claim made, show it to be false or unsupported. The content that he added was perfectly accurate. More sources can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Gun_regulation, Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, I request that you stop making personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You simply do not know what a personal attack is. Is that a personal attack, to point that out? Doc talk 09:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the problems with your edits. Unless Trump is being interviewed by Breitbart, we should never cite that source. It seems as if there are editors camping this article who don't have any business editing and who seek to stop any edits for arbitrary reasons that might reflect poorly on Trump (such as him having opposed gun control, which is a valid inclusion). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans and Volunteer Marek that there is nothing wrong with with Volunteer Marek edits. Doc9871 has repeated violated the 1RR and used uncivil bullying to push a non-neutral POV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Also agree. Replacing a Newsmax cite with Newsweek certainly seems an improvement. Replacing Brietbart with Mad Magazine would be an improvement. Objective3000 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think, like it or not, we may be nearing the point of having to full-protect this article until the election's over. He's just too much a target for vandalism and content disputes. pbp 16:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans, Gouncbeatduke, and Objective3000 that the material added by Volunteer Marek was an improvement and should be included. I will re-add it as established by consensus (although I have my doubts about the phrase "supports the Second Amendment" - come on, is there anyone that DOESN'T support the Second Amendment?). Warning to User:Doc9871 and User:Volunteer Marek: please be aware of the Discretionary Sanctions in place on this article. You are not allowed to revert something more than once, even if you are sure you are right and the other person is wrong. Cases of disagreement should be brought to the talk page to seek consensus, as was eventually done here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you. Since there also appears to be consensus on the other issues, can I restore the source improvements I made in the other edits which were also reverted? Note that this does not change any of the text, just replaces non-reliable sources with reliable ones.

A separate issue is whether we should indicate that Donald's degree from Wharton is an undergraduate one in the infobox. Usually when people refer to the Wharton School they almost always are talking about its graduate MBA program. Hence having "Alumni: Wharton" can be misleading. The sources provided above (Slate and Fortune) are explicit about emphasizing that his degree was undergraduate one, and NOT from the MBA prog. This is adequately covered in the lede, but should also be in the infobox.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It can be misleading as people tend to think of "graduated from Wharton" as having achieved an MBA when it doesn't mean that. Last I heard, Wharton doesn't even allow their undergrads to enter their MBA program. It needs to be carefully phrased. Objective3000 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Housing discrimination case

@CFredkin: You removed this sentence from the article: According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." - because you said the source, a book by a former employee, was unreliable. Let me suggest the following sources instead: The Washington Post, The New York Times, The U.S. Justice Department. Those are enough to make a large section, but I think we can get by with a sentence or two. That is, unless you think it deserves a larger airing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The suit was settled without a finding of guilt on the part of the Trump Organization, and there is no evidence that Trump himself was personally involved. I believe this sort of content is usually covered as a footnote.CFredkin (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Objection, Your Honor! The term "colored" is found in the Post story but not in the Times story or the Justice Department press release (which relates to "emotional-support animals"). Also, a Justice Department press release generally isn't used as a reliable source. (For a major exception, see WP:SPS regarding data compilations.)

In this case, plaintiff Justice Department's position was never upheld by a court; and the Post mentions that it was never upheld by a court. So we'd have to include that clarification in our article.

In common-law countries like the U.S. (not France), one attorney's allegations are as authoritative as another attorney's -- including a government attorney's. Here, defendant Trump's attorney made allegations about the plaintiff, and the Post reported them. So we'd have no reason not to include at least one of them in our article too. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

As a short-term compromise, we could (and probably should!) cite the Times article as a source for the material about Trump's having received prominent media exposure for decades. (One of the captions says, "Readers of The Times have known him for 42 years.") --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason not to report what the Justice Department said. Certainly it is only an allegation but that is how we report it. TFD (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No offense, TFD, but the reason we never report allegations as being more than allegations has nothing to do with WP:V...

There seem to be three questions here. (1) Should we act as a 'conduit' for the claim that was alleged? (2) If so, should we act as a conduit for the counterclaim that was alleged? (3) And if so, should we mention that neither the claim nor the counterclaim was upheld by a court?

For the reasons given, I would say "no"; "(if so, yes)"; and "(if so, yes)". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We decide whether anything belongs in Wikipedia by WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Multiple WP:RSs have reported the Justice Department allegations, so it's a significant viewpoint and according to WP:WEIGHT should be fairly represented in the article.

So according to Wikipedia policies your answer to question (1) is "Yes."

Also according to WP:WEIGHT we are required to represent all sides.

So according to Wikipedia policies your answer to question (2) is "Yes."

I assume Trump's advocates have said in some WP:RS that the claim wasn't upheld in court.

So according to Wikipedia policies your answer to question (3) is "Yes."

(BTW, most lawsuits are settled without a judicial determination in the courts. WP:RSs regularly report the allegations made in court. Using court records is a complete defense against libel. I would like to know any Wikipedia policies that excludes them.)--Nbauman (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You brought up an important point, Nbauman: "Using court records is a complete defense against libel." True in some states -- but not in others.

"The media can be liable for the republication of a libelous statement made by another person or entity but quoted in a news article... Just because someone else said it does not mean that a news organization cannot be sued for republishing it..."

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The First Amendment Handbook.

Here's my personal read on Trump's viewpoint, based on the Post and Times stories:

"'What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black,' Trump wrote." Trump reportedly believed that renting to welfare cases would cause his mostly lower- and middle-income tenants (both white and black) to flee. But he was "satisfied that the agreement did not 'compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant'." --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, no offense taken, but I never mentioned V. Certainly we should not report anything unless it is sourced but whether we report it depends on weight. Mentioning an allegation is not the same thing as acting as a conduit for it, unless we state the allegation as fact. We have articles for example about conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, but that does not mean we endorse them. TFD (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

True, we're not endorsing them, TFD, just mentioning them. But that in itself can amount to republishing. From AP, Legal Principles of Publication:

"Liability for republication: the 'conduit' fallacy.- A common misconception is that one who directly quotes a statement containing libelous allegations is immune from suit so long as the quoted statement was actually made, accurately transcribed, and clearly attributed to the original speaker. This is not so."

When we were children, we understood this principle intuitively (as it applies to retelling slanderous allegations about other children). It takes a semester or two of expository writing to make us forget.

Happily, the principle does not apply here (as far as I know). No need to call Saul!!! --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I brought up libel, since it's turned into a distraction. But you have quoted selectively from the First Amendment Handbook:

Fair report

Libelous statements made by others in certain settings often are conditionally privileged if the reporter, in good faith, accurately reports information of public interest. This privilege usually applies to material from official meetings such as judicial proceedings, legislative hearings, city council meetings and grand jury deliberations. In most states, accurate reports of arrests, civil and criminal trials and official statements made to, by and about law enforcement officials are privileged....

Wikipedia rules and guidelines as I stated above say that anything that is reported by multiple WP:RSs belongs in the article, along with opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia rules and guidelines govern, not your personal opinion of fairness or whether "allegations" belong. Allegations belong in Wikipedia if they are repeated by multiple WP:RSs. You have not shown that the deletion is justified under Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

Roy Cohen in his press statements, by ignoring the significant Justice Department charges, deceptively made it look as if the issue was discrimination against welfare recipients, rather than discrimination against blacks. The way this entry is edited now, we also deceptively make it look as if the issue was welfare recipients, not blacks. To stop being deceptive, we must state the main charges against Trump: That he discriminated against blacks.

I think we have a consensus to restore it. Is there anyone other than User:Dervorguilla who wants to delete it? If so, explain how that decision is jusitfied by Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Otherwise I'm going to put it back. --13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nbauman, you said: "We ... deceptively make... To stop being deceptive, we must state ..." I for one categorically deny your accusation that I or the other editors here have been deceiving people.

"You have quoted selectively from the First Amendment Handbook". Good point. I should have expanded the quote to include related material from the "Fair Report" section:

Fair report. In most states, accurate reports of ... trials ... are privileged. Reports of this nature must be accurate and fair in order for the reporter to invoke the fair-report privilege...

Not just accurate. Accurate and fair.

And as you observed, the information must be reported "in good faith". Here the term "good-faith" excludes conduct that "violates community standards of ... fairness or reasonableness". Black's Law Dictionary. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The housing case is more fully covered at Legal affairs of Donald Trump. See WP:Summary style. Therefore, we don't need to list all the details here about things he was never found guilty of. So it appears that CFredkin and myself are two additional editors who think this is inappropriate for the main text of this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't have consensus yet. Here is what used to be in the article: Trump initially came to public attention in 1973 when the Trump Organization was accused by the Justice Department of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings. According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." The question is whether to include the second sentence; we still have the first sentence, which says the Justice Department sued the Trumps for fair housing violations. That may be enough; if we are going to go on to detail what Justice said, we would also have to detail what the Trumps said and the item would become overly long. After reading the extensive discussion here, I think we should keep just the first sentence, and replace the book source with one of the sources I listed at the beginning of this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree. But, of course, we can't say that he was accused without indicating that there was never any conviction (Trump settled the charges in 1975 without admitting guilt).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We could add "the case was settled out of court". I think (without taking the time to look) that the sources I proposed do say that much. If people want more detail than that, they can go the "legal cases" article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, reporting allegations made in official court records is not libellous. Newspapers routinely report criminal charges made against people before final judgment. As a general rule, we are fairly safe using mainstream media as sources, because they take great care to avoid libel. TFD (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

True, they report when charges are filed, before the case is closed. But AFTER the case is closed, they generally mention the outcome as well as the charges. The sources I listed above all say the case was settled. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In scientific articles, WP:NOTJOURNAL applies: "While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links"

I think the same rule applies in articles like this. You know that most readers will not follow the links, either to a footnote with expanded text or to a "Legal affairs of Donald Trump" article (which is a WP:POVFORK if you remove all the unfavorable information in the original article and move it to the forked article.)

It's not enough to say that "the Trump Organization was accused by the Justice Department of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings," without also giving the specific violations: "the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored." That's a serious charge -- not offering apartments to black people. These specific violations are supported by multiple WP:RS, which is the criteria for including information in a Wikipedia article. The fact that the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks is important information. This was the underlying violation. If you don't know that you don't know what the case was about. It's misleading to talk about the welfare issue without revealing that the original charge was for refusing to rent to black people. If you're so worried about becoming overly long then take out the reference to welfare recipients. --Nbauman (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

" The fact that the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks is important information". The thing is, that is NOT a fact - it is an allegation. Denied by the Trumps, and never established as fact in a court of law. At the very least, if we include the disputed sentence, we should also add a sentence saying "The Trumps strongly denied the accusations, and the case was settled out of court." --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now I see the sentence you are referring to. I missed it earlier. It follows the others and says "Trump opposes trade agreements he considers unfair, such as NAFTA and TPP. His platform includes immigration reform including the building of a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border, replacement of Obamacare, improvement of veterans' care, and tax cuts. Trump is a strong proponent of law and order, and has set a goal of "destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism". He has suggested a temporary suspension of immigration to the United States from nations having a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. until vetting procedures can be put in place that successfully screen out potential terrorists. (An earlier suggestion was to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.),[33] Trump settled the charges in 1975 without admitting guilt, saying he was satisfied that the agreement did not "compel the Trump Organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant."[34]" With that already in the article, we certainly could include Justice's allegations. Both or neither. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, are you saying that we should not mention the allegations of not renting to blacks after the case is settled, even though the allegations were announced by the Justice Department, are in the public record, and were (and still are) widely reported in WP:RS?

What reason under Wikipedia rules and guidelines do you have for not including them?

For Wikipedia, the criteria for including a fact is that it has been widely reported in WP:RS. That's one of the Five Pillars WP:5P2 of Wikipedia. "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

What about the Bill Cosby case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby#Sexual_assault_allegations Most of that is allegations that were not resolved in court and settled. Should Wikipedia eliminate all the Bill Cosby allegations? --Nbauman (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I am saying that we can include the Justice allegation sentence, provided we also have the "Trump denial and out of court settlement" sentence. We currently do have that sentence, so I would support restoring the Justice allegations (with a better source). --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, here's the sentence at issue: "the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored.""

This has been reported by multiple WP:RSs.

I think that sentence belongs in the article, because of the multiple WP:RS. Do you object? --Nbauman (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually the sentence at issue is " According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."". I agree with including it as long as the bolded portion is also included. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I object to including it because the place for such stuff that was never proved and never admitted is (if anywhere at Wikipedia) at Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Lots of people have accused Trump of lots of things, but I think this main biography does not have room for the accusations that didn't pan out. Just like counterpart Democratic BLPs. The goal here has been made quite clear by omission of "according to the Justuce Department", but even inclusion of that phrase is misleading since the Justice Department later backed off (without even any allegation of extreme carelessness).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant, the criteria for including something in Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability and WP:RS, it is not whether something was proved by a court decision or some other level of evidence that you demand. What are the specific Wikipedia rules and guidelines that say that it should be removed?

The Bill Cosby entry contains "stuff that was never proved" in court and never will be because of the statute of limitations. I think that WP:Verifiability and WP:RS is enough to leave it in. Do you think Wikipedia rules require us to delete that stuff from the Bill Cosby article? --Nbauman (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll say yet again, I have no objection to including these particular details in Wikipedia. See Legal affairs of Donald Trump and see WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What specifically does WP:Summary style say that would require us to delete the sentence, "According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."" from this article and move it to Legal affairs of Donald Trump? --Nbauman (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This article "should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clearer in my opinion: if we do not re-add the "According to the Justice Department" sentence, then we should delete the sentence that follows it, the one that begins "After an unsuccessful countersuit..." We can't include a full rebuttal and quote from Trump, if we don't give the Justice Department's position as well. Both or neither. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with removing the sentence beginning "After an unsuccessful countersuit...".CFredkin (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with that too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I want to include in the main Donald Trump article the following sentence, based on multiple WP:RS: "According to the Justice Department, the Trump Organization refused to rent to blacks, and would mark applications from black people with the letter "C" for "colored."" Can anyone give a reason based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines why this sentence should not go back in to the main article? What is the specific text of the guidelines? --Nbauman (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are four relevant policy reasons, Nbauman.

WP:SS (reviewed by Anythingyouwant).

WP:BALASPS, applying WP:WEIGHT to isolated events of lesser overall significance to a topic. The Times story itself assigns 390 words to a 1978 decision about the NY convention center but only 343 words to the fair-housing suit. Accordingly the suit must be treated as being of lesser overall significance. (It was headlined in only 1 front-page story; the decision, in 2.)

NPOV. Nutshell: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias."

WP:CON, as it would apply to "editors' legitimate concerns" about fairness and reasonableness. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 11:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

So, Dervorguilla, if you don't want to include this sentence, are you OK with deleting the sentence that follows ("After an unsuccessful countersuit") that presents the Trump's position on the case? IMO we can't give Trump a platform without also giving Justice a platform, per Balance aspects. --MelanieN (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence that began "After an unsuccessful countersuit...." since I'm the one who inserted it, and no one has objected to removing it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing the verbiage about Trump's having marked applications provided by blacks with the letter "C" for "colored". (The applications provided by the Urban League were likewise marked, albeit with a more politically appropriate acronym.)

Please advise whether the passage below falls short of any WP:SS, WP:BALASPS, and NPOV requirements, and whether (in your personal opinion) it sounds less than fair and reasonable.

Trump first came to public attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that he and his father were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The Trumps denied the allegations, saying that they were discriminating only on the basis of welfare status. Two years later they signed an agreement binding them not to discriminate against any qualified applicant.

Trump drew greater attention in 1978 when the city awarded him the contract to design and build the Jacob Javits Convention Center, after finding that he was the only bidder who had a site ready for construction.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. As long as it says specifically, "refusing to rent to blacks."--Nbauman (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Text integrated into article after adding 49-word ref quote and correcting own error in graf 2.

... He came to public attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that he and his father were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The Trumps denied the allegations, saying that they were discriminating only on the basis of welfare status. Two years later they signed an agreement binding them not to discriminate against any qualified applicant. ...

Trump drew greater public attention in 1978 when the city chose his site as the location for its Jacob Javits Convention Center, after finding that he was the only bidder who had a site ready for the construction project.

I also removed 3 questionable sources: 1 juvenile literature and 2 nonmainstream newspapers (Daily Beast and Salon). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Responding to revision 731536028 by CFredkin ("Removing statement not supported by source"), I'm adding a source and clarifying the statement.

... He came to public attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that he and his father were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The Trumps denied the allegations, saying that they were legally discriminating based on welfare status, not race. Two years later they signed an agreement binding them not to discriminate against qualified applicants. The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later said that civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names".

I'm also adding material about the Trumps' getting targeted because they were "big names" in comparison to other real-estate companies of concern to civil-rights groups. (So says the former chair of thecity's Human Rights Commission.)

This passage actually might work better as the corresponding ref quote:

2. ^ "Civil rights groups in the city viewed the Trump company as just one example of a nationwide problem of housing discrimination. But targeting the Trumps provided a chance to have an impact, said Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was then chairwoman of the city’s human rights commission. ‘They were big names.’"

--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:04, 26

Trump doesn't appear to use the word "discriminated" in the sources I've seen. I also think it would be undue to devote more space to this incident in his bio.CFredkin (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Your're right on both counts, CFredkin!! Many thanks, and I've edited the text accordingly to address your concerns. (This new draft version is actually shorter than the current version.)

In 1971, Trump moved to Manhattan, where he took part in larger construction projects and used attractive architectural design to win public recognition. He drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that he and his father were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their residential buildings. The allegations were never proven. The Trumps ultimately signed an agreement to ensure that they would not discriminate against qualified applicants. The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later said civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names". He received a broker's fee on the property sale.

189 words -> 174 words. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Your new proposal still makes it sounds like Trump agreed that he may have been discriminating against qualified applicants. The current language sounds fine to me. I'm not sure what your concern is in proposing changes.CFredkin (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I admit to your allegation, CFredkin, and I agree to revise accordingly. :)

This draft ("D") should take care of it.

In 1971, Trump moved to Manhattan, where he took part in larger construction projects and used attractive architectural design to win public recognition. He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings. Ultimately the parties signed an agreement under which the Trumps would make no admission of wrongdoing and the Urban League would present qualified minority applicants for vacancies in some buildings. The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later said civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names".

By 1973, Trump was president of the Trump Organization and oversaw the company's 14,000 apartments across Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. In 1978 the city selected his Midtown Manhattan site as the location for its Jacob Javits Convention Center, after finding that he was the only bidder who had a site ready for the project. He received a broker's fee on the property sale.

"I'm not sure what your concern is in proposing changes." My and four other editors' several concerns are given in the discussion above. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Your latest proposal looks fine to me, but I think the following sentence should be excluded as undue: The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later said civil-rights groups had targeted the Trumps, rather than other real-estate companies of concern, because "they were big names".CFredkin (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I have re-phased a little bit:

"He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they Justice Department (DOJ) argued they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out unqualified welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed. Ultimately the parties DOJ and the Trumps signed an agreement under which the Trumps would make made no admission of wrongdoing, and under which the Urban League would present qualified minority applicants for vacancies in some buildings would be presented by the Urban League."

The previous language was somewhat problematic for several reasons. First, saying that DOJ "alleged" that refusing to rent to blacks amounted to a violation of law could easily be misunderstood as taking for granted that such a racial refusal occurred as a factual matter, and as merely saying that the only thing "alleged" by DOJ was that this undisputed set of facts amounted to a violation of the law. Second, if we give DOJ's argument, we ought to include the Trumps' argument. Third, saying that the Trumps allegedly refused to rent to blacks is much too simplistic, and instead DOJ asserted discrimination which disfavored blacks, as opposed to a blanket racist ban. Fourth, saying that the "parties" signed is ambiguous about whether DOJ signed, which they did. The rest of the edits are mainly for conciseness and flow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In revision 731931463, Anythingyouwant substituted "...DOJ and the Trumps signed an agreement..." for "...the parties signed an agreement...", explaining "DOJ signed the agreement". But the source actually says, "the Trump Management Corporation reached an agreement with the Federal Government..." -- not, the Trumps and the DOJ. Per WP:OR, the source must make the statement explicitly.

Anythingyouwant made an additional six edits, explaining, "insert 'allegedly', rephrase a little for clarity, flow, conciseness"; "tweak pipe link"; "conciser"; "both sides ought to be given"; and "No one claims the Trumps refused to rent to black people. Rather, the issue was discrimination, and whether blacks were disproportionately unable to rent."

But the plaintiff alleged ("charged") in its pleading ("allegations"), not "argued" in its (oral or closing) argument. It charged the defendants with discriminating, not with "allegedly discriminating". And both sources (the Times and the Post) say the government claimed the defendants were refusing to rent to black people. "The government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals ‘because of race and color’".

The original text did give both sides -- as manifested in the final agreement (which both sides agreed was fair).

In the editor's comment above, he claims (1) that "saying that DOJ 'alleged' that refusing to rent to blacks amounted to a violation of law could easily be misunderstood as taking for granted that such a racial refusal occurred as a factual matter". But the terms 'alleged that' and 'argued that' appear to be Standard English terms easily understood in this context; moreover, both sources use the term "alleged". Neither source uses the term "argued". He claims (2) that "If we give DOJ's argument, we ought to include the Trumps' argument." But we give the plaintiff's allegations, not its argument. Trump's answer (not his argument) isn't given because the sources mention it only in passing. He claims (3) that "saying that the Trumps allegedly refused to rent to blacks is much too simplistic". Perhaps, but that's what the sources say. The editor claims (4) that "saying that the 'parties' signed is ambiguous about whether DOJ signed, which they did". But the sources actually say that the "government" signed, not the "DOJ". And the editor says, "The rest of the edits are mainly for conciseness and flow." But the text was more concise before the revision (62 words rather than 78). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I am glad to say "charged" instead of "argued" even though it doesn't make much difference to a lay reader and either way is accurate. And I'm glad to say that the Trumps' company and federal officials signed, instead of the Trumps and DOJ, but again it doesn't make much difference to a lay reader and either way is accurate. The material now reads as follows:

“ He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out unqualified welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed. Ultimately the Trumps' company and federal officials signed an agreement under which the Trumps made no admission of wrongdoing, and under which qualified minority applicants would be presented by the Urban League.[27][28] ”

If anyone thinks this is misleading in any way, by all means please say so. If anyone would like it shorter, I think we can remove "in 39 residential buildings" without removing anything very significant. Saying that the Trumps allegedly refused to rent to black people could easily be misunderstood to mean that they allegedly did not rent to any black people, which is far from accurate. The allegation was that they discriminated against black people, by making the application process more difficult but not impossible, steering black people into different apartments, etc. If we cannot agree on language, then the best thing might be to very briefly mention the matter here, and let readers get more details at Legal affairs of Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm substituting the consensus text for the current text per WP:CON.

A firm consensus was formed at 05:11. An editor began changing the consensus text in the article at 12:57. At 13:13, he proposed changing the consensus at Talk.

Proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. And an editor who ignores a discussion and consensus and continues editing or reverting disputed material may be engaging in disruptive editing. (See WP:CCC policy.)

"If anyone thinks this is misleading in any way, by all means please say so." The other interested editors have already participated in the consensus discussion, so they may not respond to this or further requests. (WP:TALKDONTREVERT.)

Just sayin'. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The changes I made were improvements to the version you have just restored. Those improvements were never rejected by other editors, nor have you given any intelligible reason for opposing them. Instead, you merely threaten sanctions if your preferred version is altered. I do not find your editing style constructive at all, and I doubt other editors will either. Please try cooperation and responsiveness instead of confrontation and edit-warring. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk)

After reading User:Anythingyouwant's points above, I have to say I agree with his concerns. I think his proposed edits are an improvement to the text.CFredkin (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"...I think his proposed edits are an improvement..." Thank you for contributing to the discussion, CFredkin. Anythingyouwant made a total of six changes to the consensus text over the full 7-hour editing span. Which edit do you think was the greatest improvement?

"Except in cases affected by content policies, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position." (EDITCONSENSUS.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

An "all-or-nothing position" such as reverting every single change I have proposed with minimal-to-no explanation except you liked it better before?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this phrase is an improvement: "...the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out unqualified welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed."CFredkin (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Now I understand your concern!! I support part of your proposed revision but see a problem with the other part -- the statement that "the Trumps claimed" they were "merely screening out unqualified welfare recipients". According to the Times, Trump maintained that he was "screening out welfare recipients" -- meaning, welfare recipients as a class. ("Trump accused the Justice Department of singling out his corporation ... because the government was trying to force it to rent to welfare recipients".)

Proposed compromise text:

"...the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against black applicants for housing, thereby violating the Fair Housing Act. Trump accused the DOJ of singling out his company because it was large. The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later acknowledged that the Trumps had been targeted because they "were big names".

I think the additional text is factual extrajudicial evidence that could be helpful to readers who may question Trump's truthfulness in this whole matter. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you raise a good point above. But instead of making a wholesale change to the language, I'd like to propose that we just remove "unqualified" from the previous proposal. So it would read as follows: "...the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed." Hopefully this works for you... Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the current 32-word text, as edited by Anythingyouwant:

He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings.

Here is the proposed 47-word revision by CFredkin:

He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department (DOJ) charged they were violating the Fair Housing Act by allegedly discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 residential buildings, rather than merely screening out welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed.

CFredkin had elsewhere raised a reasonable concern that a proposal "makes it sounds like Trump agreed that he may have been discriminating against qualified applicants." Happily, neither of these two texts does so. He had also raised a reasonable concern about an early 42-word proposal: "It would be undue to devote more space to this incident in his bio."

I accordingly support the current 32-word text and oppose the 47-word text. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP concerns

User:Dervorguilla, I have said that I support the 47-word text. I have given numerous reasons, none of which you have addressed. Your only stated reason for opposing it is that 47 words is too long. But yesterday you proposed a 64-word text:

“ He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against black applicants for housing, thereby violating the Fair Housing Act. Trump accused the DOJ of singling out his company because it was large. The chair of the New York Human Rights Commission later acknowledged that the Trumps had been targeted because they "were big names". ”

I repeat that I strongly support the 47-word text, and I strongly believe that the 32-word text violates the Biographies of living persons policy. Since you have not addressed any of the specific reasons, I will briefly repeat the main ones now.

• (1) The 32-word text omits the Trumps' explanation of their actions (screening out welfare recipients) and instead only gives the government's accusation.
• (2) The 32-word text does not properly describe the government's position; the government did not suggest that the Trumps were "refusing to rent" to all black people, but rather that the Trumps discriminated in less blatant ways (e.g. by allegedly making application procedures more difficult but not impossible for black people, and by allegedly steering black people toward different properties owned by the Trumps).
• (3) The 32-word text says "by refusing to rent" without including the word "allegedly" in that phrase, which many of our readers will see as a statement in Wikipedia's voice that the government's statement of facts was correct.
  

Again, your only response has been that the 47-word text is too long, which completely disregards the many very serious flaws pointed out in the 32-word text, disregards your own recent advocacy of a 64-word text, and also disregards my statement above that I'd be happy to remove the unnecessary words "in 39 residential buildings" in the 47-word text. WP:BLP requires that "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." You have sought to overstate the accusations, and understate the defense against those accusations, which is irresponsible and incautious. Per WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Up to 25 July when you inserted material about racism into this section, the pertinent material in this BLP was as follows: "Trump initially came to public attention in 1973 when the Trump Organization was accused by the Justice Department (DOJ) of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings. Several years later the Trump Organization was again in court for violating terms of a settlement with DOJ; Trump denied the charges and there is no indication that he was found guilty." I intend to restore that pre-July 26 version until a consensus forms that the BLP concerns have been addressed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Below are my replies to the concerns you've helpfully listed, Anythingyouwant.

  (1) The 32-word text omits the Trumps' explanation of their actions (screening out welfare recipients) ...

That's the explanation they gave the press. Here's the explanation they gave the court:

"We wanted tenants who we could be sure would pay the rent ... and who met our requirement of having an income at least four times the rent."

Client's Communication to Attorney Cohn, 1973, in Trump, The Art of the Deal, at 98.

  (2) ...The government did not suggest that the Trumps were "refusing to rent..."

Actually, Dunlap says the government did suggest that the Trumps were "refusing to rent":

"The government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals ‘because of race and color’ ..."

So does Kranish:

"The Justice Department then issued a news release that said the Trumps violated the law ‘by refusing to rent and negotiate rentals with blacks’ ..."

  (3) The 32-word text says "by refusing to rent" without including the word "allegedly"...

The text does include the word "allegedly" -- in its verbal form, "allege". ("The Justice Department alleged...") --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, User:Dervorguilla. I'll respond. (1) You have opposed including both the explanation the Trumps gave the press, and also the explanation the Trumps gave the court, and instead have supported only giving the government's explanation. That is not neutral or fair. Moreover, in this instance, there is nothing inconsistent between what Trump told the press and what Trump told the court, given that screening out welfare recipients would be roughly equivalent to ensuring tenants could pay the rent and would have an income at least four times the rent. Surely, there must be a way to phrase the Trumps' position about this so that we could present it to readers, instead of only presenting the governments' unrebutted accusation. But, if too many words would be needed, then we could put it at the sub-article and maintain the status quo at this article. Regarding (2), when the government said "refusing to rent and negotiate rentals with blacks" do you think the government meant all blacks or some blacks? The way you want to phrase it will lead many of our readers to assume "all" blacks, whereas the way I've proposed will not cause some readers to make that assumption. It would be misleading for us to give some readers the idea that the government meant all blacks, if in fact there is no reason for us to think the government meant that. It would be better for us to avoid conveying as much potential misunderstanding as possible on such an inflammatory subject. Moving along to (3), suppose a Wikipedia article said this: "The prosecutor alleged that Melania violated a local ordinance when she stood on her head in the middle of Time Square...." This would be very poor wording because it suggests in Wikipedia's voice that Melania did in fact stand on her head, and that the prosecutor alleges doing so was prohibited by an ordinance; it would be much more clear and fair to say in a Wikipedia article "The prosecutor charged that Melania violated a local ordinance when she allegedly stood on her head in the middle of Time Square...." That way readers would not understand us to be saying that she did in fact stand on her head. Same thing with Trump and this 1973 incident.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree in part with your points 1 and 3, Anythingyouwant.

(1) You have opposed including both the explanation the Trumps gave the press, and also the explanation the Trumps gave the court...

Yes, I included only the allegations that the government gave the court, not the answers that Trump gave the court. Those are documented in The Art of the Deal -- and I'd be more than happy to add them (and the source) to the consensus text.

(2) ...When the government said "refusing to rent and negotiate rentals with blacks" do you think the government meant all blacks or some blacks?

Both. I think the government was asserting that Trump was refusing to rent to all blacks in some buildings -- but not to all blacks in all buildings. See Kranish ("There were no black tenants at Lincoln Shore Apartments").

I should point out that the sources say that at the time, most big landlords were discriminating against blacks. Trump was a very big landlord. According to one source, that's why the government targeted him in particular. (The data suggest he may have been discriminating less than the average big landlord.)

(3) ...It would be much more clear and fair to say ... "The prosecutor charged that [a defendant] violated a [regulation] when [the defendant] allegedly [did something]."

A prosecutor charges a defendant with doing something, not with "allegedly" doing something. Otherwise you're absolutely correct. I'd be more than happy to reword the consensus text accordingly. "...The Justice Department alleged that they were refusing to rent to blacks in 39 residential buildings, thereby violating the Fair Housing Act."

Would you support these two proposed changes to the consensus text? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In view of your comments, I'd support modifying the version proposed by CFredkin to read as follows:

“ He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments, thereby violating the Fair Housing Act, rather than merely screening out people based upon low income as the Trumps claimed. Ultimately the Trumps' company and federal officials signed an agreement under which the Trumps made no admission of wrongdoing, and under which qualified minority applicants would be presented by the Urban League. ”

The government was not alleging a blanket refusal to rent to black people, if 38 out of 39 Trump buildings had black tenants, so we should not lead some readers to assume that the Trumps refused to rent to all black people. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If the 38 had black tenants. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have seen no indication otherwise. Anyway, I will now go ahead and insert the blockquoted material since you haven't objected to it. If you don't think it's perfect, perhaps we can discuss how to improve it without an edit-war. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed further modifications

We're definitely getting somewhere, Anythingyouwant. How does this look?

“ He and his father drew wider attention in 1973 when the Justice Department alleged that they were refusing to rent residential units in some buildings to some applicants because they were black, rather than because their adjusted incomes were too low, as the Trumps claimed. Ultimately the Trumps and the government signed an agreement under which the Urban League would present qualified minority applicants for some vacancies, while the Trumps made no admission of any wrongdoing. ”

May still need some work. Let me know your thoughts. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

We may be getting diminishing returns here from further edits. I don't see a problem with leaving the material as-is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Diminishing returns", indeed, but still greater than benchmark returns as calculated from the average 'return on discussion' elsewhere on this page. So I'm going to kick the question back to you, Anythingyouwant. What problems do you see -- or edits would you recommend -- with regard to the text I've just proposed? I'd be more than happy to review -- or propose edits to -- your text as well. No particular rush, at this point. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The very best thing here would be to just acknowledge that perfection is an elusive goal at Wikipedia, and we have come as close as we can. But if we must continue with this, I think it would be better if you would suggest specific edits, or at least show what your replacement sentences have changed. You also haven't given any reasons. From briefly looking at your proposed sentences, the repeated use of the word "some" looks awkward, and the use of the term "adjusted" (income) looks overly technical and of unclear significance. Honestly, I don't see why we need to go on and on about this, because I don't see any significant problem with the current language in the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I do need to fix that phrasing, Anythingyouwant. Thanks!

Now here are the two problems I see in the current text:

1. "... the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments ..."

It alleged that they were discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments in 39 of their buildings only. Not discriminating against blacks generally.

2. "... merely screening out people based upon low income as the Trumps claimed ..."

Kranish (§ A federal courtesy call) says: "At the time the suit was filed, Trump had been thinking about veering away from his father’s focus on providing housing for lower- and middle-income residents..." The Trumps had been trying to draw (comparatively) low-income residents in, not screen them out.

I'm OK with including the passage about "violating the Fair Housing Act". But it's two steps away from what the Trumps actually did.

Including the name of the statute would be important if the Trumps actually had engaged in discrimination on the basis of race. Otherwise it's like saying, "The Justice Department alleged that Trump shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, thereby violating the Crime in the Streets Act." :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing "thereby violating the Fair Housing Act" which will make things more concise, and no objection to saying "rather than merely screening out both black and white welfare recipients as the Trumps claimed". I don't see any problem with "... the Justice Department alleged that they were discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)