Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60

Billion dollar tax loss

The article says, "Trump claimed a loss of $916 million on his 1995 tax returns. As net operating losses from one year can be applied to offset income from future years, this loss allowed him to reduce or eliminate his taxable income during the eighteen-year carry forward period." That was never accurate, since it assumed he never recovered the losses. But we now know he paid $38M in taxes in 2005, so it should be revised. TFD (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Especially as Trump would be subject to Alternative Minimum Tax and the claim of a deduction would not wipe that out anymore than it would wipe Social Security and Medicare taxes. Those are paid no matter what else you have to deduct. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing to indicate whether or not 2005 might be an anomaly, so it doesn't invalidate the earlier referenced material about the eighteen-year carry forward. Unless a source can be found that specifically refutes the earlier referenced material, it must stay in. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It's worth noting that despite the fact the White House confirmed the authenticity of the tax return, Trump later tweeted it was "fake news". There are sources that note this discrepancy, but I'm reluctant to put it in the article because if we included every Trump lie, the article would be ten times longer. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to "could potentially have allowed him to" reduce or eliminate his taxable income. SW3 5DL makes a good point about the alternative minimum tax. Maybe we should remove the whole sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. There's nothing to say this couldn't be an anomalous filing, and that he otherwise took the carry forward. Proper sourcing is needed here, and certainly not OR/SYN. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
For that matter he might have taken the carry-forward even in 2005; we don't know what he is using to get that huge deduction. But I do think the wording "this loss allowed him to reduce or eliminate his taxable income during the eighteen-year carry forward period" is misleading, since it implies he actually DID reduce or eliminate his taxes for 18 years. In fact, that assumption was often used during the campaign to accuse him of paying nothing in taxes. So I think it is more honest to say that he COULD have done so. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Any carry-forward would show on one of those two pages, on line 13. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It's sort of a moot point what others think. It's what the sources say. Unless we have specific, high-quality sources that refute the referenced material we have, it should really stay in the article as is. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The less said the better. His tax filings must be enormous. With so little info, there’s too much speculation. Objective3000 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Here are two sources that support he could of done it but didn't necessarily [1] and [2]. I support MelanieN's version since with the new information seems to be the most accurate. PackMecEng (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We cannot use Wikipedia's voice to make suppositions. Without seeing the schedules of deductions, the corporate losses, the personal losses, and the AMT rates, saying "Trump could have used the 18 year carry forward. . ." is synthetic. Just because sources want to go down that road, does not mean we have to. Looking at the two pages from 2005, it's obvious he had no carry forward from the 1995 loss. And there's no evidence he didn't close that out that year or over a two or three years. According to the IRS, long term carry forwards are not common. The sources don't seem to bother asking the IRS. Or if they have, it doesn't fit their narrative. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Let's take a look at the actual language in the New York Times article: In October, The Times published three pages of Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax returns, which showed a $916 million deduction that could have allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years. The forms disclosed on Tuesday do not say whether the $103 million in losses were left over from that 1995 loss. Notice that in 1995, Trump did take the $916 million deduction. It's only the NYTimes making the claim, that he could have spread this out over 18 years, but in the same breath they say, he took the deduction. The $916 million WAS taken in 1995. There is no 18 year carry-forward since he'd already used the entire $916 million deduction to wipe his casino losses. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Needs to be removed from article

This needs to be removed from the article as it is entirely synthetic. Wikipedia is making it appear that Donald Trump spread out his $916 million deduction over 18 years and then it arranges comments by Trump to make it appear he is being dodgy on answering. This is cherry picking to craft a false narrative:

Trump claimed a loss of $916 million on his 1995 tax returns. As net operating losses from one year can be applied to offset income from future years, this loss allowed him to reduce or eliminate his taxable income during the eighteen-year carry forward period. Trump acknowledged using the deduction but declined to provide details such as the specific years it was applied.When questioned during a presidential debate about such practices, he stated that avoiding paying income tax through such methods "makes me smart."

The key words are, Trump claimed a loss of 916 million on his 1995 tax returns. . . End of. There is no evidence he spread it out over 18 years. And everything around that first statement is synthetic invention. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not "synthetic" if it's in the source. We cannot pretend to be tax experts. We go with what the source says. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It is synthesis. The sources are being used to craft a narrative. This is his BLP and we don't have to go with what sources say. It's up to the editors on the page. In addition, the Alternative Minimum tax went into effect in 1970. That means, that no matter what his loses, Donald Trump still had to pay taxes. He had to pay his social security/medicare taxes and he had to pay the AMT. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just no. We can't ignore sources - if it's out there we should try to find a way to include it. I tried to think of a way to change it to avoid the (false) "18-year" supposition, but I can't find anything better. Has anybody thought of something better? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Editors don't have to be tax experts in order to perform "Routine calculations". "Trump paid income tax in 2005; 2005 was less than 18 years following 2005 (2005-1995=10, 10<18); therefore the statement that Trump did not pay income tax for 18 years after 1995 is false." That uses basic concepts that are taught in the first year of public education. You don't seem to have trouble with the concept that if Clinton got 66 million votes and Trump got 63 million votes, that Clinton got more votes than Trump. Reliable sources sometimes turn out to be wrong, and we correct them as new information is published. TFD (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Trump still paid taxes, whether or not he's using a carry-over from 1995, or if he's done with that and has new losses, he still paid the AMT which is a federal tax. He also paid penalties, late fees, and he paid Social Security and Medicare taxes. The edit as it stands now, feeds a false narrative that Trump does not pay taxes. This needs to be rewritten, with quotes from the second debate where he told Anderson Cooper he paid millions of dollars in taxes, or something to that effect. Just on the AMT alone, Trump has likely paid hundreds of millions in taxes over the many years his income has been high enough to trigger the AMT. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not a "false narrative" at all. For all we know, 2005 was the only year Trump paid any taxes, or at least any significant taxes. And the AMT exists to prevent people like Trump getting away with not paying any taxes, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Scjessey: Ad ignorantiam - Simply because we don't know of something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Especially with controversial statements about a very controversial living person, we should strive not to have speculations inside the article, our opinions of the man (and his honesty/lack of) notwithstanding. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I downloaded the 1995 tax return from he New York Times website and it clearly shows that Trump took the entire amount as a loss in that year. HIs gross adjusted income was (-)$913,765,884. That's negative 913,765,864. There was no carry-over. The NYTimes obviously knows that and tried to make a story out of it by saying, Trump "could" have taken a carry over for the next 18 years, but apparently he did not. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to say he is not taking a carry over (even though he probably did from 1995 to 2004), we should also mention the multiply-sourced theory that Trump himself probably leaked the 2005 return. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like pure, simple, unencyclopedic speculation to me, unless it's supported by a significant number of sources. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC) The report does have "client copy" stamped on it, for all that means... 02:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Well you are a non-neutral editor. That is unencyclopedic reasoning and this content in question should be trimmed or removed from the article for the concerns raised above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelligentName (talk • contribs) 04:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
SW3 5DL - I'd be OK with trimming this out just for it being WP:OFFTOPIC as not something suiting a Biography article. If we're including it due to WP:WEIGHT prominence to the theme of suspecting his taxes, then I suggest following guidance to state it WP:NPOV with a neutral point of view as a topic and otherwise attribute the positions to cover any possibility of such being speculations per the guidance of WP:BIASED. How prominent something was will not change due to truth or falsity -- and if disproven, I think that just becomes part of the story arc of the claim. Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
In looking further into why he would have this loss, I went back to the casino bankruptcy which began in 1992 and concluded in 1995. Reading sources of that time, this write-off is the end of the business bankruptcy and represents Trump's personal losses at the time the bankruptcy judge concluded the case and was satisfied with Trump's reorganization of the businesses. Apparently, the reporting in 2016 on this, wants to maintain a false narrative that Trump is manipulating the law to cheat the taxpayer, but the bankruptcy does not bear that out. That's probably why the Times isolated the write off without ever explaining fully why he had such a loss. And Trump knew better than to take a carry-over because that is credit death when you go cap-in-hand to the banks after a reorganization. They look at your taxes and they're looking for a clean slate, no carry-overs. When you read the whole story, you see a very different picture from what is being painted now. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett, IntelligentName, and IP: Here's another thing that should be removed:

An analysis by USA Today, published in June 2016, found that over the previous three decades, Trump and his businesses had been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state courts, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate.[132] Of the 3,500 suits, mostly in the casino industry, Trump or one of his companies was the plaintiff in 1,900; defendant in 1,450; and third party, filer of bankruptcy, or other in 150.[132] Trump was named in at least 169 suits in federal court.

I can't see the reason for any of this without the relevant context, and not to mention, this is USA Today, it's not a professor from the Wharton School doing this. And the line, ". . .an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential canddiate" implies some kind of wrong doing. It also does not define what these suits are all about, they just rattle off numbers. Compared to what or whom? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It does say what the suits were mostly about: the casino industry. This is an appropriate overview, and people can go see Legal affairs of Donald Trump for more information. I do support removing "an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate" because it's not an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate who has run a huge billion dollar business, AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And none of it is relevant to his BLP. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It (the "analysis" by USA Today) is a false comparison. It is like saying "most animals do not have feathers, birds have an unprecedented amount of feathers compared to all other animals" to imply an inappropriate amassing of feathers by birds. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Or like comparing parking tickets issued to those in towns against those living in rural areas to make accusations about the lack of honesty of town dwellers compared to rural dwellers! It is not a genuine like for like comparison. Obviously someone with no business activities at all is going to have less legal cases than someone heading a multinational company, and someone heading a multinational company with business interests operating within particularly litigious areas is going to have more legal cases that a company with no such interests. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the "unprecedented" bit, since we all seem to agree about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Yes, perfect analogy. Well said.SW3 5DL (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's what the paragraph says now: Trump's legal affairs have been extensive in connection with his business interests. As of 2016, he and his businesses had been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state courts, mostly about half involving the casino industry. Trump or one of his companies was the plaintiff in 1,900 and defendant in 1,450.[135] Where there was a clear resolution, Trump won 451 times, and lost 38. In my opinion, this is much better. We should include some summary of Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Is this summary okay? I think so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of those cases were dismissed. And of 3500 cases most were not in the casino industry. Of the 500 cases that did make it in front of a judge in court, Trump won 451 times and lost 38. So the 3500 simply represents someone filing a lawsuit. That doesn't mean they were litigated in court. They were either withdrawn, settled, or dismissed. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, the claim that he was 'involved' in 3500 cases, that could mean he was a witness, or had some tangential relationship to the litigants. That doesn't mean he was the subject of the lawsuit. Lots of people get named and then later they are dropped from a suit because there's no there there. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The cited source says about half the cases were casino-related, so I changed that in the article and in the green quote above. Please note that that green quote already says Trump won 451 times and lost 38.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Half of what? 3,500 or 500? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
About half of 3,500. So says this BLP, and so says the cited source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

According to USA Today, Trump is the plaintiff in 1900 cases he brought against gamblers for financial problems he's had with them. Probably failing to pay. The edits here are deceptive since no where does it mention Trump is the plaintiff. It gives the impression that he's been the subject of 3500 lawsuits. He has not. Other lawsuits where he's the defendant have been against the hotels/casinos for personal injury. It needs to be specific. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, this BLP says "Trump or one of his companies was the plaintiff in 1,900 and defendant in 1,450." So you're obviously mistaken to say this BLP "gives the impression that he's been the subject of 3500 lawsuits." Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was still looking at the first part of the sentence you proposed. The whole thing needs to be rewritten. I'll read over the USA article again and come up with suggestons. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks fine to me as-is, but of course I'm glad to read whatever you suggest. By the way, if you want to reply to a comment, it's always best to indicate that, for example by indenting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

This edit removed material with the edit summary "c/e redundant". This strikes me as a highly disruptive edit, because the material was not redundant. Here is what was removed (footnotes omitted):


Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the above content that is struck out. This is an article about Donald Trump, not Kushner, Trump's children, or his sister. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Shall we remove all mention of all other family members? This is a section about "family". In any event, the person who deleted this material did not suggest we should not mention Kushner; he said this material is "redundant", which it isn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
If the material is redundant as you claimed, User:SW3 5DL, would you please say where you think it is already located?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The sister is mentioned further up in the article with a link. His sons are already linked. Jared Kushner, (who has his own page), is already mentioned as Ivanka's husband in 'religion.' The 'star-studded' reception is for Vanity Fair, not WP. We cannot keep mentioning the same thing over and over. It makes no sense. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
And where he grew up is already mentioned in the lede. We get that he lived in Jamaica Estates, Queens. With his parents. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
User:SW3 5DL, right now, nothing in the article says that the sons are now running the company, right? Nothing right now in the article says the sister is a US Circuit Court Judge, one level below the U.S. Supreme Court, right? Nothing in the article right now says the son-in-law is now a senior advisor in the White House, right? Nothing in the article right now says he lived in Jamaica Estates before going to military school, right? And nothing in the article right now suggests why this particular wedding reception is notable, right? Attendees included Bill and Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Simon Cowell, Regis Philbin, Kelly Ripa, Star Jones and Barbara Walters. So don't tell me "redundant". Give an actual reason, please, or restore the information. Even if all of this info were in the lead (none of it is), the lead is not supposed to contain info that's not in the article body.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A minor point compared to the others, but this claim is false too: Jamaica Estates is not the same as Jamaica. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
SW3 5DL: But other information that you removed is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, e.g.: "His daughter Ivanka's husband Jared Kushner is serving as a full-time senior advisor in the White House." Please stop making misleading claim about your edits. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy forbidding mention of persons who are not identical with the article subject, so I'm not sure about the basis for the "This is an article about Donald Trump" argument. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed this is a highly misleading edit summary and a clear violation of WP:SUMMARYNO.
As for the content question: In each case, the brief remark about the family member provides context that is clearly relevant in this article - e.g. that the president's son-in-law is senior advisor in the White House. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It is redundant. Mary Anne Trump is mentioned in the early life section. Her link takes you to the main article that discusses her. This is Trump's article, not his sisters. HIs sons are already linked and their names link to their articles which talk about them running the family business. It does not need to be here. We do not need tabloid hyperbole for "star-studded," and Jared Kushner is already mentioned in the 'religion' section with his name linked to his article. I'll mention in that section that Kushner works in the White House, but the rest has to go. But more importantly, the inappropriate response by Anythingyouwant, and your comments, are very disturbing and disruptive to this page. And your revert is also disruptive. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SW3 5DL, because you are not properly indenting your comments, it is impossible to know whether you are accusing me of a disruptive revert or accusing someone else of a disruptive revert. I have requested before that you please indent to indicate who you are speaking to. See WP:Talk. That said, I find very strange your notion that we should never say in this BLP anything about anyone (or anything) that is contained in that other person's (or thing's) Wikipedia article. You really want to stick with that notion? Because it would imply deleting a heck of a lot more of the present BLP. And why have you now inserted Kushner's White House role a second time, I thought you dislike redundancy. And why have you now pipe-linked Jamaica, Queens to "Jamaica Estates" even though there is a separate article about Jamaica Estates?[3] I object to both of those odd edits by you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

The second or third opening paragraph states something like "Most of Trump's statements are false or controversial". This is an obvious POV edit and needs to be removed. It degrades practically the entire page and stamps a big biased label on President Trump's statements and does not infer what or any statements he made are false. Further this does not belong in the opening paragraphs of the article.Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done – First of all, the "controversial or false" wording is qualified by "many statements" not "most statements", and it is restricted to the context of the presidential campaign. Second, the issue has been debated at length and settled by RfC, see links above in #Current consensus item 7. Obviously, consensus can change but I would advise that you read the prior extensive discussions before suggesting a change based on new developments. — JFG talk 10:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please restore paragraph

Unanimous disagreement for restoring the paragraph. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

Anythingyouwant can come by and remove something and I can't re-add it according to the sanctions? I have other things to do and I cannot engage in an argument here. His edit summary was:

"remove paragraph because Trump has not had any formal role in Trump Entertainment Resorts since 2011 or earlier. See http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424052970203579804576285341283000706"

That Barrons source dated 2011 says Trump reduced his stake at the bankruptcy from 24% to 5% and that he had no formal role. He owned "less than $3 million" dollars of the casino and his name was on it. In what world is a $3 million dollar stake not significant?

Also, another sentence not supported by Anythingyouwant's source was removed at the same time. Kindly restore that paragraph. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry but that statement seems to reflect the source. If the source says Trump had "no formal role", then yes removing it is justified - otherwise it's giving WP:UNDUE weight to non-significant things. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with IP69. If Trump no longer had any formal role in the company, then details about the company's decisions are undue weight here. We could fill Warren Buffett's article with all the decisions made by companies in which he owns a minority of shares, but that would be undue weight too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
"Trump Taj Mahal has a long history of prior, repeated BSA violations cited by examiners dating back to 2003." -SusanLesch (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
"Notably, Trump Taj Mahal had ample notice of these deficiencies as many of the violations from 2012 and 2010 were discovered in previous examinations." It looks like Treasury didn't think the pre-2010 violations were particularly noteworthy. Also, the keyword "Donald" doesn't appear in its news release. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Mentioned news release makes absolutely no mention (at all) of Donald Trump. Would close this as WP:OFFTOPIC ("contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information.") but I'll leave that to somebody else. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2017 (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.

Removing repetition re. Kushner

This BLP currently says twice that Kushner is serving as a senior advisor in the White House. It's in the last paragraph of the "Religious views" subsection, and also the last paragraph of the "family" subsection. I plan to remove it from the former, because it has nothing to do with religion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree that it makes more sense in the family section. — JFG talk 07:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I edited so it's only in the "family" section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla and JFG: I disagree. The family section is for Trump's immediate family. The family he created. Not his son-in-law, who is already mentioned in the religion section. The children already have their names linked so info on Jared, who, btw, has his own article and his name is linked in this one in the religion section, which is enough. Also, Anythingyouwant is making multiple edits over the last 48 hours, at a manic rate, some of which should have consensus. The grammar goes wanting as well, in some of the more florid sentences such as, "Later that year, she gave birth to their son Barron, who became fluent in Slovene and English." Was his ability to speak Slovene and English the result of the birth? And what kid born in America to an English speaking family won't learn English? He then runs over to the talk page to get a 'consensus' and if his edits are reverted he seems to have a violent reaction. He flew into a rage the other night when I changed something back in the family section. This seems more disruptive to me. Especially the number of edits. For example, from 16 March at 16:04 to 17 March 03:49, he made 60 edits. A lot of those edits, including his multiple subsequent ones, are poorly written. He's adding junk that will only get taken out when the article finally gets to GA status. In other words, he's making work. And I don't like the photos being moved. Photos being staggered help prevent walls of text. This is disruption, it's not editing. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have edited the family section to rephrase the activities of Trump's adult children; this puts Jared Kushner's role in context with Ivanka's move to Washington. He had really nothing to do in the religion section. Regarding the rest of your comments, I would encourage you to AGF and improve the grammar where you see fit; collaborative editing is the beauty of Wikipedia. — JFG talk 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it is important to note in the religion section that one of his children converted to Judaism. And since he's already mentioned there, his name is linked to his own article, he doesn't need to be anyplace else. And Ivanka's move to Washington is in her article. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK, no one has sought to remove this from the religion section: "Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Jared Kushner, Trump said in 2015: 'I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that […] it wasn't in the plan but I am very glad it happened.'" Also, User:SW3 5DL, do not change your comment after someone else has already replied to it, without indicating the change (see WP:Talk). Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: Some definitions from Black's Law Dictionary:
immediate family. 1. A person’s parents, spouse, children, and siblings. 2. A person’s parents, spouse, children, and siblings, as well as those of the person’s spouse.
extended family. The immediate family together with the collateral relatives who make up a clan...
collateral. 2. ... Of, relating to, or involving a person who is related by blood but is neither an ancestor nor a descendant.
So you're right. Kushner is not one of Trump's (immediate or extended) family members. It would be formally correct to remove his name from the 'Family' section, thus:
... [Trump's] daughter Ivanka ... moved with her husband to Washington when he took a position as a senior advisor in the White House.
One can argue, however, that Kushner's multiple relationships to Trump make him more than a minor aspect of Trump's life and that he's been so treated by the press. I think it's OK to mention his name twice (but maybe no more than twice) in the article as a whole. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Many of the statements that he made in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false.

Please see current consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item [7]. If you wish to start (another...) discussion on that, good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

This sentence needs to be removed as it is clearly biased. Looks like it has been written by a leftie and it is biased. Norum 02:51, 19 March 2017 (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.

Footnotes

I have no objection to this edit by User:SW3 5DL, except for the footnote. It would be best to have consistent practice in the lead regarding footnotes, and that practice has so far been to omit them. Even where we do include footnotes, a bare URL is unusual.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It's there to keep you from having another violent reaction to a change in one of your edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
If you carefully read my previous comment at the top of this section, I think you will be hard-pressed to find any violent reaction to anything. Same for my other comments here. Please get rid of the footnote, or move it out of the lead. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of footnotes, User:SW3 5DL, is there some reason why you changed "{{sfn|Kranish|Fisher|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=x2jUDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA45 45]}} to "<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=x2jUDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA45 |title=Trump Revealed: The Definitive Biography of the 45th President |first1=Michael |last1=Kranish |first2=Marc |last2=Fisher |publisher=Simon & Schuster |year=2017 |isbn=978-1-5011-5652-6 |accessdate=January 21, 2017 |page=45 |quote=Trump graduated from NYMA in May of 1964}}</ref>"?[4] If not, I propose to change it back, along with deleting the footnote from the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion, editors who are unwilling to respond to criticisms of their edits ought not to be editing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry and Education into chronological order

I moved the 'ancestry' section to Early life and family. It's a better chronology as it seemed disjointed to be away from his earliest life with his parents. I also looked at other presidential BLPs, namely Barack Obama's and I noted there is no separation of parents and grandparents heritage into an "ancestry" section. I also moved the photos, but you don't really get an accurate preview so it's hard to see if any text will wrap. They should probably go back if anybody is bothered by the text wrapping around them. But farther down the article, all the photos are on the right. That seems a bit much. There needs to be some staggering of photos to break up the text so readers will keep reading. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I also moved education to be below "Early life and family." This keeps it in chronological order, followed by "marriages and children," "religious views," "health," and "Net worth." SW3 5DL (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Your description here about the Ancestry section is inaccurate. The word "Ancestry" is now nowhere in the BLP, and it is no longer a distinct section. I objected above, and starting a new talk page section does not somehow supersede that objection. Moreover, the "Education" section was below the "Early life" section before you started editing today.[5]. Why pretend otherwise? It also seems your edits are making this article sound somewhat illiterate, with phraseology like "Trump credits his abstinence of alcohol...." And why do you want that exact same information about alcohol to be in two different sections? To drill it into readers' minds by repetition? I'm afraid I will have to hit the booze pretty soon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I removed the word 'ancestry' as it now seems pointless, when I moved that section to "Early life and family." It is now combined with Trump's birth and his early childhood life with his parents. Ergo, their background is best there. I don't see the point of the word 'ancestry' but I suppose we could have an RfC if it turns into a big issue. As I said, I've gone over several presidential BLPs, and I don't see any of them giving such weight to 'ancestry.' And when you read through his parents and grandparents background, there's only one mention of the Trump name changing in the 17th century, and I don't see how that justifies a separate ancestry section. In addition, what ancestors did, or did not do, really has no bearing on what a person is doing in their life in the present. So other than a name change from Drumpf to Trump, a separate section for 'ancestry' seems undue. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This is really a sub-discussion of the "Jumbled chronology" discussion above. Please let's get some consensus before reshuffling it all (I have reverted). — JFG talk 06:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Jumbled chronology

This BLP now says:

This is too much detail about his sister, and misplaced before we describe ancestry. I object to these major reverts of material that has been edited and discussed so recently.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The ancestry section was out of place. His ancestors are his parents and their parents. It belongs in the beginning of the family. Mention of his sister can be trimmed. Also, you always object to any change. See WP:OWN. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course, I don't object to the vast majority of edits by other editors. I try to focus on the most disruptive ones. If you don't like the placement of the Ancestry section, why not simply move it? Are you upset about something? It's best to take a break instead of making a high-profile BLP reflect that you are upset.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I did move the ancestry section. I moved it to Early life and family. Also I don't think it's too much about Judge Barry. She's had to suspend her chambers because her brother is president of the United States. She's not required to suspend her chambers, but she's doing it so there's no question of bias. I think that's notable in the family section. It's due weight given the importance of her position. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Nope, there is no section or subsection anymore titled "Ancestry" or the like. It's all a jumble now, and I disagree with that. As for the sister, you're bouncing around from one extreme to the other.[6]. Please stop disrupting the BLP (apparently with every intention of doing so).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent reshuffling by SW3 5DL, because the result was hard to comprehend. I'm not against some changes, however they should be discussed here to gain prior consensus. I usually appreciate your work but you've been a bit too bold today… — JFG talk 06:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No, what I see right now is you edit warring. You've no real justification for this. I've used the talk page, these are good edits and you've rolled back eveything without any justification. Please revert yourself. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The remedies template at the top reads: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." It conspicuously does not say the challenge has to make sense to you for this to apply. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: Mandruss is correct about the process. To your objections, I did justify my revert with comment "Recent reshuffling looks messy; see Talk", and I have now posted a detailed reply at WP:ANI. Please note that three editors have independently voiced disagreement with all or part of your edit spree (Anything, Muboshgu and myself), so perhaps it's time to pause for a while, reflect and discuss; I'm pretty sure we'll find consensus soon. — JFG talk 07:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Germany

What about we include some of the Donald Trump opinion on Germany?

  • Claiming that he had a great time with Angela Merkel, even though they "fake news" claimed different; just to mention in the same sentence: Germany owes America money.
  • Germany is not secure anymore, because of refugees.

I mean, all the bullshit he is producing about Germany - you can argue that it's the second most hated country after Mexico - shouldn't we include it into the article? (PS! Personal question: is that how you Americans think of us Germans in general, or is it just Donald Elected Trump?)--Rævhuld (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a forum Objective3000 (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Personal reply. I think you Germans are being a little bit too soon unrealistic. In terms of its malevolent impact, surely Germany still belongs in the most hated country position. I'm not aware of Mexico starting two world wars, and while Mexicans are very adept at killing "others", and have been since at least the Aztecs, I don't think they have extended those genocidal inclinations beyond their own borders. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Wait, isn't Germany also the (wunderschöne) country that produced (among others) not one, but two of the greatest artists of all time. Also, imputing the blame for WW1 on Germany is really inaccurate: it was indeed caused in part by the German support of Austro-Hungarian ambitions against Serbia, but Germany was far from being the only one to blame - the Entente (French irredentism and the arms race between the UK and Germany) are far from being blameless and Serbian nationalism is at least the cause of the flame that sparked the war. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Im am a German (and not proud of that), but to be realistic, some other facts should be taken into consideration: Germany − even Hitler's Germany! − never tried to get nuclear weapons. The USA are the only nation on that planet that used them − to eradicate two cities in a country that never was a danger for North America. And they are still fighting wars on other continents, while Germany in these "World Wars" never went further than to nearby North Africa. Even Donald Trump, whose father Fred Trump grew up in a German-speaking environment in Queens in a time when Germans where especially welcome in the states, would not call the homeland of his grandparents a hated country. Or did I miss another highlight? --Klaus Frisch (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Bullshit? Trump is spot on about Germany. Merkel has ruined our country by fully opening our borders to those economic migrants. Yes, they are economic migrants, not refugees. And you call yourself German, but not pround of it? You are a traitor then. Norum 02:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is no place to discuss politics, and, as Merkel said so nicely when she met Trump, “It’s always better to talk to one another than about one another.” As for your unrelated comment, "not being proud of something" doesn't mean you hate it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
Source: "The actual decision to go to war over a relatively minor international crisis like the Sarajevo murder, however, resulted from a fatal mixture of political misjudgement, fear of loss of prestige and stubborn commitments on all sides of a very complicated system of military and political alliances of European states." (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26048324) 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Anything about what happened with Merkel belongs in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
On Facebook? But yeah, it's not encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Making sure stuff in the lead is also covered later

Per WP:Lead, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents....Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article....make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article." Does anyone object if we comply with this guideline by making sure that facts stated in the lead are added to the rest of the article if they have not already been added? For example, that Trump grew up at Jamaica Estates? Also, I think the lead is currently incorrect to say that he was born in Jamaica Estates.17:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Anythingyouwant (talk)

I went ahead and fixed this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Great, thank you. Keep in mind that "not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text", per WP:LEAD. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Born and raised

Donald Trump was born and raised in Queens, New York City, New York, according to his birth certificate. "Place of Birth: Queens, New York City." Apparently, New York, as do other eastern states, uses the borough systems. Queens is one of the five boroughs of New York. A borough is the lowest administrative level in that state. It was colonized by the English who used the English convention of naming, but later when jurisdictions were being sorted, the borough was lowest level, and everything else became a neighborhood. It no longer followed the English convention of neighborhood, then parish or village, then county, then country. i.e. If you were born in Chapel Row, your birth certificate would say, Chapel Row, Bucklebury, Berhshire, England. But not in New York. So to keep on about the neighborhood is not correct. If anything, it's just a postal zone. Also, he never lived in Jamaica. Nor was he born in Jamaica. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center is actually in the Richmond Hill neighborhood. Trump always lived in Jamaica Estates, from his birth. His parents address on the birth certificate indicates this. He lived in two houses there. The first on 85-15 Warham Road. The larger house, his father built around the corner, also in Jamaica Estates. And more importantly, he always identified as being from Queens, which one would expect from anyone from that area. After that, if someone asked him, "What neighborhood?" He would answer, Jamaica Estates. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, in the lede was a sentence that claimed he lived in Jamaica Estates until he went to boarding school. But he didn't leave home for good. He was only away at school, so I removed that bit. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, did the article ever actually say he was born in Jamaica, or was it just limited to this deceptive piping: Jamaica? If the latter, it is a nice anecdote about Wikipedia; if the former, it deserves bookmarking for posterity! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield:, I think it was worse. Born in Jamaica and raised in Jamaica Estates. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
This article never said or suggested that he was born in the island-nation of Jamaica.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
My edit refers to the Jamaica, Queens edit Jamacia.I should linked it, but I never at any time suggested it said Jamaica. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI thread relating to this article

FYI those of you who are not aware, there is an ANI thread that my concern you, here. [7] SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Peale books in "Religious views"

Regarding the recent edits I have made to the "Ancestry" section, I moved the section on the Trump family's religious background from the "Ancestry" to the "Religious views" section, as per Anythingyouwant's note on my talk page, as it seems the most logical. Anythingyouwant suggested that I should leave his works out altogether; however, I have kept the books that Peale wrote as it helps establish his notability (connections were made in the Washington Post article between Peale's The Art of Living and Trump's The Art of the Deal, but I decided to keep those out as it seemed to be the author's speculation). What does the Wikipedia community think of this? HelgaStick (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@HelgaStick: I'm agnostic on the question of whether to mention the books in the article body, but I'd definitely support including them in a reference quote. As for this information:
The ceremony was performed by Reverend Norman Vincent Peale, a bestselling author and motivational speaker, and a mentor for Trump.
it belongs in § Religious views, not § Family. And do remember that the marriage fell apart eleven years later; perhaps Peale wasn't a particularly motivational speaker after all (at least not on that occasion)?? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind having Peale mentioned in both the family and religion sections. He performed a marriage ceremony, and he also was a spiritual guide. Just like Kushner is mentioned in both. Whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm OK with mentioning Peale's name twice. But there's no need to mention twice that he's a bestselling author or a motivational speaker. He's not even mentioned once in the article about Ivana. (And the marriage ceremony was documentably more important to her life than to Donald's in that she wouldn't be called "Ivana Trump" were it not for that ceremony.) Kushner can in any case be mentioned twice per WP:BALASP, judging from the volume of attention the press has given him. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, the family section now merely says, "The ceremony was performed by Reverend Norman Vincent Peale,[35][36] a famous speaker and a mentor for Trump.[37]" Hopefully this writ will be satisfactory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The article mentions Peale four times and Peale's works twice. We're not trying to plug his books but it could perhaps appear that way to some reasonable readers.
I propose editing "The ceremony was performed by Reverend Norman Vincent Peale,[4][5] a famous speaker and a mentor for Trump.[6]" to read "The ceremony was performed by Reverend Norman Vincent Peale.[4][5]" Reference [6] could be moved to the immediately following section. No net loss of information to the article as a whole.
But let's wait till tomorrow to decide. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be better to simply remove the names of Peale's books, because we don't even name most of Trump's own books (and I don't see reliable sources placing much significance in the similarity between the titles Art of the Deal and Art of Living).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I note that User:SW3 5DL has just unilaterally expanded the Peale material despite consensus, without discussion, and regardless of our objections that it was already too long.[8] I don't really have any desire to edit an article in such an uncollaborative manner, but I don't see what will put a stop to that either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla:, I thought the same thing about Norman Vincent Peale. But early today, I researched this and it turns out Norman Vincent Peale had a significant impact on Donald Trump's life. It turns out, Peale's book, The Power of Positive Thinking, had been a huge success when it came out in the 1950s. He was pastor at Marble Collegiate Church and started drawing hundreds of people to his sermons. Donald Trump's parents were among them. Trump said he was instantly taken by Peale's message and said he could have listened to his for hours. Other than his father, Peale is the only other mentor Trump has identified. All through the campaign, it turns out, Trump mentioned Peale many times and often attributed his success to the power of positive thinking. It seems Peale and his philosophy had quite the impact on Trump and it seems this bears mentioning as Trump seems to have internalized this belief like a religion. Peale didn't just talk about positive thinking, his thesis was that when applied to business, or really anything, you find success. I can see, after reading so much about this, where this philosophy would appeal to Trump. I removed mention of his other books because it was really only the Power of Positive Thinking that Trump talked about. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

As for mentors...Many have pointed out it was Peale with a mixture of Roy Cohn. Buster Seven Talk 07:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Buster7: He has denied Roy Cohn was a mentor. He only names his father and Norman Vincent Peale as mentors. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you previde sources for the "only Peale and my Dad" claim? The Daily Beast supports the well-known claim; Cohn..."representing the Trump family real estate business in a racial discrimination suit and became a mentor to young Donald." Trumps tweet about this tapping mentions "McCarthyism" which Cohn helped in making what it was. Maybe Trump doesn't want to call him a mentor but he was certainly an early influence that is well documented. He was involved with the Trump family. It has been reported that Cohn used his influence with then President Reagan to get Donald’s sister, Maryann Trump Barry appointed to the federal bench. Read this article and tell me that for years Cohn didn't teach Donald some of the tricks of the trade. As the NYT article says, "Mr Cohn’s influence on Mr Trump is unmistakable." Buster Seven Talk 02:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_53&oldid=1136669221"