Talk:Eric Trump/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016

Under "Career and Philanthropy" and under the sub-heading "The Trump Organization", the last sentence is:

In 2012, Trump was recognized by Forbes magazine among their top "30 under 30" in real estate and by the New York Observer as one of the "20 Most Important Young Philanthropists".[10]

I suggest editing the above to: In 2012, Trump was recognized by Forbes magazine among their top "30 under 30" in real estate and by the New York Observer as one of the "20 Most Important Young Philanthropists".[10] The New York Observer is published by his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner.

The citation above is to http://observer.com/about/

71.183.105.225 (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  17:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Its funny

Looking at this bio a year ago and now. Hopefully some "balance" can prevail. I don't think we need TWO controversy sections. :) --Malerooster (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources and original research.

Editor @PeteWL: has been making a valiant effort to improve the article with concerns regarding the Eric Trump Foundation, and if we had a reliable third-party source reporting it, that would be great. However, the additions have by-and-large relied on the editor's own analysis of primary documents in such a way as to cast aspersions on the Foundation and, through that, on the subject of this article. Using your own analysis of WP:PRIMARY sources to pick and choose facts to contrast against each other is clear original research, and particularly inappropriate for making negative statements in a WP:BLP. And casting anything as a "controversy" is inappropriate if we cannot show signs of there actually being controversy over it, rather than just pointing to something that we think should be upsetting someone.

If the editor wishes to include this material (which is quite understandable), then they should find a reliable third-party source covering these controversies, and cover it. If they cannot, I heartily recommend that they do some work for a reliable, third-party outlet to help bring matters to light... and then once that outlet has covered it, we could use that as a source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

PeteWL: Points noted. I thought the tax forms are self explanatory. The forms clearly list how money was raised and how money has been disbursed and to where. The charity is raising money for a stated cause and giving it to other causes. But I suppose an article by a reputable journal that has been fact-checked by an accountant might add some weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteWL (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I certainly understand the instinct, but when you're taking a statement from one source and contrasting it with a statement in another source to create a statement of an implication (in this case, that the Foundation's actions don't live up to its statements), you're engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS - and if you follow that link, you'll see that's a no-no. But I heartily encourage you to take your findings to some supportive appropriate media outlet! --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

45th President-elect

Editors have repeatedly inserted the claim here that Donald Trump is the "45th President-elect", which is not the case. There have not been 44 previous president-elects, as some people who became president did so without being elected to the position first (Gerald Ford, for example.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that he wasn't PE until yesterday legally. L3X1 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sexual harashment:

Mind removing the issue of the opinion of others concerning what someone might think of anothers comment. That is third party, which does not belong anywhere but at that parties page, and not this one. ´He stated:´ and not ´They stated:´.

PS: Sexual Harashment is a form of bullying, a putz, and falls under mobstering, as does placing third party elements where they do not belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.93.21 (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2016

He joined The Trump Organization in 2006, after graduating with a degree in finance and management, with honors, from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.[7] Please add to reference. Source written during tenure at Georgetown University, not after graduation. DJDrohan (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done, removed the info that was not cited in the source. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016

Add {{Pp-blp|small=yes}} on the top of the article. 221.126.236.94 (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

Edit request for Sexual harassment in the workplace section

In the last sentence, "and Megyn Kelly, a current Fox News anchor", is incorrect. She works for NBC News as of January 17th, 2017. Thanks in advance! 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Here you go. Should say "and Megyn Kelly, of NBC News"

References

Partly done: reworded to "who was also a Fox News anchor at the time." not sure it's the best wording but it I think it caries the original context. Using NBC News here provides little as Kelly wasn't working for NBC at that time. Cannolis (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are saying that it is important to say that Megyn Kelly worked at Fox News at the time, I think you should say why. I assume is because she also accused Roger Ailes of sexual harassment so I guess if this is an important point of distinction in the article, which I am fine with, it should say "and Megyn Kelly, who was also a Fox News anchor at the time who also accused Roger Ailes of harassment" or if her harassment at Fox is not an issue to the context of the article, it should say "Megyn Kelly of NBC News" If all these articles weren't semi-protected on the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" the normal WP:BRD process would take care of this without repeated edit requests. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2017

Add |years_active=2006-present in the infobox. He starts his business career in 2006. 219.79.226.138 (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

Previous photo in the infobox (File:Eric Trump RNC July 2016 (cropped).jpg) is better. 203.198.134.195 (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

In the section "Early life and education"

His parents divorced in 1992, when he was eight years old. 219.79.127.36 (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Portraits

How many portraits does an article of this length need? Wouldn't one in the infobox be sufficient? And that one could be smaller, but I can't figure out how to reduce its size. The "Trump golfing" picture next to "Big game hunting" is kind of funny, though - hunting what, competing golfers? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Eric Trump Foundation

I added a paragraph without touching the ones already there. It's difficult to reconcile the numbers reported to the IRS with the statements made by the foundation in various interviews and in St. Jude’s 2013 press release/2016 letter to the foundation. According to St. Jude’s, the foundation had raised $6 million by September 2013. The 2014 tax return shows a grant of $1.17 million given to St. Jude’s. If the total went up to $16.3 million by December 2016, that would indicate that the foundation raised $9 million in the two-year period 2015/2016, a huge increase over previous years. I guess we’ll have to wait for the tax returns for 2015 and 2016 to find out more. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If you read carefully you will see that the pledge is supposed to be met over a number of years. Not all in 2013. Also, some of the sources mention that the foundation arranges for many donations to be made directly to St. Jude. While it may not be intentional, juxtaposing the 2013 press release with the 2013 tax return is highly misleading and POV. I am reverting.Classafelonymonkey (talk)

The Washington Post explains it well here. I will add a paragraph or two on this topic a bit later.Classafelonymonkey (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't intend for my text to seemingly imply that $20 million would be raised in 2013; I'll reword it to reflect the 10-year/$20 million commitment. I have located additional documents (the announcement from 2012, info on how much was raised at NYC Marathons in 2013 & 2014, etc. I'll get around to the rewrite with the additional references in the next few days.

It seems unethical to me to announce that someone claims to raise money for a specific charity and then gives some of the money (in 2013 it was 20%) to other charities (who, incidentally, will also deduct their direct and operating expenses, so even less money goes to actual charity) and to other organizations which may be nonprofits but not charities. Example: American Society for Enology and Viticulture, a nonprofit corporation but not a charity at all (no 501(c)(3) status), so giving them money raised for a 501(c)(3) would appear to be not only unethical but also illegal. But RS didn't mention it, so we can't, I guess. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for activism. Whatever we think is unethical is irrelevant.Classafelonymonkey (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to say again, that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for activism. Your statement above and subsequent edits seem like pretty solid evidence that you are here to POV push.Classafelonymonkey (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Philantropist

Many reliable sources describe Eric Trump as a philanthropist. The fact that he resigned from one foundation is not enough for him to lose that status. Also, if you read the source material you will see that Eric Trump and the Trump Organization are continuing to raise money for St. Jude.Classafelonymonkey (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The lede is meant to establish notability, not to list everything the subject of the article has done. He clearly engages in philanthropy, but it is not key to his notability, so should not be in the first sentence. For the same reason we do not mention that he is a golfer or eats steaks in the lede. Ashmoo (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Forbes article

I'm under the weather and don't have energy to tackle this. but the new Forbes article "How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business" focuses largely on the Eric Trump Foundation and has material that should be integrated into this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

POV tag on foundation section

So one editor did this[1] and says that the section is "grossly unfair". The editor makes no substantive or policy-based argument for why this section is grossly unfair and why a POV badge of shame is needed. The text in the section is reliably sourced and accurately adheres to the sources (the text quotes extensively). The editor also removed a "controversy" section - such a section title is needed to ease the navigation and readability of the article. I get the feeling that the removal of the section title is intended to make the text needlessly confusing and hard to find just because the text reflects poorly on Trump. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Classafelonymonkey: if you're going to add a POV tag, you need to explain what specific issues you have with the article or section on the talk page so other editors can chime in and help improve the article. We can't read your mind to find out what exactly you mean by "grossly unfair". clpo13_(talk) 16:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There are many reasons why this section is POV. The major one is that it seems negative facts have been cherry-picked to portray the subject in the worst light possible. I will be posting a detailed list of objections later today. Classafelonymonkey (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag until this dispute has been truly resolved. We have cherry-picking negative facts to pov push and some pretty serious undue weight problems to deal with. Hand waving will not make them go away. Classafelonymonkey (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You said that you were going post a "detailed list of objections" yesterday. You haven't. What you've done instead is come back only to reiterate, without substance, that a section of text that mostly quotes the Forbes article directly and perfectly reflects the title of the Forbes article (literally "How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business") has been "cherrypicked". The assertion that the text is undue falls flat on its face, given three additional reliable sources in the text (CNBC, ABC, Business Insider), and multiple other reliable sources that have covered the story (e.g. CNN[2], CBS[3], USA Today[4] but haven't been added to the article yet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have a misunderstanding about what undue weight means. You should read the relevant policy/guideline.Classafelonymonkey (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please explain what I'm misunderstanding about undue weight and how it applies to the content under dispute. Are you actually going to substantiate any of your claims? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read about undue weight here. That way we are not talking past each other. :-) Classafelonymonkey (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing undue about my edits per Wiki policy. Substantiate your claims. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspect you either have no idea what undue weight is or that you are deliberately conflating "undue weight" with "undue". They mean different things. Anyhow, if you read the sources you will see that the copy in the ETF section does not fairly reflect the content of the sources cited. Indeed it seems the most negative material has been deliberately selected while facts that reflect positively on the subject have been deliberately left out. This is POV and thus a violation of the BLP. Also there is a problem with undue weight here due to the length of the material on the foundation. It is by far the largest part of the article when Eric Trump's primary claims to notability are his work at the Trump Organization and his involvement in his father's campaign and administration. Classafelonymonkey (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add the "facts that reflect positively" on a scam charity that shifts money intended to go to cancer patients to the family's businesses. I eagerly await the reliably sourced content that you have in mind.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The content I have in mind is in the very sources that you added. I will do that. FYI your use of "scam charity" shows that you are not here to build a balanced and fair article based on reliable sources but to POV push. Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for activism of this kind. Classafelonymonkey (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please, feel free to add any "facts that reflect positively on the subject". This is a community project, you know. And, like Snnoganssnoogans, I am also still waiting for the detailed list of objections you promised to post two days ago. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Still waiting for the detailed list of objections you promised three days ago, and for you to add the fair and balanced content from the very sources. Seems to me that you are the one pushing POV. I looked up the link in the tag. You were wrong to revert my removal of the tag because my removal meets conditions #2 and 3:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, WP:DRIVEBYTAG. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight

Hi, Classafelonymonkey: "Also there is a problem with undue weight here due to the length of the material on the foundation. It is by far the largest part of the article when Eric Trump's primary claims to notability are his work at the Trump Organization and his involvement in his father's campaign and administration." That's your personal assessment, and I disagree. Eric Trump ran the foundation very publicly for 10 years while his work at the Trump Organization can be summed up with "owner's son", at least until recently, and his involvement in the campaign was minor, in my personal assessment. "Involvement in his father's administration" - interesting. What are your sources? Aren't the Trumps supposed to keep their business interests strictly separate from the governing which is why Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are now running the Organization and not even talking about it over dinner with the President and Ivanka Trump? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail used as source

The Daily Mail is used as a source here[5], and AFAIK, the Daily Mail can't be used as a RS on Wikipedia. I can't revert due to 1RR (I think - perhaps there are exceptions when unusable sources are used).

I've reverted it, both because of WP:BLPRS problems, and because the source didn't say what the sentence claimed it said (it wasn't reporting that there was not profit off of the money; it was reporting that Eric claimed there was not profit of the money.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wedding picture

@Clementehills:It has a "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0" with "CC some rights reserved" tag with the comment "Uploading a free file from somebody else". What does that mean? Who owns and released the rights? I also don't understand why you added it to the article. These are not the society pages or the tabloids, and those were the only places where the wedding was mentioned. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2018

Eric Frederick Trump is an American businessman, philanthropist, and former reality TV personality.

Eric Frederick Trump (born January 6, 1984) is an American businessman, philanthropist, and former reality TV personality. 195.0.205.236 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Done  Ivecos (t) 12:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete OK ?

Is this edit OK? And then this edit? Hogne (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing the citation was wrong, period. Removing the anecdote about Eric's inability to form intelligent sentences is pretty justifiable, as the passage does seem like a partisan stretch to me, although if there were a section about his verbal (in)abilities, it might belong there.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

Early life: His parents divorced in 1992, when he was eight years old. 2404:C800:9003:8:0:0:0:13 (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done --B dash (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Donations

The following is not about the (mis)use of funds. It is at most a lie from Eric Trump. Is this really noteworthy for an encyclopedia?

"Trump said in July 2016 that his father, Donald Trump, had made "hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal donations" to the Eric Trump Foundation in the past, although the Eric Trump Foundation's tax records don't explicitly show such donations. When The Washington Post followed up for evidence, Trump appeared to backtrack and refused to give details."

Histogenea22 (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Are we being careful enough on BLP standards? Using the term lie for a comment somebody made requires that it was not an off the cuff exaggeration based on faulty memory. Lie implies a deliberate utterance of a falsehood. I think we must give persons the benefit of the doubt though recognizing lies when then happen. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC))

Spitting at the Aviary

• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/us/eric-trump-spit-aviary.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/26/eric-trump-spit-face-aviary-chicago-secret-service/?utm_term=.118446f1d88b
• https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-eric-trump-spat-on-aviary-secret-service-20190626-aenk554xmrfahlmqn7ghpuaf5y-story.html
• https://thetakeout.com/eric-trump-spat-on-the-aviary-chicago-1835875983
• https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/6/26/18759477/eric-trump-spit-aviary-restaurant-fulton-market-west-town-loop

Definitely needs to be added but this is still playing out and now Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is involved. Saharabad (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Weird wording in beginning

Eric Trump is under United States Attorney for the District of Columbia's investigation along with his sister Ivanka for their role in their father's inauguration.[7]

I am not sure what a better way to word this would be but as it stands it's kind of strange, almost sounds like they are being investigated for their role in organizing his inauguration ceremony. Perhaps their role in getting him elected? Even so either of those sentences seem odd because having a role in DJT's inauguration, or his election, is not inherently criminal. Perhaps include what potential crimes they are being investigated for

Is posting a derogatory remark by a political adversary a violation of BLP?

Article claims, based only on a Trump enemy in the MSM, that Eric Trump violated a pledge he made. I would think that fairness & avoidance of BLP violation would require a careful parsing of the derogatory claim, not just stating it because this judgment was printed in WaPo. And I think that one would need a reliable source, which is something other than MSM hostile sources, hostile to Trump. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC))

The Washington Post is usually an excellent source. Pikavoom (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Remove “philanthropist” from introductory paragraph. Factually, Eric Trump does not fit the dictionary definition of “philanthropist”. 2604:2000:8144:E600:7997:A5F9:5FED:99B (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"coming out"

The social media buzz has no place in this article. If it was meant to be a serious coming out, wait for it to be confirmed and reported in realiable serious news outlets. But no reports on the buzz or mere speculations. Also note declaring yourself a member of the LGBT community, doesn't necceadrily mean your gay, you might instead be bisexual or even heterosexual, but feeling attached to the community for whatever reason.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Choad

A 2017 profile of Eric Trump in City & State reports that when he attended The Hill School, a private boarding school in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, his nickname was "choad". The piece includes an image of a page of the school's yearbook that shows the nickname. It isn't clear to me whether this makes for a worthwhile addition to this page, the choad page, or neither. TypoBoy (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Qanon conspiracy theories and opening paragraph

The articles that were cited alleging that Eric Trump spread qanon conspiracy theories reads, "Eric Trump has never publicly endorsed the theory and it’s not clear the president’s son was explicitly trying to lend credence to QAnon with his post on Saturday, though he and his brother, Donald Trump Jr., frequently use their Instagram accounts to post political memes that attack their father’s opponents and amplify the president’s message." meaning the qanon sentence should probably be removed. Also your third sentence on a person probably shouldn't be that they promoted conspiracy theories especially given that for his brothers wikipedia page the first paragraph which is the one people see on the internet is "Donald John Trump Jr. is an American political activist, businessman and former reality television personality. He is the eldest child of former American President Donald Trump and businesswoman Ivana Trump", and that should be kept consistent with his brothers wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.228.14 (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)