Talk:Trump Tower (novel)

Satisfies WP:NBOOK per Criteria (1) and (5)

Notable book. Satisfies WP:NBOOK per Criteria (1) and (5).

1. Significant coverage including Vanity Fair and Esquire.

5. Authored by President of the United States. Sagecandor (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump wasn't the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.42.10 (talk • contribs)

All the info is well documented in the article already. Sagecandor (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

And it clearly says Robinson was the sole author. --72.2.42.10 (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Source? Sagecandor (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Here[1]. The original was never formally published. Robinson is the sole author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.42.10 (talk • contribs)

The article called "Donald Trump authored a novel..."? Drop it, IP, you're not gaining traction. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Article titles are not reliable. They are not written by article authors and the article says Trump didn't write it and noted his review on the backcover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.42.10 (talk • contribs)

Let me get this straight. You want the article whose title says "Donald Trump authored a novel..." to prove that he didn't write a novel, because article titles are not reliable? Right. Anyway, the article doesn't say Trump didn't write it--it says it was ghostwritten. Move along. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

How straight do you need it to be? [2]. The article attributes it entirely to Robinson. Trump gets no author byline in the reviewed edition of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.42.10 (talk • contribs)

I have updated the lead sentence and infobox accordingly. — JFG ^talk 07:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Drmies explained this multiple times, above. Everything in the article is backed up to multiple sources. Do not change this. Sagecandor (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

All sources clearly establish that the book was written solely by Robinson, even Trump's review of it acknowledges that! A database record of the first edition attributed to Trump does not change that fact. Will restore the correct authorship that you reverted. — JFG ^talk 20:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop. We correctly write about the original version of the first edition. We don't call the book by its 2nd edition. That is unencyclopedic. Your suggestions violate WP:Original research. Sagecandor (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"A database record of the first edition attributed to Trump" = user themselves acknowledges first edition is attributed to Trump. Wikipedia articles about books are about first editions, not primarily about 2nd editions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump Tower: A Novel is the title, please leave it here

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.

---

Trump Tower: A Novel is the title.

This is a very short title.

No need for disambig.

No emergency or overrriding concern for disambig.

Please leave it here. Sagecandor (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: There is zero other existing book article titles on Wikipedia by this title. Sagecandor (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SUBTITLES expressly says we should keep it here for short titles, per: The only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes. Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SUBTITLES is not the point. All journalistic sources call this book just Trump Tower.[3][4][5][6] The "a novel" stamped on the book cover is not obviously meant to be part of the title. — JFG ^talk 20:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I've thought about this one and it's not a big deal. We can move it to Trump Tower (novel). Either way is fine by me. Sagecandor (talk) 02:30, 21 June 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.

Requested move 20 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:SNOW and by agreement with the original article creator — JFG ^talk 04:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Trump Tower: A Novel → Trump Tower (novel) – All journalistic sources call this book just Trump Tower.[7][8][9][10] The "a novel" stamped on the book cover is not obviously meant to be part of the title. Database entries are split, and are not considered RS. WP:SUBTITLES is not the point, because the real title doesn't include "A Novel". The title is "Trump Tower" per WP:COMMONNAME, which is the key yardstick of our article titling policy. And, dare I say, policies trump guidelines. — JFG ^talk 21:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. The positioning of the words "A NOVEL" on the front cover is, indeed, indicative of a descriptive line, rather than of a title or part of a title. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support I see no reason why this move should be contreversial. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, see it the same, description not subtitle. We wouldn't have Lohengrin: An Opera, but Lohengrin (opera). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I've thought about this one and it's not a big deal. Sagecandor (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support piling on per all of the above. --В²C ☎ 22:05, 22 June 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.

RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence

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.

---

{{rfc}} Should the first sentence refer to the first edition of the book which credited Donald Trump as author with ghostwriter Jeffrey Robinson, and was marketed as Trump's "debut novel" by the publisher ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed first sentence:

Trump Tower is a novel originally credited in its first edition to Donald Trump with ghostwriter Jeffrey Robinson, and was billed as Trump's "debut novel" by the publisher.

Sources

Survey

• Support, as proposed. Article should first refer to first edition. Original edition marketed by publisher as Trump's "debut novel". This is per multiple sources. First sentence should state this. 2nd edition does not cancel out history of marketing for first edition. Sagecandor (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Sources make it clear that Jeffrey Robinson was the sole author and Trump's name was only (planned to be) used for marketing purposes. It has not even been confirmed whether this "first edition" was ever printed: journalistic sources talk about "advertising copy" for a cancelled publication, replaced by the Robinson-only version in 2012.[11][12] To better reflect verifiable information, I suggest restoring my earlier formulation "a book by Jeffrey Robinson, originally credited to Donald Trump". — JFG ^talk 06:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  Let's look at those two sources: Vanity Fair says before it was even a book, Trump himself pitched the story to Hollywood. The Huffington Post reports it was billed as Trump's "debut novel" -- the most notable thing about the book. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, per JFG. I also oppose to "A Novel" as part of the title once it's moved: Trump Tower is a novel ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt:Changed wording, per your suggestion. Sagecandor (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per JFG and Gerda. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as factually incorrect - in multiple ways

(1) The First edition is the first published mass run... a tentative advertising balloon or even the Advance reading copy would factually not be the first edition.

(2) The vast bulk of literary sources - Library of Congress, Worldcat, Openlib, Alibris, Amazon ... say only Jeffrey Robinson. They and any period articles should be given precedence over all these 2017 tabloid looking bits touting some titillation now that he is the American President.

(3) To be consistent to ghost author usages, both his and all the other politicians, it would list the authorship as presented, whether that is first, second, or not at all. Here that is shown as "by Donald Trump with" the ghostwriter. To instead word it as "credited" seems an awkward bit of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Library of Congress, Worldcat, Openlib, Alibris, all say Trump as author of first edition. Amazon.com bare links are not a reliable source. Sagecandor (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor - Since first edition refers to the commercial first run sold, who better? Turn up something before a 2017 tabloid piece or about actual sales please, otherwise I think this is something that was just a cover art or perhaps as far as a reading copy in pre-publication but no more -- the item might have been initially copyrighted as such and almost gotten there, but then actual release done on a separate copyright, different ISBN, etcetera and Donald Trump never was author on somwthing mass produced and sold by this title. Note the vast amount of these big boys of literary places are listing only Jeffrey Robinson on searches, and accept the vastly dominant mainstream literary reality is what Amazon and etcetera have to offer.  :

Abebooks

Alibris

Amazon

Barnes & Noble

Google Books

Library of Congress

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

WorldCat, Internet Archive, Alibris, all before that, all not "tabloids", all say Trump is author of first edition. Sagecandor (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor - These seem just confirming what I said, preliminary work but not actually published: WorldCat view button is a deadlink, Alibris says "no copies available", and Internet Archive is showing ISBN 9781593156435 reserved the title on July 2011 and cover art of Sep 2011 -- before the March 2012 publication [Internet Archive ISBN 9781593157357. These are not even indicating an ARC was done at that point. Again, either show an article about the text (prior to 2017 tabloid bits) or show a commercial availability or you've just got some kind of pre-publication that never became a reality. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:No original research on your part. Not sure what you mean by "tabloid bits". Sagecandor (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

? User:Sagecandor -Simply listing the vast bulk of references that are not sayingTrump, and that the ones you mention saying Trump are saying not published as such is WP:V. So again, factually untrue to say the first edition named Trump when the first actual publication of almost all sources is showing Jeffrey Robinson. The articles in 2017 seem focused on flogging scandal of famous, so read like click bait or "tabloid bits" not to be pushed above weight versus the more numerous and credible sources say no. Show me an actual article prior to 2016 when it all went political that says Trump or I think this article looks like just spreading the latest WP:NOTNEWS false wp:gossip. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Without referring to more specific issues, your false assertions and WP:No original research violations read more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT than any serious level of discourse. Sagecandor (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support The coverage is factual and well covered in the world media, no problem with including it. Damotclese (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• If the publisher had not marketed the book as the "debut novel" of Trump, the case would not be as strong to mention that in the first sentence. But they did, and we should, as it is encyclopedic to refer in an article about a book to the first edition of the book, primarily. It is the most notable part of the book. Sagecandor (talk) 02:29, 21 June 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.

Remove "and billed as Trump's "debut novel" by the publisher." from lede?

This is a description that is purely promotional in nature, and should not be in the lede sentence. 24.234.180.134 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not "promotional". It's the single most notable thing about the book. The lede is specifically to help establish notability. Sagecandor (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)