![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Any assertion about Trump's financial net worth is pure hearsay. The only documented, audited financial disclosures Trump has ever made are found in the court records from his numerous bankruptcy filings. If you read the actual source documents cited by Forbes in compiling its list of 'billionaires', you will quickly learn that the number displayed in this article's Infobox is simply hearsay that originated with unsubstantiated assertions made by people in Trump's organizations. This number should be removed from the Infobox. Speculation about Trump's financial net worth, and about whether it is a positive number, should be included in the body of the article. Jrgilb ( talk) 13:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The stuff in the infobox has a footnote that says:
“ | Forbes Staff (July 18, 2016).
Donald Trump: His Worth, Work, And World. Forbes Media. p. 16.
ISBN
1531289452. After interviewing more than 80 sources and devoting unprecedented resources to valuing a single fortune, we're going with a figure less than half that—$4.5 billion, albeit still the highest figure we've ever had for him. |
” |
If you think this is incorrect, please provide us further hearsay from a reliable source. Wikipedia prefers hearsay, also known as " secondary sources". You can find more about his net worth here in this Wikipedia article at Donald_Trump#Net_worth. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! I did read the Infobox footnote. As we know, there are numerous secondary sources that speak to the question of Trump's net worth, and they suffer from the same problem that they all originate from Trump's own unsubstantiated assertions. Based on Wikipedia policies, this means, sadly, leaving the Infobox as is. Jrgilb ( talk) 14:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Forbes has just revised DJT's net worth to $3.7 billion. This is from their Real Time Net Worth. The billionaire list still shows $4.5B, but links to the newer, lower number. I think it's general policy to use the Forbes list. But, I'm not sure which number. The newer one is, obviously, newer. Objective3000 ( talk) 18:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be sufficient content to justify a separate page. Marianna251 TALK 11:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Could somebody bring this article up to featured article quality, so it won't look like Wikipedia endorses Hillary? I don't have the knowledge or time to do so. BorkBorkGoesTheCode ( talk) 05:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Can we get rid of all the content in the section "Public Image"? Seems to be rather pointless information that shouldn't be included on a presidential candidate's wiki-page, especially since none of it seems to be of encyclopedic value. NationalInterest16 ( talk) 07:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
"Many online polls are labeled with caveats, warning readers that they are not scientific surveys; nor do they accurately represent the American electorate. The Daily Dot reports that supporters of Donald Trump even took to sites like Reddit and 4Chan in an attempt to intentionally skew online polling results (including those of Fortune.com)."
— Fortune
I am not convinced that this edit is an improvement. When a lot of sources say one thing and a few sources say another thing, I don't see the harm in mentioning such a split. WP:NPOV gives us the job of "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It doesn't say to pretend that the majority view is the only view. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
"Well, I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy,..”. “They’re getting a little bit tired of hearing ‘We’re going in, we’re not going in.’ Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don’t do it.” “Perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.”
— Fox News
Okay, it's quite clear that Buster and those who agree with Buster in this thread reject the explicit statement that I provided above from ABC News: "Trump then alluded to the first Gulf War in 1991, which ended with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein still in power. 'You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.'" In view of that, it's unsurprising to me that you also want to insist upon using Wikipedia's voice for statements that are not fully supported by our available reliable sources. So I won't waste my time summarizing what further reliable sources say. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Trump gave 'lukewarm' support for the war in Iraq, but later opposed the war. That seems simple enough. It should also be mentioned that Trump was a private citizen. He was not an elected member of the House or Senate, like Senator Hillary Clinton. The weight being given to Trump's opinion of the war is out of proportion to Trump's ability to cause the war to come to fruition. There are sources that mention he was speaking as a private citizen and those should be added. SW3 5DL ( talk) 21:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
You only need to say that he gave this 'lukewarm' support for the war, but then opposed the war, and is now claiming he always opposed the war. He's spinning what he said back then. But that doesn't change the fact that he had no power to bring the war to fruition. He was a private citizen. And that should also be mentioned. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me the section about the first presidential debate, should read as follows: "The majority of NBC polls showed that Hillary Clinton won the debate." Currently, the sentence is suggesting that a majority of polls conducted by multiple organizations were in-favor of Clinton as the victor. However, that is incorrect, only the majority of NBC's polls came out in-favor of Clinton. NationalInterest16 ( talk) 05:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
This material doesn't strike me as biographically significant. It belongs in the campaign article, but not here. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I made a minor correction to the reference to the New York Times report on Trump's Net Operating Loss (NOL), to reflect what the Times actually said. The Times article, which is more or less accurate in describing the tax law, indicates that an NOL generated back in the mid-1990s would entitle the taxpayer to reduce or eliminate income taxes for up to eighteen years. That means eighteen years in total, not eighteen years subsequent to 1995. (Actually, we're talking about up to nineteen years, as explained below.)
If the NOL were generated entirely in the tax year 1995 (and we can't tell for sure in this particular case), that would have entitled Mr. Trump to a carryback of the NOL for up to three years (to 1992, 1993 and 1994), and a carryforward for up to fifteen years (1996 through 2010), until the NOL were used up.
As an aside, the news reports correctly point out that the information on the NOL was gleaned from Trump's state income tax returns, not from his 1995 federal return.
The total number of years for which no taxes might be due could actually be up to nineteen years, not just eighteen (i.e., we cannot forget the year in which the NOL was generated!). In short, if the entire NOL were generated in 1995, a taxpayer could theoretically have no Federal income tax for nineteen years -- 1992 through 2010.
There is an added complexity because of the separate rules on the Federal alternative minimum tax net operating loss. That is, some federal income tax could be due for a given year because of a statutory limitation on how much NOL can be deducted in a given year for alternative minimum tax purposes. Again, there is no way to know how this would have affected Mr. Trump -- without access to a lot of additional data.
Congress changed the tax law on NOLs years later. For example, for tax year 2015, it's a two year carryback (to 2013 and 2014) and a twenty year carryforward. Famspear ( talk) 14:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Just some information to clarify the tax situation: I had been puzzled why he would show that enormous loss on his personal taxes when it was a business loss. But when I researched it just now, I found out that the Trump Organization is an LLC, a limited liability company, with Trump as the sole owner. That means that all of the Trump Organization's financials - profits, expenses, everything - roll onto his personal tax returns. So the bottom line is, there is no difference between his personal taxes and his business taxes; it's all personal. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I removed this but it was restored to the lead. It would be ledeworthy if the lawmakers belonging to one party unanimously endorsed their presidential candidate, but that has not happened here so it doesn't seem ledeworthy. It also seems biased to include non-endorsements while omitting information from List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The number of Republicans who had refused to endorse him was unusually large even before the Access Hollywood tape release. Now it is even easier to argue that the fact is lead-worthy. Concerning the grievance of User:DrFleischman, the sentence could be reworked to inform readers that he has greatly divided the GOP while still leading readers to the fully correct conclusion that the number of conservatives who have disavowed him was abnormally high then and is even more so now, after late Friday. AndrewOne ( talk) 04:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is there none already? AHC300 ( talk) 13:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that the following paragraphs were recently removed from the general election section in this edit with little explanation. I'll leave it to others to decide what, if anything, is worth keeping, but figured I'd stick it here since it is pretty heavily sourced.
A medical report by his doctor, Harold Borstein M.D., showed that Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid function were in normal range. [1] [2] Trump says that he has never smoked cigarettes or marijuana, or consumed other drugs. [3] He does not drink alcohol. [4] [5] [6] He also has germaphobic tendencies, and prefers not to shake hands. [7] In September 2016, Trump discussed his health on the The Dr. Oz Show. [8]
Trump has declined to publicly release any of his full tax returns. [9] Former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have questioned Trump's purported wealth and his unwillingness to release his tax returns, suggesting Trump might be wary of revealing a potential electoral "bombshell". [10] [11] [12] [13] Trump responded by disclosing the existence of the ongoing audit. [14] [15] [16] Trump says he will not yet release records for audited years that he had "passed" because such records "mesh" and "interrelate" with current disputed IRS filings. High-income individuals are audited more frequently than the average taxpayer, but it is unusual for an individual to be audited for several consecutive years. [14] [17] [18] When asked by journalist George Stephanopoulos if he would reveal his tax rate, Trump replied: "It's none of your business, you'll see it when I release. But I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible". [18] [19] [20] If he does not release his tax returns before the November 2016 election, he would be the first major party candidate since Gerald Ford in 1976 not to do so. [21] During Congressional hearings of IRS commissioner John Koskinen in September 2016, Koskinen was asked by Jerry Nadler, a Democratic representative from New York, if "there (is) anything that would prohibit someone from releasing their tax returns, if they want to, because they're under audit?". Koskinen's answer was "no". [22] Tax attorneys differ about whether such a release is wise legal strategy. [23] [24]
~ Awilley ( talk) 01:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
References
WATTERS: "Have you ever smoked weed?" TRUMP: "No, I have not. I have not. I would tell you 100 percent because everyone else seems to admit it nowadays, so I would actually tell you. This is almost like, it's almost like 'Hey, it's a sign'. No, I have never. I have never smoked a cigarette, either."
The Donald has never smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol or done drugs. His older brother, Fred, was an alcoholic for many years and warned Trump to avoid drinking. Fred ultimately died from his addiction.
It's a little tax
Trump Organization LLC says that Trump is its chairman and president -- not its chairman and owner. Donald Trump Biography ("DONALD J. TRUMP: Chairman and President, The Trump Organization").
So does Trump's campaign. About Donald J. Trump ("Chairman and President, The Trump Organization").
The Trump Organization Legal Disclaimer suggests that Trump doesn't own The Trump Organization LLC. (Nor does it own him!) "This Website may contain Content not owned by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization LLC or any of their affiliates..."
And Black's Law Dictionary says that a limited liability company is "taxable as a partnership", not as a sole proprietorship. Trump manages the company's affairs and most likely owns a controlling share of its stock. I've yet to find a source that says he owns the company itself.
Also, Ivanka may be notable for being a "television personality" (see Musmanno Group news release) but Donald seems to be more notable for being a television producer and host. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a little complicated. According to this letter from Trump's lawyers, "The Trump Organization" is the collective name for about 500 entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner. Toohool ( talk) 23:27, 8 October 2016 (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.
Skidmore took a really good shot of Trump, in my opinion.
It's high quality, and he looks very good here. The current picture is 1.5 years old, and isn't relevant to everything that's been going on with Trump right now. He's a presidential candidate now. So are we doing this, or does someone actually have a problem with this? User1937 ( talk) 08:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that should be published a more recent photo (2016) of Donald Trump in the infobox.
Anjo-sozinho (
talk)
13:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be a single citation in the lead. Shouldn't there be, e.g. for assertions such as "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false"? WP:LEAD suggests that at least one or two wouldn't be out of order. Sleety Dribble ( talk) 13:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I have proposed further editing limitations on these articles through the election at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require consensus for candidate article edits through the election. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Do we have verification that Trump is in fact under audit as he claims to be? This Newsweek source says we have no evidence beyond Trump's say-so. In both of the sections in which we mention his tax returns, the fact that Trump is in fact under audit appears to be assumed. We should probably qualify that language appropriately. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
That is all what the tape prompted? In what alternative reality is this article living in? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Right now, that section is quite messy, clutered with dozens of sources and literally an entire copy-pasted essay on taxes for some reason. And all in all, it's waaaaay too long. I'm proposing this:
After becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Trump's focus shifted to the general election, urging remaining primary voters to "save [their] vote for the general election." [1] Trump began targeting Hillary Clinton, who became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 6, 2016, and continued to campaign across the country. One month before the Republican National Convention, Secret Service agents thwarted an assassination attempt on Trump by a 20-year-old British man illegally residing in the U.S. during one of his rallies in Las Vegas. [2]
Clinton had established a significant lead in national polls over Trump throughout most of 2016. In early July, Trump and Clinton became tied for the first time following the FBI's conclusion of its investigation into Clinton's ongoing email controversy. FBI Director James Comey concluded Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified government material. [3]
On July 15, 2016, Trump announced Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. Trump and Pence were formally nominated by the Republican Party on July 19, 2016, at the Republican National Convention. [4] Two days later, Trump officially accepted the nomination in a 75-minute speech inspired by Richard Nixon's 1968 acceptance speech. [5] The historically long speech was watched by nearly 35 million people and received mixed reviews, with 40% of Americans reacting positively while 48% of Americans saying it did not reflect their views. [6] [7]
Following the RNC, Trump became tied in national polls with Clinton following a 3 to 4 percentage point convention bounce. A week later, Clinton received a 7 percent convention bounce after her appearance at the DNC, extending her lead significantly in national polls at the start of August. [8] [9]
Two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 recording surfaced in which Trump is heard discussing women using vulgar language and talking about his efforts to seduce a married woman. The recording, largely referred to by the media as the Trump Tapes [10], prompted Trump to make his first public apology during the campaign. [11] [12]
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
As far as I know, this covers the issue pretty well. Feel free to leave suggestions for adding or adapting certain parts, perhaps a part on the taxes etc. But I do believe this is already a big improvement on what we currently have. Let's work on this together, alright? :) — User1937 ( talk) 16:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
it has gotten too cluttered for a biography.- For use with WP:SIZERULE, which applies to articles in general, the current readable prose size is 81 kB. I assume you could substitute "dramatically trimmed" for "divided". My only strong opinion is that it's damned annoying to wait about 10 seconds for a Wikipedia article to finish downloading. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
References
For tax year 2000, Bush released only his Form 1040; Cheney provided a summary of his taxes, but released no forms.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
More material about brand value, branded facilities, and things named after Donald J. Trump (or the Trump family?):
Alexandra Bruell, " Is Trump Teflon? Most Say No as Brand Perception Takes a Hit", WSJ (Oct. 11, 12:24 ET). (See also copyedits of Oct. 11, 01:08 ET and Oct. 10, 23:24 ET.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 00:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
We how have more of this topic from other WP:RS:
Note that the change values being reported seem to be measured in percentage points, so that the hit to the brand value, measured as a percentage ratio, would actually be considerably higher. What I find remarkable is actually how little the perceived brand value has dropped, given the " grab them by the pussy" comment.
-- The Anome ( talk) 10:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
"Following the revelation of Trump's 2005 remarks". The dating here is unclear. The revelation, and all of the subsequent fallout, appear to have all happened in the last week or so, at least going by the Washington Post citation that appears to just be about the 2005 video coming to light and dates to October 7. If this reading is correct, then technically the WP source is cited in error; it should only be used for the statement that "It was revealed that in 2005 Trump made lewd remarks on the set of Days of Our Lives". Or is it being used simply for the quotation because all quotations need citations? If so, it seems like it would be better to give the quotation it's own sentence ("The comments included ...").
But the date needs to be clarified either way.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the description "politician" in the lead doesn't really do it. Firstly, unlike most other people described as "politician" in the lead of their biographical article, he doesn't have any track record as a politician; he has never held any political office. His political activity is limited to making prejudiced/discriminatory comments towards various minorities and towards women in media outlets, comments that are widely regarded as politically extreme and that would send people to jail in countries like e.g. Germany, over the last year or so. His views clearly belong in the far right tradition and are also considered as such by experts (e.g. Cas Mudde [6]). Thus, "far-right politician" is a more accurate description than "politician." -- Tataral ( talk) 15:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I added a sentence on the most covered isue of the campaign, to the lede paragraph on the campaign. 21:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
the most-covered issue in the campaign- I'd say that's a judgment call on your part. In any case, this is a bio of Trump's entire life and, in the greater picture, this probably does not warrant mention in the lead unless the media gives it sole credit for his losing the election. See leads of Bill Clinton and Gary Hart for comparison. This article does already include content about this, just not in the lead, and there is another article about his campaign. There is also another article about this specific controversy. That's enough. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The sexual misconduct issues are clearly important enough to be mentioned in the lead. First of all, he is recorded on tape admitting to such acts, secondly, his behaviour and comments towards women have received an enormous amount of media coverage, not only recently, but over a longer period of time as well, and on a global scale. Thirdly, it already has a significant impact on his campaign [7]. I should also mention that he himself has made sexual misconduct allegations the most important point of his own presidential campaign, so this is certainly not one of many less important issues or anything like that, but clearly the most high profile issue of his presidential campaign/five minutes of fame. [8]. -- Tataral ( talk) 04:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Please be kind, I'm not wiki savy and (thankfully) cannot change the page myself.
Under 'The Apprentice' heading, last para, quote 213, it says NBC cancelled their business relations with DT due to neg comments on migrants on June 29 2015.
Further on under the heading of 'Involvement in politics 1988-2015', last para, it says DT opted to not renew the contract due to his potential presidential run - dated FEBRUARY 2015.
Seeing as DT cancelled the business relations first and the possibility that the first quote from NBC may have been deliberate propaganda against DT (because not relevant); it should be removed. (Edit: or altered)
Dormouse7 ( talk) 20:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
2nd edit : But ......
I hope this goes to the right place!
I wanted the contradiction to be erased. Keep the NBC quote if you like but add something like 'but DT had already cancelled their business dealings/contract in Feb 2015' - add quote and delete from second section. Please :)Dormouse7 (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormouse7 ( talk • contribs) Dormouse7 ( talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
More participation is needed in a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Objectifying women, in the hopes of avoiding an RfC. The article is about allegations of sexual misconduct, as per its title. Currently, it also includes an entire level 2 section, over 500 words, about allegations of things that imply sexism but do not rise to the level of sexual misconduct. Should this material stay or go? Please comment there. ― Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be resolved for the time being. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
We currently have a subsection titled "Trump–Bush recording controversy" and another subsection titled "Sexual assault accusations". They should be together in the same section, so I plan to make it so, unless someone beats me to it. All of it occurred during the 2016 general election campaign, so that's the best place for it. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Please provide inline citation for unsourced content in Donald Trump#Sexual assault allegations. The sentence with "multiple women presented new stories of ... People magazine" doesn't have any inline citations. The next citation basically covers only "Jane Doe" case. Per WP:BLPREMOVE unsourced or poorly sourced content must be removed immediately. I used expression "sexual misconduct" because that is totally non-contentious in this case and didn't consided blanking the whole sentence a viable option. My believe is that some citation were left out mistakenly, but not all removed content can be verified. Pinging Sabot Cat who originally added this section, maybe they can clarify. Politrukki ( talk) 21:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The section dealing with the Justice Department charges of racial discrimination in housing used to include the fact -- not allegation -- that Trump's managers had refused to offer apartments to black "testers," and then offered apartments to white testers who arrived soon afterwards. That fact has been deleted, and simply says that it was settled with "no admission of wrongdoing", implying that there was no wrongdoing. This is a false implication. Many WP:RS reported that Trump's managers refused to rent to black testers, and we should say that.
Tony Schwartz, Trump's ghostwriter, said that this was a deceptive strategy that was typical of Trump:
I think that at the very least, the WP article should include a description of the fact that Trump's managers had refused to offer apartments to black "testers," and then offered apartments to white testers who arrived soon afterwards. However, given the speed with which it was deleted in the past, I'm not optimistic. -- Nbauman ( talk) 15:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
FYI an Arbitration Enforcement complaint has been filed concerning this article. See this thread if you are interested.
SPECIFICO
talk
16:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Re this edit by Lord Laitinen, I think it's neither neutral nor verifiable to say that Trump later "clarified" his position on immigration of Muslims. Many folks would say he flip-flopped on that issue and that his current policy position was made less clear. Better to simply use the word "stated," as supported by our guideline on words to watch out for. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Any assertion about Trump's financial net worth is pure hearsay. The only documented, audited financial disclosures Trump has ever made are found in the court records from his numerous bankruptcy filings. If you read the actual source documents cited by Forbes in compiling its list of 'billionaires', you will quickly learn that the number displayed in this article's Infobox is simply hearsay that originated with unsubstantiated assertions made by people in Trump's organizations. This number should be removed from the Infobox. Speculation about Trump's financial net worth, and about whether it is a positive number, should be included in the body of the article. Jrgilb ( talk) 13:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The stuff in the infobox has a footnote that says:
“ | Forbes Staff (July 18, 2016).
Donald Trump: His Worth, Work, And World. Forbes Media. p. 16.
ISBN
1531289452. After interviewing more than 80 sources and devoting unprecedented resources to valuing a single fortune, we're going with a figure less than half that—$4.5 billion, albeit still the highest figure we've ever had for him. |
” |
If you think this is incorrect, please provide us further hearsay from a reliable source. Wikipedia prefers hearsay, also known as " secondary sources". You can find more about his net worth here in this Wikipedia article at Donald_Trump#Net_worth. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! I did read the Infobox footnote. As we know, there are numerous secondary sources that speak to the question of Trump's net worth, and they suffer from the same problem that they all originate from Trump's own unsubstantiated assertions. Based on Wikipedia policies, this means, sadly, leaving the Infobox as is. Jrgilb ( talk) 14:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Forbes has just revised DJT's net worth to $3.7 billion. This is from their Real Time Net Worth. The billionaire list still shows $4.5B, but links to the newer, lower number. I think it's general policy to use the Forbes list. But, I'm not sure which number. The newer one is, obviously, newer. Objective3000 ( talk) 18:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be sufficient content to justify a separate page. Marianna251 TALK 11:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Could somebody bring this article up to featured article quality, so it won't look like Wikipedia endorses Hillary? I don't have the knowledge or time to do so. BorkBorkGoesTheCode ( talk) 05:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Can we get rid of all the content in the section "Public Image"? Seems to be rather pointless information that shouldn't be included on a presidential candidate's wiki-page, especially since none of it seems to be of encyclopedic value. NationalInterest16 ( talk) 07:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
"Many online polls are labeled with caveats, warning readers that they are not scientific surveys; nor do they accurately represent the American electorate. The Daily Dot reports that supporters of Donald Trump even took to sites like Reddit and 4Chan in an attempt to intentionally skew online polling results (including those of Fortune.com)."
— Fortune
I am not convinced that this edit is an improvement. When a lot of sources say one thing and a few sources say another thing, I don't see the harm in mentioning such a split. WP:NPOV gives us the job of "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It doesn't say to pretend that the majority view is the only view. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
"Well, I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy,..”. “They’re getting a little bit tired of hearing ‘We’re going in, we’re not going in.’ Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don’t do it.” “Perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.”
— Fox News
Okay, it's quite clear that Buster and those who agree with Buster in this thread reject the explicit statement that I provided above from ABC News: "Trump then alluded to the first Gulf War in 1991, which ended with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein still in power. 'You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.'" In view of that, it's unsurprising to me that you also want to insist upon using Wikipedia's voice for statements that are not fully supported by our available reliable sources. So I won't waste my time summarizing what further reliable sources say. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Trump gave 'lukewarm' support for the war in Iraq, but later opposed the war. That seems simple enough. It should also be mentioned that Trump was a private citizen. He was not an elected member of the House or Senate, like Senator Hillary Clinton. The weight being given to Trump's opinion of the war is out of proportion to Trump's ability to cause the war to come to fruition. There are sources that mention he was speaking as a private citizen and those should be added. SW3 5DL ( talk) 21:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
You only need to say that he gave this 'lukewarm' support for the war, but then opposed the war, and is now claiming he always opposed the war. He's spinning what he said back then. But that doesn't change the fact that he had no power to bring the war to fruition. He was a private citizen. And that should also be mentioned. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me the section about the first presidential debate, should read as follows: "The majority of NBC polls showed that Hillary Clinton won the debate." Currently, the sentence is suggesting that a majority of polls conducted by multiple organizations were in-favor of Clinton as the victor. However, that is incorrect, only the majority of NBC's polls came out in-favor of Clinton. NationalInterest16 ( talk) 05:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
This material doesn't strike me as biographically significant. It belongs in the campaign article, but not here. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I made a minor correction to the reference to the New York Times report on Trump's Net Operating Loss (NOL), to reflect what the Times actually said. The Times article, which is more or less accurate in describing the tax law, indicates that an NOL generated back in the mid-1990s would entitle the taxpayer to reduce or eliminate income taxes for up to eighteen years. That means eighteen years in total, not eighteen years subsequent to 1995. (Actually, we're talking about up to nineteen years, as explained below.)
If the NOL were generated entirely in the tax year 1995 (and we can't tell for sure in this particular case), that would have entitled Mr. Trump to a carryback of the NOL for up to three years (to 1992, 1993 and 1994), and a carryforward for up to fifteen years (1996 through 2010), until the NOL were used up.
As an aside, the news reports correctly point out that the information on the NOL was gleaned from Trump's state income tax returns, not from his 1995 federal return.
The total number of years for which no taxes might be due could actually be up to nineteen years, not just eighteen (i.e., we cannot forget the year in which the NOL was generated!). In short, if the entire NOL were generated in 1995, a taxpayer could theoretically have no Federal income tax for nineteen years -- 1992 through 2010.
There is an added complexity because of the separate rules on the Federal alternative minimum tax net operating loss. That is, some federal income tax could be due for a given year because of a statutory limitation on how much NOL can be deducted in a given year for alternative minimum tax purposes. Again, there is no way to know how this would have affected Mr. Trump -- without access to a lot of additional data.
Congress changed the tax law on NOLs years later. For example, for tax year 2015, it's a two year carryback (to 2013 and 2014) and a twenty year carryforward. Famspear ( talk) 14:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Just some information to clarify the tax situation: I had been puzzled why he would show that enormous loss on his personal taxes when it was a business loss. But when I researched it just now, I found out that the Trump Organization is an LLC, a limited liability company, with Trump as the sole owner. That means that all of the Trump Organization's financials - profits, expenses, everything - roll onto his personal tax returns. So the bottom line is, there is no difference between his personal taxes and his business taxes; it's all personal. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I removed this but it was restored to the lead. It would be ledeworthy if the lawmakers belonging to one party unanimously endorsed their presidential candidate, but that has not happened here so it doesn't seem ledeworthy. It also seems biased to include non-endorsements while omitting information from List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The number of Republicans who had refused to endorse him was unusually large even before the Access Hollywood tape release. Now it is even easier to argue that the fact is lead-worthy. Concerning the grievance of User:DrFleischman, the sentence could be reworked to inform readers that he has greatly divided the GOP while still leading readers to the fully correct conclusion that the number of conservatives who have disavowed him was abnormally high then and is even more so now, after late Friday. AndrewOne ( talk) 04:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is there none already? AHC300 ( talk) 13:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that the following paragraphs were recently removed from the general election section in this edit with little explanation. I'll leave it to others to decide what, if anything, is worth keeping, but figured I'd stick it here since it is pretty heavily sourced.
A medical report by his doctor, Harold Borstein M.D., showed that Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid function were in normal range. [1] [2] Trump says that he has never smoked cigarettes or marijuana, or consumed other drugs. [3] He does not drink alcohol. [4] [5] [6] He also has germaphobic tendencies, and prefers not to shake hands. [7] In September 2016, Trump discussed his health on the The Dr. Oz Show. [8]
Trump has declined to publicly release any of his full tax returns. [9] Former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have questioned Trump's purported wealth and his unwillingness to release his tax returns, suggesting Trump might be wary of revealing a potential electoral "bombshell". [10] [11] [12] [13] Trump responded by disclosing the existence of the ongoing audit. [14] [15] [16] Trump says he will not yet release records for audited years that he had "passed" because such records "mesh" and "interrelate" with current disputed IRS filings. High-income individuals are audited more frequently than the average taxpayer, but it is unusual for an individual to be audited for several consecutive years. [14] [17] [18] When asked by journalist George Stephanopoulos if he would reveal his tax rate, Trump replied: "It's none of your business, you'll see it when I release. But I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible". [18] [19] [20] If he does not release his tax returns before the November 2016 election, he would be the first major party candidate since Gerald Ford in 1976 not to do so. [21] During Congressional hearings of IRS commissioner John Koskinen in September 2016, Koskinen was asked by Jerry Nadler, a Democratic representative from New York, if "there (is) anything that would prohibit someone from releasing their tax returns, if they want to, because they're under audit?". Koskinen's answer was "no". [22] Tax attorneys differ about whether such a release is wise legal strategy. [23] [24]
~ Awilley ( talk) 01:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
References
WATTERS: "Have you ever smoked weed?" TRUMP: "No, I have not. I have not. I would tell you 100 percent because everyone else seems to admit it nowadays, so I would actually tell you. This is almost like, it's almost like 'Hey, it's a sign'. No, I have never. I have never smoked a cigarette, either."
The Donald has never smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol or done drugs. His older brother, Fred, was an alcoholic for many years and warned Trump to avoid drinking. Fred ultimately died from his addiction.
It's a little tax
Trump Organization LLC says that Trump is its chairman and president -- not its chairman and owner. Donald Trump Biography ("DONALD J. TRUMP: Chairman and President, The Trump Organization").
So does Trump's campaign. About Donald J. Trump ("Chairman and President, The Trump Organization").
The Trump Organization Legal Disclaimer suggests that Trump doesn't own The Trump Organization LLC. (Nor does it own him!) "This Website may contain Content not owned by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization LLC or any of their affiliates..."
And Black's Law Dictionary says that a limited liability company is "taxable as a partnership", not as a sole proprietorship. Trump manages the company's affairs and most likely owns a controlling share of its stock. I've yet to find a source that says he owns the company itself.
Also, Ivanka may be notable for being a "television personality" (see Musmanno Group news release) but Donald seems to be more notable for being a television producer and host. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a little complicated. According to this letter from Trump's lawyers, "The Trump Organization" is the collective name for about 500 entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner. Toohool ( talk) 23:27, 8 October 2016 (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.
Skidmore took a really good shot of Trump, in my opinion.
It's high quality, and he looks very good here. The current picture is 1.5 years old, and isn't relevant to everything that's been going on with Trump right now. He's a presidential candidate now. So are we doing this, or does someone actually have a problem with this? User1937 ( talk) 08:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that should be published a more recent photo (2016) of Donald Trump in the infobox.
Anjo-sozinho (
talk)
13:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be a single citation in the lead. Shouldn't there be, e.g. for assertions such as "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false"? WP:LEAD suggests that at least one or two wouldn't be out of order. Sleety Dribble ( talk) 13:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I have proposed further editing limitations on these articles through the election at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require consensus for candidate article edits through the election. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Do we have verification that Trump is in fact under audit as he claims to be? This Newsweek source says we have no evidence beyond Trump's say-so. In both of the sections in which we mention his tax returns, the fact that Trump is in fact under audit appears to be assumed. We should probably qualify that language appropriately. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
That is all what the tape prompted? In what alternative reality is this article living in? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Right now, that section is quite messy, clutered with dozens of sources and literally an entire copy-pasted essay on taxes for some reason. And all in all, it's waaaaay too long. I'm proposing this:
After becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Trump's focus shifted to the general election, urging remaining primary voters to "save [their] vote for the general election." [1] Trump began targeting Hillary Clinton, who became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 6, 2016, and continued to campaign across the country. One month before the Republican National Convention, Secret Service agents thwarted an assassination attempt on Trump by a 20-year-old British man illegally residing in the U.S. during one of his rallies in Las Vegas. [2]
Clinton had established a significant lead in national polls over Trump throughout most of 2016. In early July, Trump and Clinton became tied for the first time following the FBI's conclusion of its investigation into Clinton's ongoing email controversy. FBI Director James Comey concluded Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified government material. [3]
On July 15, 2016, Trump announced Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. Trump and Pence were formally nominated by the Republican Party on July 19, 2016, at the Republican National Convention. [4] Two days later, Trump officially accepted the nomination in a 75-minute speech inspired by Richard Nixon's 1968 acceptance speech. [5] The historically long speech was watched by nearly 35 million people and received mixed reviews, with 40% of Americans reacting positively while 48% of Americans saying it did not reflect their views. [6] [7]
Following the RNC, Trump became tied in national polls with Clinton following a 3 to 4 percentage point convention bounce. A week later, Clinton received a 7 percent convention bounce after her appearance at the DNC, extending her lead significantly in national polls at the start of August. [8] [9]
Two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 recording surfaced in which Trump is heard discussing women using vulgar language and talking about his efforts to seduce a married woman. The recording, largely referred to by the media as the Trump Tapes [10], prompted Trump to make his first public apology during the campaign. [11] [12]
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
As far as I know, this covers the issue pretty well. Feel free to leave suggestions for adding or adapting certain parts, perhaps a part on the taxes etc. But I do believe this is already a big improvement on what we currently have. Let's work on this together, alright? :) — User1937 ( talk) 16:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
it has gotten too cluttered for a biography.- For use with WP:SIZERULE, which applies to articles in general, the current readable prose size is 81 kB. I assume you could substitute "dramatically trimmed" for "divided". My only strong opinion is that it's damned annoying to wait about 10 seconds for a Wikipedia article to finish downloading. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
References
For tax year 2000, Bush released only his Form 1040; Cheney provided a summary of his taxes, but released no forms.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
More material about brand value, branded facilities, and things named after Donald J. Trump (or the Trump family?):
Alexandra Bruell, " Is Trump Teflon? Most Say No as Brand Perception Takes a Hit", WSJ (Oct. 11, 12:24 ET). (See also copyedits of Oct. 11, 01:08 ET and Oct. 10, 23:24 ET.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 00:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
We how have more of this topic from other WP:RS:
Note that the change values being reported seem to be measured in percentage points, so that the hit to the brand value, measured as a percentage ratio, would actually be considerably higher. What I find remarkable is actually how little the perceived brand value has dropped, given the " grab them by the pussy" comment.
-- The Anome ( talk) 10:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
"Following the revelation of Trump's 2005 remarks". The dating here is unclear. The revelation, and all of the subsequent fallout, appear to have all happened in the last week or so, at least going by the Washington Post citation that appears to just be about the 2005 video coming to light and dates to October 7. If this reading is correct, then technically the WP source is cited in error; it should only be used for the statement that "It was revealed that in 2005 Trump made lewd remarks on the set of Days of Our Lives". Or is it being used simply for the quotation because all quotations need citations? If so, it seems like it would be better to give the quotation it's own sentence ("The comments included ...").
But the date needs to be clarified either way.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the description "politician" in the lead doesn't really do it. Firstly, unlike most other people described as "politician" in the lead of their biographical article, he doesn't have any track record as a politician; he has never held any political office. His political activity is limited to making prejudiced/discriminatory comments towards various minorities and towards women in media outlets, comments that are widely regarded as politically extreme and that would send people to jail in countries like e.g. Germany, over the last year or so. His views clearly belong in the far right tradition and are also considered as such by experts (e.g. Cas Mudde [6]). Thus, "far-right politician" is a more accurate description than "politician." -- Tataral ( talk) 15:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I added a sentence on the most covered isue of the campaign, to the lede paragraph on the campaign. 21:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
the most-covered issue in the campaign- I'd say that's a judgment call on your part. In any case, this is a bio of Trump's entire life and, in the greater picture, this probably does not warrant mention in the lead unless the media gives it sole credit for his losing the election. See leads of Bill Clinton and Gary Hart for comparison. This article does already include content about this, just not in the lead, and there is another article about his campaign. There is also another article about this specific controversy. That's enough. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The sexual misconduct issues are clearly important enough to be mentioned in the lead. First of all, he is recorded on tape admitting to such acts, secondly, his behaviour and comments towards women have received an enormous amount of media coverage, not only recently, but over a longer period of time as well, and on a global scale. Thirdly, it already has a significant impact on his campaign [7]. I should also mention that he himself has made sexual misconduct allegations the most important point of his own presidential campaign, so this is certainly not one of many less important issues or anything like that, but clearly the most high profile issue of his presidential campaign/five minutes of fame. [8]. -- Tataral ( talk) 04:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Please be kind, I'm not wiki savy and (thankfully) cannot change the page myself.
Under 'The Apprentice' heading, last para, quote 213, it says NBC cancelled their business relations with DT due to neg comments on migrants on June 29 2015.
Further on under the heading of 'Involvement in politics 1988-2015', last para, it says DT opted to not renew the contract due to his potential presidential run - dated FEBRUARY 2015.
Seeing as DT cancelled the business relations first and the possibility that the first quote from NBC may have been deliberate propaganda against DT (because not relevant); it should be removed. (Edit: or altered)
Dormouse7 ( talk) 20:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
2nd edit : But ......
I hope this goes to the right place!
I wanted the contradiction to be erased. Keep the NBC quote if you like but add something like 'but DT had already cancelled their business dealings/contract in Feb 2015' - add quote and delete from second section. Please :)Dormouse7 (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormouse7 ( talk • contribs) Dormouse7 ( talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
More participation is needed in a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Objectifying women, in the hopes of avoiding an RfC. The article is about allegations of sexual misconduct, as per its title. Currently, it also includes an entire level 2 section, over 500 words, about allegations of things that imply sexism but do not rise to the level of sexual misconduct. Should this material stay or go? Please comment there. ― Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be resolved for the time being. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
We currently have a subsection titled "Trump–Bush recording controversy" and another subsection titled "Sexual assault accusations". They should be together in the same section, so I plan to make it so, unless someone beats me to it. All of it occurred during the 2016 general election campaign, so that's the best place for it. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Please provide inline citation for unsourced content in Donald Trump#Sexual assault allegations. The sentence with "multiple women presented new stories of ... People magazine" doesn't have any inline citations. The next citation basically covers only "Jane Doe" case. Per WP:BLPREMOVE unsourced or poorly sourced content must be removed immediately. I used expression "sexual misconduct" because that is totally non-contentious in this case and didn't consided blanking the whole sentence a viable option. My believe is that some citation were left out mistakenly, but not all removed content can be verified. Pinging Sabot Cat who originally added this section, maybe they can clarify. Politrukki ( talk) 21:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The section dealing with the Justice Department charges of racial discrimination in housing used to include the fact -- not allegation -- that Trump's managers had refused to offer apartments to black "testers," and then offered apartments to white testers who arrived soon afterwards. That fact has been deleted, and simply says that it was settled with "no admission of wrongdoing", implying that there was no wrongdoing. This is a false implication. Many WP:RS reported that Trump's managers refused to rent to black testers, and we should say that.
Tony Schwartz, Trump's ghostwriter, said that this was a deceptive strategy that was typical of Trump:
I think that at the very least, the WP article should include a description of the fact that Trump's managers had refused to offer apartments to black "testers," and then offered apartments to white testers who arrived soon afterwards. However, given the speed with which it was deleted in the past, I'm not optimistic. -- Nbauman ( talk) 15:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
FYI an Arbitration Enforcement complaint has been filed concerning this article. See this thread if you are interested.
SPECIFICO
talk
16:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Re this edit by Lord Laitinen, I think it's neither neutral nor verifiable to say that Trump later "clarified" his position on immigration of Muslims. Many folks would say he flip-flopped on that issue and that his current policy position was made less clear. Better to simply use the word "stated," as supported by our guideline on words to watch out for. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)