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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Currently the details of the Trump's corporate bankruptcies are documented in three sections of the article: the "Business Career" section, the "Trump Taj Mahal" section, and the "Bankruptcy" section. This seems excessive and undue to me. Also, it's not clear to me why Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Tower are broken out into their own sections. (There are other major buildings that Trump has been play a significant role in building.) I'm wondering if it would make sense to fold these 2 sections (Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Tower) into the Business Career section, in order to reduce redundancy. Any thoughts on this? CFredkin ( talk) 17:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Fellow editors, There appears to be a disagreement played out in the edit summaries of edits adding & removing material from the Trump Taj Mahal section. We would be better to have the discussion on the merits of that material here on the Talk page. On the basis that this article is a BLP, and there are questions as to whether the inclusion is WP:UNDUE (and therefore not aligned with WP:NPOV); and in the spirit of WP:BRD, I will remove the material pending formation of a consensus. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, [1] in keeping with Bank Secrecy Act statutes designed to thwart money laundering. [2] The casino was later assessed an additional $10 million fine in January 2015, settling currency transaction violations going back to 2003 [3] about which it had been "repeatedly warned"; [2] [4] according to The Wall Street Journal, however, Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino for seven years as of the date of the settlement. [4] [2] [5]
References
That's the copy I've proposed, and I note that it incorporates as sources both a 1998 New York Times article on the $477,700 fine and the February 2015 article from the WSJ which distances Trump from the $10 million fine, noting that he was not an active manager at the time. Note that the 2015 fine was the result of a settlement, after more than a decade of investigation, and came in the form of an unsecured debt against the bankruptcy (i.e. the government will only get $50,000 of this $10 million, although this paragraph obviously does not delve into those weeds). Is this copy acceptable? Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 18:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
-Declaration WP:COI full disclosure, Trump signed my paychecks for a few years, and I never shook his hand because of the germaphobia-thing, lol, but I have no personal agenda or problem. A lot of people here were employed by Trump. TeeVeeed ( talk) 00:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@ CFredkin: You previously deleted this material, stating that it was "original research" and not grounded in reliable, secondary sources. I don't believe that is the case. The paragraph was moved to this page at your request for discussion. Would you care to weigh in, and perhaps suggest emendations or compromise language? Many thanks. Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 17:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's take another pass at the re-write of the section in question:
In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, [1] while the casino was still privately owned by Donald Trump. The statutes cited, of the Bank Secrecy Act, were intended to thwart money laundering. [2] In 2015, government assessed a $10 million fine against the casino, settling currency transaction violations of the Bank Secrecy Act going back to 2003. [3] [2] [4] Since Donald Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino business since about 2008, not all of the violations of the settlement occurred under his watch. [4] [2] [5]
References
Any comments? Votes? SocraticOath ( talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
SocraticOath ( talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with CFredkin for the reasons stated. If you cannot find a single reliable source linking "Donald" to this stuff, then there must be a reason why he wasn't explicitly linked to it. You may be able to find a reliable source linking him to it, and I encourage you to look harder. For example, perhaps you can find the full text of this article:
“ | TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FINED $477,000 \ IN '90 AND '91, IT VIOLATED ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING RULES ON REPORTING CASH TRANSACTIONS OVER $10,000.
Author: John Curran, ASSOCIATED PRESS Date: January 29, 1998 Publication: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) Page: B02 Federal banking regulators have slapped Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort with a $477,000 fine for violations of anti-money laundering regulations in 1990 and 1991, officials said yesterday. It was the biggest fine ever levied against a casino for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. On 106 occasions between April 1990 and December 1991, the casino failed to file forms for transactions above $10,000, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury's financial crimes division. |
” |
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I tell you what.... Here's an article from the Washington Post in April 2014 stating that $6 billion in contracting money spent by the State Department over the preceding 6 years could not be accounted for and citing “significant financial risk and . . . a lack of internal control.”. That means the issue overlapped Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. The article doesn't mention Hillary, but by your standards here, it can and should be included in her bio. Why don't you try to do that, and if you're successful I'll support your edit here. OK? CFredkin ( talk) 23:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
"Political opponents have described Trump as "divisive," "unserious," and a "bully." "A comprehensive "encyclopedia" of Trump's tweeted "insults" was published in the New York Times." "Former Mexican president Vincente Fox stated on live US television on February 26, 2016: "I'm not going to pay for that fucking wall"."
The 2016 campaign part of this page is so unneutral it's laughable. It's just a compilation of what opponents have called Trump. It doesn't even mention the primaries, any of the polls, or literally anything positive. I'm trying to make it more neutral, but apparently it's "too bold" to remove info of his Twitter wars with celebrities and the "fucking wall" comments need to stay there because it somehow matters what an ex President of some country says about him in this race? All of his policies shouldn't even be there at all, they should be in the page that's dedicated to it. It's supposed to be a summary, but when I try to summarize, people scream censorship because it's a "highly visible article"?
It's currently 7992 characters long. Can we at least please agree to remove the policies section. It's literally copy and pasted from the main article of his policies. ThiefOfBagdad ( talk) 00:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps content can be reduced (keeping top summaries) and put campaign details over to Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016 -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC) -- Yes, put campaign details over to his campaign site.
You should not have so many pictures. 8 in the main article would be acceptable if they had a specific use but they all come across like Trumps office showing off himself over and over and over. This is very bad taste. Also there are way to many pictures in the talk page. Please choose one and be done with it. Arydberg ( talk) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
We all know on a person's biography page, sections like presidential campaigns should be largely summarized and expanded upon in the main articles. The section largely copies the main article, with several sections devoted to his general policies, his "Twitter wars" and is it generally very biased. It focuses mostly on all the controversy, reactions from his opponents, and says his support is largely due to the "large media coverage", not because people might actually agree with what he's saying. I think it needs to become a lot more neutral, a lot more shortened and anything detailed should go into the main article from now on. Thoughts? ThiefOfBagdad ( talk) 23:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
In the lede the article states that Trump rose to prominence because of (among other things) his 'non-interventionalist views on foreign policy.' However I think this statement may be lacking a bit in nuance. Yes, Trump has made waves for speaking openly as a Republican about opposing the Iraq war -- but he has also spoken out aggressively about how he would like to fight ISIS more aggressively -- possibly to the point of sending troops into the ground. These stances are not consistent with a view of non-interventionism.
As this article explains well:
"Trump's non-interventionism also seems to be on the table. In the Detroit debate he talked about creating "safe zones" in Syria to stem the refugee flow. And in the Miami debate he said he would commit ground troops to Syria and Iraq: "We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS... I would listen to the generals, but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000." It is unclear which generals have Trump's ear, but the number of troops he cited sounds remarkably like he has been told about Frederick Kagan's white paper on defeating ISIS. Essentially, Trump endorsed the plan for Iraq and Syria that has been promoted lustily by Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. In other words, gone is the America-first foreign policy, in comes the non-credible plan to transform the region again through force of arms, with America leading a mythical, and surely quite moderate, Sunni fighting force." [1]
I propose we change the sentence to:
his non-interventionist and belligerent approach to foreign policy,
Based on these sources:
...his rhetoric-a revanchist stew of foreign policy belligerence,... - Slate [2]
...his belligerent approach to foreign policy. - The Daily Banter [3]
... GOP presidential contender Ted Cruz has unveiled a foreign policy team full of conspiracy theorists and arch-neoconservatives who support policies just as belligerent as those of Donald Trump. -- The Intercept [4]
"When Trump says he would “bomb the sh-- out of” the Islamic State, supports waterboarding and even harsher tactics, and says he has no problem killing the family members of militants, many diplomats wonder whether he is just playing to angry voters or signaling that he would actually pursue a more belligerent U.S. foreign policy." -- The Washington Post [5]
"Why should anyone be surprised to see this posturing, er, trumped by the unapologetic belligerence offered by nonestablishment candidates?" -- The New York Times [6]
References
Belligerent approach, when combined with his non-interventionist descriptions captures well the sentiment of sources that Trump's foreign policy includes a tendency towards provoking conflict with other nations. Perhaps another word could be used to capture this tendency better, but I think it describes accurately a big part of what got him attention. Non-interventionism alone does not describe many of Trump's foreign policy positions that have received attention: such as when he said that he order the assassination of terrorist families, bomb ISIS "harder than anyone", or that Mexico "will pay for the wall". These aspects of his foreign policy approach need to be mentioned in the lede too. Spudst3r ( talk) 00:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
References
The main picture is of very low quality, and Mr Trump isn't even looking directly into the camera. I propose to use this new picture:
Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThiefOfBagdad ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The included file is NOT an authentic scan of his signature. It is vector graphics near-facsimile. The possible fraudulent use of the these signatures in the infobox has been discussed in the past. An example discussion that was weighed in on by @ Jimbo Wales himself and can be found here. If you go to commons, you will see that the uploader (an admin no less, albeit apparently inactive) claimed it as their own work traced in Adobe Illustrator. As presented in the infobox, there is nothing to indicate that it is not authentic. Strongly recommend removing it from the article. Nyth 63 19:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The facts are the Mr. Trump's signature has appeared in countless public documents, from real estate titles, to lawsuits, to contracts, to elections filings. His signature is out there, just as is President Obama's, Secretary Clinton's, even actor Mark Hamill's signature is used without conflict on wikipedia. The fact is you cannot have an SVG copy of someone's signature unless you make a trace of it yourself. This is not forgery, for example, here is from California Penal Code:
As you can see, this usage of Mr. Trump's signature does not constitution forgery under a state penal code, in California nor other jurisdictions. We are NOT defrauding Mr. Trump, nor doing so with intent, nor applying his signature in a manner for which authority is required. There is no conflict here. There has been no conflict since October 2009 when this file was uploaded and added, and nothing has changed to create new conflict. It stays. Spartan7W § 03:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
This is a rather silly debate, why don't we just add a JPEG signature? Browsing through commons:Category:Signatures, it looks like SVG signatures are not the norm. Toohool ( talk) 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps an interjection from a somewhat-disinterested third-party would be helpful? I've seen many bio articles which include the person's signature. Often they are people with historical provenance (founding fathers, politicians, etc) - and Trump would seem to qualify here. The way we go about utilizing the person's signature format-wise is irrelevant. According to WP guidelines, if a living person has published their signature and a secondary source has re-published said signature, then it is acceptable to place it on their WP article. I don't quite understand why we wouldn't include it, since the signature has been up for many years, and many other less-notable figures have signatures on their pages without issue. If the problem is authenticity, then we ought to be able to confirm the signature through a secondary source, or else not include it at all. If it is confirmed through a secondary source, then this discussion can be closed. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen ( talk) 11:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This RfC is being amended for clarification : We need outside input to add this section as a compromise language :
In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, [1] while the casino was still privately owned by Donald Trump. The statutes cited, of the Bank Secrecy Act, were intended to thwart money laundering. [2] In 2015, government assessed a $10 million fine against the casino, settling currency transaction violations of the Bank Secrecy Act going back to 2003. [3] [2] [4] Since Donald Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino business since about 2008, not all of the violations of the settlement occurred under his watch. [4] [2] [5]
References
This compromise language was proposed by SocraticOath in a preceding talk section and was copied down here for ease of reference. Maslowsneeds ( talk) 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Despite reliable sources and good faith efforts to reach a compromise on language (that was later slightly amended) about fines assessed to Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, an editor is blocking these edits based on arguments including about Hillary Clinton. Can we have outside input concerning the compromise language that is not colored by possible political bias ? Maslowsneeds ( talk) 00:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Exclude - The disputed content is WP:original research because the sources provided don't actually mention Donald Trump, except to say that he was not involved at the time of the infractions. We don't have to like Trump, but for the sake of the project we should apply WP's policies consistently and neutrally. CFredkin ( talk) 01:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.
CFredkin ( talk) 17:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
"Second compromise" version
In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, [1] a time during which the casino was privately owned by Donald Trump (he ceded half his ownership to bondholders in August, 1991). [2] [3] The statutes cited, of the Bank Secrecy Act, were intended to thwart money laundering. [4] In 2015, government assessed a $10 million fine against the casino, settling currency transaction violations of the Bank Secrecy Act going back to 2003. [5] [4] [6] Since Donald Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino business since about 2008, not all of the violations of the settlement occurred under his watch. [6] [4] [7]
References
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. [1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)
References
The full discussion is at Talk:Donald_Trump#Trump_Taj_Mahal. We don't believe any version of the text should be included until a source is provided that actually implicates Trump as being involved in the violations. CFredkin ( talk) 02:49, 22 March 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Currently the details of the Trump's corporate bankruptcies are documented in three sections of the article: the "Business Career" section, the "Trump Taj Mahal" section, and the "Bankruptcy" section. This seems excessive and undue to me. Also, it's not clear to me why Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Tower are broken out into their own sections. (There are other major buildings that Trump has been play a significant role in building.) I'm wondering if it would make sense to fold these 2 sections (Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Tower) into the Business Career section, in order to reduce redundancy. Any thoughts on this? CFredkin ( talk) 17:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Fellow editors, There appears to be a disagreement played out in the edit summaries of edits adding & removing material from the Trump Taj Mahal section. We would be better to have the discussion on the merits of that material here on the Talk page. On the basis that this article is a BLP, and there are questions as to whether the inclusion is WP:UNDUE (and therefore not aligned with WP:NPOV); and in the spirit of WP:BRD, I will remove the material pending formation of a consensus. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, [1] in keeping with Bank Secrecy Act statutes designed to thwart money laundering. [2] The casino was later assessed an additional $10 million fine in January 2015, settling currency transaction violations going back to 2003 [3] about which it had been "repeatedly warned"; [2] [4] according to The Wall Street Journal, however, Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino for seven years as of the date of the settlement. [4] [2] [5]
References
That's the copy I've proposed, and I note that it incorporates as sources both a 1998 New York Times article on the $477,700 fine and the February 2015 article from the WSJ which distances Trump from the $10 million fine, noting that he was not an active manager at the time. Note that the 2015 fine was the result of a settlement, after more than a decade of investigation, and came in the form of an unsecured debt against the bankruptcy (i.e. the government will only get $50,000 of this $10 million, although this paragraph obviously does not delve into those weeds). Is this copy acceptable? Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 18:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
-Declaration WP:COI full disclosure, Trump signed my paychecks for a few years, and I never shook his hand because of the germaphobia-thing, lol, but I have no personal agenda or problem. A lot of people here were employed by Trump. TeeVeeed ( talk) 00:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@ CFredkin: You previously deleted this material, stating that it was "original research" and not grounded in reliable, secondary sources. I don't believe that is the case. The paragraph was moved to this page at your request for discussion. Would you care to weigh in, and perhaps suggest emendations or compromise language? Many thanks. Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 17:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's take another pass at the re-write of the section in question:
In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, [1] while the casino was still privately owned by Donald Trump. The statutes cited, of the Bank Secrecy Act, were intended to thwart money laundering. [2] In 2015, government assessed a $10 million fine against the casino, settling currency transaction violations of the Bank Secrecy Act going back to 2003. [3] [2] [4] Since Donald Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino business since about 2008, not all of the violations of the settlement occurred under his watch. [4] [2] [5]
References
Any comments? Votes? SocraticOath ( talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
SocraticOath ( talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with CFredkin for the reasons stated. If you cannot find a single reliable source linking "Donald" to this stuff, then there must be a reason why he wasn't explicitly linked to it. You may be able to find a reliable source linking him to it, and I encourage you to look harder. For example, perhaps you can find the full text of this article:
“ | TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FINED $477,000 \ IN '90 AND '91, IT VIOLATED ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING RULES ON REPORTING CASH TRANSACTIONS OVER $10,000.
Author: John Curran, ASSOCIATED PRESS Date: January 29, 1998 Publication: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) Page: B02 Federal banking regulators have slapped Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort with a $477,000 fine for violations of anti-money laundering regulations in 1990 and 1991, officials said yesterday. It was the biggest fine ever levied against a casino for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. On 106 occasions between April 1990 and December 1991, the casino failed to file forms for transactions above $10,000, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury's financial crimes division. |
” |
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I tell you what.... Here's an article from the Washington Post in April 2014 stating that $6 billion in contracting money spent by the State Department over the preceding 6 years could not be accounted for and citing “significant financial risk and . . . a lack of internal control.”. That means the issue overlapped Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. The article doesn't mention Hillary, but by your standards here, it can and should be included in her bio. Why don't you try to do that, and if you're successful I'll support your edit here. OK? CFredkin ( talk) 23:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
"Political opponents have described Trump as "divisive," "unserious," and a "bully." "A comprehensive "encyclopedia" of Trump's tweeted "insults" was published in the New York Times." "Former Mexican president Vincente Fox stated on live US television on February 26, 2016: "I'm not going to pay for that fucking wall"."
The 2016 campaign part of this page is so unneutral it's laughable. It's just a compilation of what opponents have called Trump. It doesn't even mention the primaries, any of the polls, or literally anything positive. I'm trying to make it more neutral, but apparently it's "too bold" to remove info of his Twitter wars with celebrities and the "fucking wall" comments need to stay there because it somehow matters what an ex President of some country says about him in this race? All of his policies shouldn't even be there at all, they should be in the page that's dedicated to it. It's supposed to be a summary, but when I try to summarize, people scream censorship because it's a "highly visible article"?
It's currently 7992 characters long. Can we at least please agree to remove the policies section. It's literally copy and pasted from the main article of his policies. ThiefOfBagdad ( talk) 00:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps content can be reduced (keeping top summaries) and put campaign details over to Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016 -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC) -- Yes, put campaign details over to his campaign site.
You should not have so many pictures. 8 in the main article would be acceptable if they had a specific use but they all come across like Trumps office showing off himself over and over and over. This is very bad taste. Also there are way to many pictures in the talk page. Please choose one and be done with it. Arydberg ( talk) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
We all know on a person's biography page, sections like presidential campaigns should be largely summarized and expanded upon in the main articles. The section largely copies the main article, with several sections devoted to his general policies, his "Twitter wars" and is it generally very biased. It focuses mostly on all the controversy, reactions from his opponents, and says his support is largely due to the "large media coverage", not because people might actually agree with what he's saying. I think it needs to become a lot more neutral, a lot more shortened and anything detailed should go into the main article from now on. Thoughts? ThiefOfBagdad ( talk) 23:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
In the lede the article states that Trump rose to prominence because of (among other things) his 'non-interventionalist views on foreign policy.' However I think this statement may be lacking a bit in nuance. Yes, Trump has made waves for speaking openly as a Republican about opposing the Iraq war -- but he has also spoken out aggressively about how he would like to fight ISIS more aggressively -- possibly to the point of sending troops into the ground. These stances are not consistent with a view of non-interventionism.
As this article explains well:
"Trump's non-interventionism also seems to be on the table. In the Detroit debate he talked about creating "safe zones" in Syria to stem the refugee flow. And in the Miami debate he said he would commit ground troops to Syria and Iraq: "We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS... I would listen to the generals, but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000." It is unclear which generals have Trump's ear, but the number of troops he cited sounds remarkably like he has been told about Frederick Kagan's white paper on defeating ISIS. Essentially, Trump endorsed the plan for Iraq and Syria that has been promoted lustily by Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. In other words, gone is the America-first foreign policy, in comes the non-credible plan to transform the region again through force of arms, with America leading a mythical, and surely quite moderate, Sunni fighting force." [1]
I propose we change the sentence to:
his non-interventionist and belligerent approach to foreign policy,
Based on these sources:
...his rhetoric-a revanchist stew of foreign policy belligerence,... - Slate [2]
...his belligerent approach to foreign policy. - The Daily Banter [3]
... GOP presidential contender Ted Cruz has unveiled a foreign policy team full of conspiracy theorists and arch-neoconservatives who support policies just as belligerent as those of Donald Trump. -- The Intercept [4]
"When Trump says he would “bomb the sh-- out of” the Islamic State, supports waterboarding and even harsher tactics, and says he has no problem killing the family members of militants, many diplomats wonder whether he is just playing to angry voters or signaling that he would actually pursue a more belligerent U.S. foreign policy." -- The Washington Post [5]
"Why should anyone be surprised to see this posturing, er, trumped by the unapologetic belligerence offered by nonestablishment candidates?" -- The New York Times [6]
References
Belligerent approach, when combined with his non-interventionist descriptions captures well the sentiment of sources that Trump's foreign policy includes a tendency towards provoking conflict with other nations. Perhaps another word could be used to capture this tendency better, but I think it describes accurately a big part of what got him attention. Non-interventionism alone does not describe many of Trump's foreign policy positions that have received attention: such as when he said that he order the assassination of terrorist families, bomb ISIS "harder than anyone", or that Mexico "will pay for the wall". These aspects of his foreign policy approach need to be mentioned in the lede too. Spudst3r ( talk) 00:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
References
The main picture is of very low quality, and Mr Trump isn't even looking directly into the camera. I propose to use this new picture:
Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThiefOfBagdad ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The included file is NOT an authentic scan of his signature. It is vector graphics near-facsimile. The possible fraudulent use of the these signatures in the infobox has been discussed in the past. An example discussion that was weighed in on by @ Jimbo Wales himself and can be found here. If you go to commons, you will see that the uploader (an admin no less, albeit apparently inactive) claimed it as their own work traced in Adobe Illustrator. As presented in the infobox, there is nothing to indicate that it is not authentic. Strongly recommend removing it from the article. Nyth 63 19:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The facts are the Mr. Trump's signature has appeared in countless public documents, from real estate titles, to lawsuits, to contracts, to elections filings. His signature is out there, just as is President Obama's, Secretary Clinton's, even actor Mark Hamill's signature is used without conflict on wikipedia. The fact is you cannot have an SVG copy of someone's signature unless you make a trace of it yourself. This is not forgery, for example, here is from California Penal Code:
As you can see, this usage of Mr. Trump's signature does not constitution forgery under a state penal code, in California nor other jurisdictions. We are NOT defrauding Mr. Trump, nor doing so with intent, nor applying his signature in a manner for which authority is required. There is no conflict here. There has been no conflict since October 2009 when this file was uploaded and added, and nothing has changed to create new conflict. It stays. Spartan7W § 03:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
This is a rather silly debate, why don't we just add a JPEG signature? Browsing through commons:Category:Signatures, it looks like SVG signatures are not the norm. Toohool ( talk) 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps an interjection from a somewhat-disinterested third-party would be helpful? I've seen many bio articles which include the person's signature. Often they are people with historical provenance (founding fathers, politicians, etc) - and Trump would seem to qualify here. The way we go about utilizing the person's signature format-wise is irrelevant. According to WP guidelines, if a living person has published their signature and a secondary source has re-published said signature, then it is acceptable to place it on their WP article. I don't quite understand why we wouldn't include it, since the signature has been up for many years, and many other less-notable figures have signatures on their pages without issue. If the problem is authenticity, then we ought to be able to confirm the signature through a secondary source, or else not include it at all. If it is confirmed through a secondary source, then this discussion can be closed. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen ( talk) 11:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This RfC is being amended for clarification : We need outside input to add this section as a compromise language :
In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, [1] while the casino was still privately owned by Donald Trump. The statutes cited, of the Bank Secrecy Act, were intended to thwart money laundering. [2] In 2015, government assessed a $10 million fine against the casino, settling currency transaction violations of the Bank Secrecy Act going back to 2003. [3] [2] [4] Since Donald Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino business since about 2008, not all of the violations of the settlement occurred under his watch. [4] [2] [5]
References
This compromise language was proposed by SocraticOath in a preceding talk section and was copied down here for ease of reference. Maslowsneeds ( talk) 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Despite reliable sources and good faith efforts to reach a compromise on language (that was later slightly amended) about fines assessed to Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, an editor is blocking these edits based on arguments including about Hillary Clinton. Can we have outside input concerning the compromise language that is not colored by possible political bias ? Maslowsneeds ( talk) 00:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Exclude - The disputed content is WP:original research because the sources provided don't actually mention Donald Trump, except to say that he was not involved at the time of the infractions. We don't have to like Trump, but for the sake of the project we should apply WP's policies consistently and neutrally. CFredkin ( talk) 01:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.
CFredkin ( talk) 17:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
"Second compromise" version
In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, [1] a time during which the casino was privately owned by Donald Trump (he ceded half his ownership to bondholders in August, 1991). [2] [3] The statutes cited, of the Bank Secrecy Act, were intended to thwart money laundering. [4] In 2015, government assessed a $10 million fine against the casino, settling currency transaction violations of the Bank Secrecy Act going back to 2003. [5] [4] [6] Since Donald Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino business since about 2008, not all of the violations of the settlement occurred under his watch. [6] [4] [7]
References
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. [1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)
References
The full discussion is at Talk:Donald_Trump#Trump_Taj_Mahal. We don't believe any version of the text should be included until a source is provided that actually implicates Trump as being involved in the violations. CFredkin ( talk) 02:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)