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.

Given the potentially contentious nature of these accusations, I'm not going to add this to the article myself, but I think there ought to be a discussion here on the talk page over whether and how the subject of this lawsuit should be covered in the article. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 06:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuit exists. But, it doesn't appear to have been picked up by reliable sources. Objective3000 ( talk) 17:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

At least at this point, this is very fringe and poorly-sourced. It does not belong in this bio.- Mr X 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing "fringe" about it. It's simply not notable at all so far and thus we keep it out per BLP. --TMCk ( talk) 22:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It is fringe in that is only being covered by QUESTIONABLE sources, outside of the mainstream.- Mr X 22:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No. There is indeed a lawsuit and the allegation is officially out there. It certainly isn't enough for inclusion tho. --TMCk ( talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

[ http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ ] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

We seem to all be coming to the same conclusion.:) Objective3000 ( talk) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. :) Either that or we are really all sockpuppets of Randy in Boise... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuit has now been covered by Lisa Bloom of The Huffington Post [1]. The article is marked as a blog post, though the author is a noted columnist and civil rights attorney, so it probably meets our reliability and verifiability criteria per WP:NEWSBLOG. — Psychonaut ( talk) 07:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is notable.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

An opinion piece on a blog which makes no attempt to be unbiased does not satisfy WP:BLP. WP:REDFLAG specifically states that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". When multiple mainstream media (not blogs) give coverage and analysis, then it might be fit for inclusion (keeping WP:UNDUE in mind as well). Right now nobody is talking about it, so it would be a BLP violation to put it in the article. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 15:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's going to get in, and there's no unbiased editorial oversight on this BLP subject. So much worse is on its way... Doc talk 07:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, admins who attempt to keep this subject "neutral" will themselves be further "subjugated". So get on board before it's too late. Doc talk 07:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Further, non-blog, non-opinion coverage is now available from Uproxx ( What You Should Know About The Child Rape Case Against Donald Trump), Complex ( How the Child Rape Lawsuit Against Trump Could Hurt His and Clinton’s Campaigns) and Democracy Now! ( Trump Faces Lawsuit Accusing Him of Raping 13-Year-Old Girl). I'm not terribly familiar with the first two sources, but the third is definitely reliable. — Psychonaut ( talk) 17:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we are anywhere near the level of coverage that would support including something like this. All we actually know is that a civil lawsuit has been filed, and that fact has not been picked up by mainstream sources. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Aren't lawsuits themselves notable?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Only if they get significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Lawsuits are very common, especially against Trump. At this moment there are many, many civil suits pending involving Trump. There have been 1,300 people suing him and 1,900 people being sued by him over the past 30 years, including 70 new cases in the past year, at least 50 of which are still active. [2] These are from his real estate, construction, and other business dealings. Subcontractors saying they weren't paid, this kind of thing. None of them rate a mention here. This (suspiciously timed) lawsuit is getting a little coverage, but not currently at the level or from the sources that would make it notable. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) is totally biased against Trump. Reliable? Funny. IHTS ( talk) 23:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Tired rehash of "Remember when X raped and murdered a 13 year old girl?" Completely unreliable and unsuitable per WP:RS and WP:BLPCRIME. It would need significant coverage, on the order of Bill Cosby's allegations to be added. -- DHeyward ( talk) 02:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to this, by any chance? FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 06:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I found two sources that seem to pass the test: the the International Business Times (which is generally regarded as mainstream and reliable), and Sputnik (owned by the Russian government, which is hardly biased against Trump; Putin and Trump are rather chummy, in fact). FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 22:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as impressive enough for a BLP. If it hits a couple of major U.S. reliable news sources, it could be included with great care. It's very delicate material. Objective3000 ( talk) 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

U.S. sources? That seems really very biased. International sources should hold more weight when considering notability of something happening in the U.S., I would say, by indicating international attention is being paid to the matter. (this doesn't indicate my opinion on inclusion, just commenting on the U.S. vs. international coverage sub-thread) --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

IBTimes does not agree that it "is generally regarded as mainstream", FiredanceThroughTheNight. See IBT Media, 2015 Media Kit: "Why do we exist? International Business Times aims to help the development of the global economy ... by closely following market trends and key events that are not necessarily covered by mainstream media..." -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 03:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, The Guardian is certainly mainstream and reliable, although whether it is biased or not is another question. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 04:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that comment about IBTimes is playing with words. They do not say they are not mainstream media. We also have News.com.au [3], the Independent [4], the Daily Mail UK [5], the Daily Mirror [6], the Daily Beast [7], AOL [8] etc. It just seems that the US media is largely ignoring the story. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I came here to see if there was any more information about the lawsuit and was really surprised that it wasn't included already. It is very relevant and there are multiple sources, so why isn't it in? Neosiber ( talk) 00:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Unlike with criminal cases, there is no real bar to filing a civil suit. The subject of this suit is particularly sensational. And according to this source there are some valid concerns about whether the case is legitimate. CFredkin ( talk) 01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but why not mention it with caveats? Plenty of reputable news sources have.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 11:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I did already add a mention of Johnson's lawsuit to Jeffrey Epstein's article (he was also accused in the lawsuit). It doesn't seem to have stirred up any controversy, either. One would think that because Epstein is already a convicted sex offender, the barrier for inclusion of any further accusations should be much lower. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: Several hours ago, another woman (Jill Harth) also went public with sexual assault accusations against Trump. Unlike Johnson, Harth was not a minor at the time. See [9] and [10]. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously that's not as important as the size of his signature...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 12:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Do not include, unless it gets a lot more widespread coverage than it has now. Currently it is being reported by a few foreign sources, a few not-exactly-neutral domestic sources, and lawnewz.com which broke the story. This is not enough coverage to include something with BLP implications like this. Maybe it will get there, if Trump fights back strongly (a practice which tends to attract more coverage than the original accusation). But a civil suit, from more than 20 years ago, withdrawn a few weeks after it was filed? Not enough. (Even if the coverage does increase it will be hard to present this information neutrally. The incidents supposedly happened in 1993. She filed a lawsuit four years later, 1997, in the midst of a separate business-related lawsuit by her partner against Trump; and she dropped her suit a few weeks later, after the partner's suit was settled. This is according to the Guardian. I don't know about you, but I find this timing sufficiently questionable to affect her credibility.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to us to act as detective and assess the credibility of allegations. I also don't see the problem with "foreign" sources.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Another update: Robert Morrow (Texas politician), the chairman of the Travis County, TX Republican Party, has publicly expressed belief in the allegations and withdrawn his support of Trump as a result, instead switching to Gary Johnson. This is already mentioned in Morrow's article. Given that Morrow was actually compared to Trump in the media following his election, this is somewhat ironic. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 23:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable and big stuff : i'll include it myself. Jombagale ( talk) 23:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Jombagale, your addition has been reverted and revdelled. Add anything like that again and you will be blocked. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but i may add that case, in a good manner and with sources. Ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jombagale ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Jombagale, you can add the allegation if consensus exists. You cannot treat the alleged rape as a fact (which is what you did). I strongly advise you to make sure any contentious info you add has consensus. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see consensus here for adding a reference to this subject. CFredkin ( talk) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a coherent response to the issue.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, NeilN, etc, could we do something about the personal attacks on this page please? It makes for a toxic environment. Cheers. _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I will try to avoid provocative comments since it is offending people.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The comment wasn't directed at you (although the PA was). I already gave the offender a warning. --TMCk ( talk) 13:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I think I provoked the offending comments.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The rape lawsuit is now mentioned in Legal affairs of Donald Trump, and the section devoted to it is quite lengthy. If it's covered there, it might not need to be mentioned here, at least not just yet. (In comparison, Epstein doesn't have a separate article devoted only to his legal affairs, so there's no place to put the accusations against Epstein other than his own article, where they currently reside). FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 06:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone just attempted to add it to this article, citing snopes.com and the Daily Mail. I've removed it on WP:BLP grounds. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

User CFredkin feels that the insertion of Buffett's challenge to Trump to release his tax returns is not significant because "his (Buffett)'s notability is diminished by the fact that he's campaigning for Hilary". Nonsense. First, Buffett's notability isn't the issue here. He is, of course, a notable figure being the third richest man in the world. The significant facts are that 1) He is under an IRS audit (the excuse Trump uses for not releasing his tax returns) and 2) In spite of this audit he is willing to release his tax returns even though there is no public expectation that he do so since he is not running for office. His challenge without a doubt makes Trump's argument for not releasing tax info significantly weaker. Further, CFredkin's argument that "Buffett is campaigning for Hillary" is doubtful. He has endorsed her but is no more campaigning for her than Paul Ryan is campaigning for Trump. Is CFredkin claiming that Buffett is lying because he has endorsed Clinton? My insertion (which CFredkin deleted) read as follows: " Fellow billionaire Warren Buffett who is also under an IRS audit issued a challenge to Trump to have a joint press conference simultaneously releasing their tax returns and answering any press questions [164]" ref: Reilly, Katie. "Warren Buffett Challenges Donald Trump to Release Tax Returns". time.com. Time Magazine. Retrieved August 10, 2016. Gaas99 ( talk) 03:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree with CFredkin but I still agree with them that this info should be excluded. It's recentism and too detailed for this biography. It should be sufficient to say something like a large number of people have called for Trump to release his tax returns and it has become a significant campaign issue. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 04:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, it should be excluded. WP:Recent as DrFleischman noted as well as WP:Undue. I don't think it would even be relevant in Buffet's bio. For that matter, what's Romney doing there? He didn't release all his tax returns when he was suppose to. Isn't that a pot/kettle thing? But that's a question for another day. SW3 5DL ( talk) 05:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The challenge itself may be recentism. What is more significant, however, is the fact that Buffett, who is in a very similar position to Trump as far as being audited and being a high net worth individual has no problem in releasing his tax returns. And this is made much more significant because Trump is running for the Presidency while Buffett is not running for anything and has nothing to gain by releasing his returns. If Trump's assertion is valid and significant enough to defeat the fact that a majority of the electorate would like to see his returns why is Buffett willing to release his returns so casually? Gaas99 ( talk) 18:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Because he's an avid supporter of Hillary Clinton, perhaps? Or maybe because the IRS audited Buffett for the purpose of creating a situation where Buffett would release his returns whereas Trump would not?

Conspiracy theory? Gaas99 ( talk) 01:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe because the laws in Nebraska create different risks than the laws in New York? Or because Bufett believes the audit is being conducted fairly by the IRS whereas Trump does not? The possible reasons are endless. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

There is also a finite probability that a Perseid meteor will destroy all of Trump's records. However, the most likely reason is that Trump has something to hide whereas Buffett does not. The question is, what harm is created by including the info. I would think that NPOV requires inclusion of all relevant info and if we are to err it should be on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. Gaas99 ( talk) 01:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to mention Buffett in this article. Trump still has time to release his returns. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 19:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering this article is about Trump, not his election campaign, it is too insignificant to include. TFD ( talk) 21:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with TFD - this *may* belong in the article on the presidential campaign but not here. However, just wanted to note that the argument that someone's "notability" is "diminished" because they support Clinton is... strange and sort of telling of an editor's POV. Notability is orthogonal to ideology. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the argument is that one expects that Clinton supporters would say negative things about Trump and therefore it is less significant. I suppose in some cases that argument could be valid. TFD ( talk) 14:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion in the article for most of the reasons given above. I would however support inclusion in the Warren Buffett article. Buffett gets far less press than Trump and this challenge is accordingly a far greater proportion of it (and so, far more DUE). -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 21:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Excelllent suggestion, Dervorguilla. That also satisfies WP:Preserve. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Except its already in the Buffett bio Gaas99 ( talk) 23:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are the editors blocking actual discussion of Donald Trump's racism and demagoguery? Today he advocates killing - maybe judges, maybe Hillary Clinton, maybe anyone: "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

What on Earth is wrong with the editors, incapable of reflecting any of this? Some simple solutions could include references to Trump's racism and authoritarianism by quoting any of the millions of articles discussing it, and then quoting Trump's denial, e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-i-am-the-least-racist-person/2016/06/10/eac7874c-2f3a-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html

But there is something seriously wrong, especially editors like User:Dervorguilla, whose only function seems to be to silence criticism. Wik idea 20:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Instead of gratuitously attacking your fellow editors, why not make some constructive contributions to the article? Golly Trump seems to bring out the worst in all of us. Rise above. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's add this guy to the list of people who want to silence others shall we? Wik idea 21:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, add me to your list. Muahahahaha!!! -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Utterly hopeless. Wik idea 21:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

What's that saying about catching flies? Is it easier with honey or with vinegar? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not up to us to interpret Trump's comments. Instead we are supposed to reflect how they are seen in mainstream sources. I watch the 24/7 cable news and right now they are talking about the Orlano shooter's father sitting behind Clinton and Susan Collins and GOP security analysts supporting her. TFD ( talk) 22:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Wolf Blitzer is talking about it now. Let's see if it gets any traction. TFD ( talk) 22:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I do believe that this comment might gain that necessary traction. Michael Hayden, Mike Pence, and the NRA have already commented on it. It might merit a mention, but it's best to wait and see for now. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This article isn't mentioning Trumps narcissism ONCE. Seriously dear American editors, you have a narcissistic autocrat in your front garden who's about to enter your house. The reluctance to write down obvious and often mentioned and analysed psychological facts isn't neutrality. Be bold. Greetings from Germany, we had our fair share of autocratic leader cult here. Didn't went well at all. -- Jensbest ( talk) 00:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Being bold still means complying with our policies and guidelines, which include those concerning verifiability and neutrality. If you can do that while adding something about Trump's narcissism, then by all means do so! -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 00:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As a foreign editor I don't wanna interfere by editing here. But there are tons of serious articles by journalists, psychologists or other experts which clearly verify some serious mental problems of Mr. Trump. In the New Yorker-essay about the former ghostwriter of Mr. Trump, Tony Schwartz ("The Art of the Deal"), Schwartz calls him a sociopath. This isn't mentioned in the article - this guy had a long deep professional look into mind and soul of Trump. Not mentioned in the enwiki-article at all. Guys, really, neutrality doesn't mean to not mentioning facts about Trump. If this would be an article about a third world dictator, for sure all the written psychological expertise about him would be worked into the article. You need to do this in the Trump-article, too. Three lines about how Trump is thinking about the movie "Citizen Kane", but not one word about the mental condition. That's what I call a white-washed article. -- Jensbest ( talk) 01:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I can agree that the "Citizen Kane" paragraph is useless (I never noticed it before). Something could be added about Tony Schwartz's opinion, given their relationship. Where, though? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that the Citizen Kane reference can/should be removed. However a statement by one person to the effect that Trump is a "sociopath" has no business in his bio, regardless of their past relationship. Would you support adding the statement by the Clinton's former friend, David Geffen, to the effect that the Clinton's are accomplished liars? CFredkin ( talk) 01:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We'd have to consider their credibility, or at least how the reliable sources present their credibility. I remember Geffen had an issue with Clinton not pardoning his friend. Schwartz has no comparable reason. Maybe it shouldn't be added. I'm not sure. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No ethically principled professional ghostwriter would break a nondisclosure agreement with a client. (Redacted) If so, it doesn't matter what he says.

Unless...

Unless Trump broke his agreement with Schwartz first, as by not paying him his share of the royalties. (Redacted)

The majority of CEOs do have sociopathic personalities, according to most surveys. (Lawyers usually come in second.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Read. "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." ( WP:OR, graf 1.) Looks like the policy doesn't apply to talk pages, Muboshgu. Sorry.

But think of it this way: You did go 140,000 edits without an error. ;) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jensbest is correct about this. This page has been taken over by editors who are not willing to allow mainstream views of Trump's racism, demagoguery, and his escalation of violent hate speech. It is bias. Wik idea 03:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I suspect the failure to include such content is due not so much to bias as much as to a lack of collaboration and an excessive amount of WP:ABF and general nastiness. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 04:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop wasting 0s and 1s - collaborate on explaining Trump's racism. Wik idea 18:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason this article is so bias is because a huge number of editors currently editing it are pro-Trump POV-pushers. If you are interested in a NPOV, I hope you will stick around and revert some of their edits. It is impossible, given the 1RR per 24 rule, to stop them all unless more NPOV editors become interested in this article. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 17:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Admin warning: Do not speculate if people are likely sociopaths. Non-admin reminder: Please remember to WP:AGF with your fellow editors. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN: I, Dervorguilla, acknowledge that I should not speculate on a Talk page whether (not "if"!!!) a person is likely a sociopath. :)

May I speculate as to whether the ghostwriter of an autobiography is showing signs of countertransference issues? ("Countertransference is the process where the analyst unconsciously displaces onto the patient patterns of behaviors or emotional reactions as if he were a significant figure from earlier in the analyst's life." — Kaplan.)

Just sayin'. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, not if you're basing that on your personal opinion. Editors don't get to post their personal psychoanalyses of living people on talk pages. You should know this. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN: Thank you for your reply. You seem to be arguing that an editor may not speculate that a living person is showing signs of countertransference issues if the editor is basing his statement on his personal opinion. ("Not if you're basing that on your personal opinion. Editors don't get to post their personal psychoanalyses of living people on talk pages.") But compare the WP:TPG nutshell ("Talk pages are ... not for expressing personal opinions on a subject"), with the WP:TALK#USE guideline ("Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity ... and reach consensus"), and WP:BLPTALK policy ("Contentious material about living persons that is ... poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be ... deleted") (emphasis added). Here the editor in question appears to have posted an unsourced contentious choice-related opinion of a living person's conscious or unconscious issues (ghostwriter's countertransference), in reply to an eminent colleague's appropriate unsourced contentious choice-related opinion. (Sourced: "I remember Geffen had an issue..."; unsourced: "Schwartz has no comparable reason.") -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, WP:BLPTALK is prefaced by, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." On the talk page, you may link to contentious material about a subject and start a discussion without it being deleted. You may not just add contentious material based on your opinion. In the example you provided, the first part actually appears in the Geffen article with a source. [11] The second part ("Schwartz has no comparable reason") is relatively uncontentious if no source claims otherwise. Not every negative is going to be covered by a source. For example, an editor can write, "Obama should not be considered an expert on space travel because he's never been to space" without providing a source. Bottom line: Do not post disparaging unsourced commentary or speculation about a BLP-applicable subject on talk pages. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN: I think we can both learn from Lunsford ("Fallacies of Argument. Begging the question is a form of circular argument, divorced from reality").

Your argument: "The second part ('Schwartz has no comparable reason') is relatively uncontentious if no source claims otherwise." The reality:

"Trump ... has made a point of pursuing legal action to aggressively enforce confidentiality agreements. The Associated Press reported earlier this year that nearly every Trump employee must sign ... nondisclosure agreements [which] bar them from releasing any ... disparaging information about the ... mogul... Trump accused [an aide] of making disparaging comments... Trump made the claims in private arbitration, another ... requirement written into his confidentiality agreements that seeks to keep the details of the disputes from a public airing in court." ^[1]

Schwartz, too, has made disparaging comments about the mogul; and Schwartz, too, was once the mogul's employee. No details of the legal dispute are known to have been given a public airing. Your thoughts? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I said "if no source claims otherwise". And I'm not interested in wikilaywering with you. Bottom line: Do not post disparaging unsourced commentary or speculation about a BLP-applicable subject on talk pages. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Colleagues: I don't feel like I'm communicating well here. Can anyone set out more clearly what I'm getting at? (Do you think it's OK to post the unsourced questionable statement that "Schwartz has no comparable reason", which appears to help disparage the disputing counterparty? If yes, is it OK to post an unsourced response that Schwartz may actually have a comparable reason -- meaning, an issue with this counterparty? If yes, is it OK to say that this issue may be conscious or unconscious?)

(It would clearly be OK to post that in the Schwartz case, no source has mentioned anything about Trump's "not pardoning his friend". But it would also be trivial, pointless, and unhelpful.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 09:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Might as well try to fix some of the problems now while there in a NPOV editor in the house. I added the following, this topic header is a good place to discuss it.

Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism. ^[1]

What do you think? Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 18:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this has already been discussed in the recent past. CFredkin ( talk) 18:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I see "appealing to racism" as more easily provable than saying someone is racist. Maybe he is just saying these things to get elected. George Wallace never spoke about race until after lost his 1958 gubernatorial bid. Then he said "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor." and went on to get elected governor for four terms. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of tag from top of article

I have removed the POV tag at the top of the article. Please don't add it back. The entire article is not biased. Everything is referenced. If there are specific sentences you'd like us to look at, please tell us here. But I think it's fine. Zigzig20s ( talk) 20:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there has been plenty of feedback on this subject so the tag is now unnecessary, and there are many other ways to increase feedback even more if necessary. It's absolutely wrong that all mainstream commentators view Trump as appealing to racism, much less appealing explicitly. The best thing is to describe Trump's appeals and let readers decide what to think of them. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant: Can you please remove the POV tag? User:Gouncbeatduke added it back, saying there was no consensus, but this is ridiculous. It just makes Wikipedia look bad. The article is not biased (which is the word they're looking for, by the way). Zigzig20s ( talk) 09:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I do support removal of the tag, as do other editors. Take a look at the documentation, and more documentation, for the tag to see when removal is appropriate. And here's an essay about it. The conditions for removal are satisfied. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the tag be removed as long as there is no consensus for it anyway, since "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."? Surely this applies to tags as well? Zigzig20s ( talk) 15:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I have raised the question here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, adding a tag is an edit and yes, it needs firm consensus to stay if challenged. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well, two editors in this section (plus another) have objected to the tag atop the article. I have addressed the objections that motivated the tag, and I think it can now be removed because no satisfactory explanation has been given about why there's still a neutrality issue about the article as a whole. So, I'll remove it. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke re-inserted it. There is clearly consensus to remove it, with which I concur; the tag is inappropriate. I have removed it again and will warn Gouncbeatduke. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This edit with the misleading edit summary of "same, rephrasing for conciseness" removed "If elected, Trump would become the first U.S. President without prior government or military experience." Please kindly correct what surely was just an honest mistake. Thanks. --TMCk ( talk) 20:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe needs a ping before more gets accidentally removed. --TMCk ( talk) 20:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It was not a mistake. BEFORE: "Trump is the second major-party presidential nominee in American history whose experience comes principally from running a business ( Wendell Willkie was the first). If elected, Trump would become the first U.S. President without prior government or military experience." AFTER: "Trump is the second major-party presidential nominee in American history whose experience comes principally from running a business rather than from government or military service ( Wendell Willkie was the first)." All the info is still there. This shortening was proposed by another editor above. It's conciser, and avoid the crystal ball language. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. "...comes principally from running a business..." implies he has some prior government or military experience which he doesn't has and thus he is "the first of", not second. Kindly correct. --TMCk ( talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The language "comes principally from running a business" was there both before and after my edit, so I assume you retract your objection to my edit. And I think the BLP as it stands is perfectly clear that he doesn't have government or military experience. Please respect the cited source which says "second" and not "first". Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You removed "If elected, Trump would become the first U.S. President without prior government or military experience." - which is not the same as you claim. --TMCk ( talk) 21:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I did remove that, and have never claimed otherwise, and I inserted similar material per the discussion above on this talk page. The language I inserted is accurate, and it was suggested by another editor above. I thought the consensus was to avoid crystal-ball-sounding statements, given that we don't know if he'll be elected (the odds are actually against it). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Kindly point to the discussion you derived a consensus from to remove this sentence of being the first one if elected. BTW, here is what the source used is saying:
"Every one of our 44 presidents has had either government or military experience before being sworn in. Mr. Trump, a real estate mogul and former reality-television star, hasn’t served a day in public office or the armed forces."
--TMCk ( talk) 21:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The cited source also says: "Only once in American history has a major political party granted its prize to someone whose principal qualification was to have served as a corporate chief executive. That was in 1940, when Wendell Willkie was the Republican candidate against President Franklin Roosevelt, who was seeking a third term." Thus Trump is the second. There was discussion of Willkie above in the section Talk:Donald_Trump#Allegedly_racist_and_fascist, where WP:FUTURE was also cited. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump is the second NOMINEE of a major party with only corporate experience. He would, if elected, be the first PRESIDENT in that position. (Just in case there is confusion here between "second" and "first".) IMO it isn't WP:CRYSTAL to say that he would be the first such president, any more than saying that Hillary would be the first woman president, or that Trump would be the oldest newly-elected president if he takes office in January. [12] Such "if elected they will be the first" reporting happens all the time. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Other "if he is elected" issues

I was editing mainly for conciseness when I edited the sentence about not having government or military experience, as stated in my edit summary. I put in a more concise version that had been supported above at this talk page for other reasons. It's perfectly accurate and understandable the way it is. If people don't realize that Willkie never became president, then they ought to click the wikilink and learn about him. The whole thing about "Trump will be the oldest person who ever becomes president...." is an analogous issue involving the future event of becoming president, and was discussed at length above. Talk:Donald_Trump#Age, so I don't favor re-hashing the whole crystal ball issue. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a subsection for you since the above has absolutely nothing to do with what you're saying. don't wanna derail existing discussion. --TMCk ( talk) 23:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I have modified the subheader, and have inserted some underlined elaboration to help you understand. I hope it's enough. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's skip the age thing (I only put it in for comparison anyhow, not as a serious suggestion). I thought "Hillary Clinton will be the first woman president if elected" would be a good comparison, but to my surprise I don't find that in her article - only "She became the first female candidate to be nominated for president by a major U.S. political party". So by that analogy we should also leave out the "if Trump is elected" sentence, and I now concur with its removal. (Although I thought, and still think, it is arrogant and WP:Systemic bias to assume that everybody understands the implications of Willkie being the first such nominee. But maybe people don't need to make that jump to the future in their thinking. Second or first - they'll find out when/if it happens.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, what is your reason for this undoing of the work of multiple other editors? There was no consensus against these edits. Simply saying there was no consensus for these edits isn't enough. The folks who deleted the content gave their reasons for doing so in their edit summaries; please respond. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

In terms of the first one, I see no consensus to add "until a screening process has been perfected." Did I miss it somewhere? The text itself is problematic, especially for the lede, because it omits all the relevant context (that "clarification" was made in response to criticism). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised that you removed that phrase, and I think it should be restored. It is a more accurate description of his current position, which includes the "development of a screening process" as part, or goal, or end point of his proposed ban (or suspension or whatever his current word is). -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the phrase in the article, but I don't think it should be in the lede. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's clunky for the lead. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 22:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not even sure it should be in this article - although in the campaign one, yes. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, here is the relevant text from main body that the lede is suppose to summarize:

"Trump's immigration policies have been among his most highly-discussed policies during the campaign. Some of his proposals have come under scrutiny by several experts on immigration who question the effectiveness and affordability of his plans.[412][413] Trump vows to build a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border to keep out illegal immigrants, a wall which Trump promises Mexico will pay for.[414][415] Trump would also create a "deportation force" to deport around 11 million people illegally residing in the U.S., stating "Day 1 of my presidency, [illegal immigrants] are getting out and getting out fast."[416] Trump opposes birthright citizenship.[417] One of Trump's most controversial proposals was a "total and complete", but temporary, ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States.[418][419][420] Pollsters have found that support for the proposal depends upon whether the pollsters say that the ban would only last "until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here".[419] Trump later offered an "expansion" to his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism".[421][422] Trump insisted that the new proposal was not a "rollback" of his initial proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants.[423] He said, "In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territory."[423] He has stated that the ban could apply to countries compromised by terrorism, such as France, Germany and Spain"

There's nothing there about Trump proposing a "screening process", nevermind one that will be "perfected" (whatever that means - we ban all cars from the road until all cars are 100% perfectly safe!). It says that the pollsters have found differences in opinion depending on whether a screening process is mentioned or not. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Marek, there is no requirement to receive talk page consensus before making an edit. Thank you for sharing your concern about the phrase, "until a screening process has been perfected." How about the rest? Personally I'm concerned about your re-addition of the word "successfully," which I believe isn't supported by reliable sources. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah, of course not. But I also didn't think the screening process thing belonged in there. As to the rest - hold up a sec. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the removed language in the lede that some editors think was clunky, here is the relevant statement in the body of the article: "In his RNC acceptance speech, Trump promised to ... tackle Islamic terrorism by defeating ISIS and suspending immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists." (emphasis added). I suport having something like this in the lead to indicate the temporary nature of the proposal. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually that whole paragraph is sketchy as hell (probably why it has that POV tag on it). It uses Wikipedia voice to make assertions. For example, saying "rebuild the military" implies that the military has been torn down or that there is something wrong with it. So it rather looks like we need to reword the text in the main body of the article, rather than introduce the same problems into the lede. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I like the picture of the skating rink that had been there for many months with an informative caption. He renovated it, so it's not like the removed church pic at all. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

In a recent article in Politico, the author provides information about the short-lived Trump magazine. Right now this venture is in the bio article only in the listing of miscellaneous Trump ventures. Unlike others in that list, the reference is unlinked. Should we create a daughter article about the magazine or, if there's not enough information to warrant a separate article, include some basic information in this article? JamesMLane  t  c 18:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Actually the mention in the article IS linked (reference 148, Kelly, Keith J. (May 20, 2009). "Trump's Magazine Closed". New York Post. Retrieved February 18, 2015.). The Politico article is an interesting first-person narrative, but IMO not enough to lift the magazine from its current obscurity. Offhand I don't think there is enough coverage for an article, but I'm tempted to look into it. Meanwhile, you could add this link as a second reference to the mention in the article. If the magazine later becomes more of an issue due to increased publicity, we could reconsider expanding the mention. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, we do have an article here called Trump (magazine), but it's about a much earlier, 1950s-erra magazine in the style of MAD Magazine. If that short-lived magazine deserves an article, maybe Trump's does too. I will continue to research the idea. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I did some research, but I didn't find enough coverage for a standalone article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. When I said the magazine wasn't linked, I meant that, unlike so many of Trump's other ventures, it wasn't wikilinked to a dedicated daughter article. I also may return to this subject later. For now, though, the footnote to the Politico article will have to do. JamesMLane  t  c 04:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:SCROLL, we're not supposed to include a family tree that toggles between hide and show. We also don't need two separate sections in this BLP titled "Ancestry". I have started a new article Ancestry of Donald Trump that includes the family tree without toggling. The ancestry stuff in this BLP needs to be accordingly shortened to summarize the new article. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I took care of this, since it didn't seem to involve any edits of the type that are currently frowned-upon. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)