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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
According to this new article [1] in a reliable source "...Trump had found a way to give away somebody else’s money and claim the credit for himself." I think it deserves mention (paraphrased) in the subsection here. Thoughts. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 01:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding giving away other people's money, it seems to be covered already in this BLP:
“ | Although the foundation bears Trump's name, the foundation's funds mostly come from others.[511] The top donors to the foundation from 2004 to 2014 were Vince and Linda McMahon of World Wrestling Entertainment, who donated $5 million to the foundation after Trump made a cameo on Wrestlemania in 2007.[511] According to news reports, Trump has not given personally to the charity since 2008.[511] As of 2013, the foundation reported $569,865 in revenue and $918,380 in expenses.[508] | ” |
This material was apparently added just before this talk page section was started, and I think the new section in the BLP can be shortened a bit per WP:Summary style. As for the inquiry by the New York State A.G., there is one sentence about it at Donald J. Trump Foundation. There are no charges AFAIK, and not even any public indication about what the inquiry into the foundation is about. So I don't think this particular article needs to mention it yet. This article already describes in detail a particular violation by this foundation:
“ | In September 2016, the Washington Post reported that the foundation had to pay a $2,500 fine for violating IRS rules regarding political contributions by charitable organizations when it made a donation in support of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's election campaign.[510] The $25,000 contribution received widespread scrutiny, because Bondi's office was at the time reviewing fraud allegations regarding Trump University but later dropped the investigation.[513] | ” |
That seems like plenty for now, and it ought to be more concise in view of WP:Summary style. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 12:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I've removed some of the content from the section which violates WP:WEIGHT. Also, wouldn't the Donald J. Trump Foundation article be the more appropriate venue? This would seem to be more Foundation related than Trump related. CFredkin ( talk) 16:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll also note that NONE of the Clinton Foundation controversies are currently included in Clinton's bio. They've been excluded based on the same rationale. I'm not sure why we should treat Trump's bio differently. CFredkin ( talk) 16:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
So we need to decide how much of the material belongs in this article per WP:Summary style. Here are 3 sources ( [5] [6] [7]) and there are others. Looking at the second source it states, "New York state's top prosecutor has made inquiries into Donald Trump's nonprofit foundation after questions about impropriety." Below is the additional material I think should be included at this article:
“ | Trump paid a $2,500 penalty for failing to disclose the gift to the Internal Revenue Service, and representatives for the Trump Organization said he also paid back $25,000 to the foundation after the media began asking questions, the newspaper reported. | ” |
The same source [8] states "...correspondence with the foundation began on June 9." Aside from stating the necessary initiation date, I don't think there is anything further to add until the inquiry is finished. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 18:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
In addition to being undue, the following content is not supported by the source provided:
Through its tax returns, the foundation has reported support for organizations including Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy, the Clinton Foundation and the New York Military Academy.[511] The beneficiaries listed by the Trump Foundation erroneously list some non-charities, such as a plane ride and gift valued at about $1000 for tennis superstar Serena Williams."[511]
CFredkin ( talk) 16:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Also, I don't see it mentioned in the discussion above. I think it should be removed per Summary Style, if not as a BLP violation. CFredkin ( talk) 16:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Also these edits were included in VM's blanket revert of my edits. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, but currently the first para in the section does not read like it's part of a biography. Also, substituting "charitable disbursements" for "expenses" would be more accurate based on the source. Any objections to restoring these? CFredkin ( talk) 17:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Since the first day of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has said that he gave more than $102 million to charity in the past five years. To back up that claim, Trump’s campaign compiled a list of his contributions — 4,844 of them, filling 93 pages.
In addition, many of the gifts on the list came from the charity that bears his name, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which didn’t receive a personal check from Trump from 2009 through 2014, according to the most recent public tax filings. Its work is largely funded by others, although Trump decides where the gifts go.
Some beneficiaries on the list are not charities at all: They included clients, other businesses and tennis superstar Serena Williams.
Trump listed a donation to “Serena William Group” in February 2015, valued at exactly $1,136.56. A spokeswoman for the tennis star said she had attended a ribbon- cutting at Trump’s Loudoun County, Va., golf course that year for a new tennis center. But Trump hadn’t donated to her charity. Instead, he had given her a free ride from Florida on his plane and a free framed photo of herself.
CFredkin ( talk) 19:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
CFredkin, you're going to have to explain yourself better; what is being conflated with what? Here is the Serena source [12] and here is the text: "In addition, many of the gifts on the list came from the charity that bears his name ... Some beneficiaries on the list are not charities at all: They included clients, other businesses and tennis superstar Serena Williams." "But Trump’s list was also riddled with apparent errors, in which the “charities” that got his gifts didn’t seem to be charities at all. Trump listed a donation to “Serena William Group” in February 2015, valued at exactly $1,136.56 ... But Trump hadn’t donated to her charity. Instead, he had given her a free ride from Florida on his plane and a free framed photo of herself." -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 19:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Now CFredkin has just removed the Serena material from the article [13] while this discussion is still taking place; that's very helpful and collaborative. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 20:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone object if the following material is restored? It was removed for no apparent reason.
“ | According to the Foundation Center, Trump's foundation gives primarily to "health organizations, youth development, and social services." [1] | ” |
References
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
“ | Trump's foundation gives primarily to "health organizations, youth development, social services and to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses" | ” |
.
Not sure where this material should be incorporated into the article. Source is here [15] --- Thoughts -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 02:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at the Village Pump (Proposals) that may be relevant to the subject of this article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
At present the lede reads:
Clearly this should be
I am sure this is a simple oversight in the original drafting, since it is obvious that many of the statements are controversial precisely because they are false - the two are not mutually exclusive and are very often combined. Guy ( Help!) 14:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
"or" prefix:Wikipedia:Manual of Style
: "...linked by this page's menu or listed at
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents..."; "...use the scientific or medical name"; "...employ formats or units inconsistent with these guidelines or with other formats in the same article." --
Dervorguilla (
talk) 02:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)I removed this recent addition to lede regarding Trump being the oldest president, if elected. This was discussed previously in Talk, and the consensus was that it should not be included in the lede. CFredkin ( talk) 16:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Not to include this is silly. It is a fact, not an opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
So tired of seeing that 1,5 year old orange photo. What about this new one from this month? Looks great to me. User1937 ( talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"Republican leaders such as House Speaker Paul Ryan were hesitant to support him early on. They doubted his chances of winning the general election and feared he could harm the image of the Republican Party.[286][287]" This is outdated information and probably not relevant for the lede anyhow. I think it should either be removed, or else supplemented with a sentence that says virtually all Republican leaders did eventually endorse him. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This content
References
As far as I know, documentcloud.org is not a reliable source, especially for BLPs. What do other's think?- Mr X 19:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Jared Kushner that may be of interest. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The Trump Foundation is not "incidental". One way to see this is to realize that it is called the TRUMP foundation. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
We recently had an RfC, the result of which was to include the following in the lead:
this has been changed to
Since the editor who has made this change has violated the 1RR restriction, I have requested that they self-revert. However, I wanted to check to see if I've missed a discussion in which there was consensus to change to "many" to "some".- Mr X 22:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit insofar as it removed the following longstanding material:
“ | Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though it is not necessarily something that tax attorneys would advise. [1] | ” |
References
The edit summary said, "rmv speculation and non-RS". I don't agree that there is any speculation here. The source says:
“ | As George Stephanopoulos pointed out in a rather heated interview, there is technically nothing legally barring Trump from releasing his taxes. The IRS even said in a statement “nothing prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information.” While Trump has sometimes been quick to say legal experts side with him, on this one, we have to say it is true. Tax attorneys who spoke with LawNewz.com said they would advise their clients not to release taxes in the midst of an audit. | ” |
As for whether this source is reliable, it certainly is. Here are details about its launch earlier this year, from CNN. The site is run by Dan Abrams, who is the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News. Abrams is also a former anchor of Nightline, and former chief legal correspondent, anchor, and analyst for NBC News. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
TFD, regardless of the answers to your questions, I don't see any reason in the world why we shouldn't include the LawNewz article as a source, and paraphrase its conclusions. I'm not aware that any other reliable source contradicts them. As to your questions, they can be answered by looking at the LawNewz source, in which tax attorneys cite various reasons other than self-incrimination. For example, auditors could show the returns to whoever they want, causing problems for other entirely innocent businesses you do business with, and anyone who has a grievance with you could misuse the released information, and try to intervene in the audit process, for their own personal, financial or political gain; also, business strategies that may need revision during the audit process could be harmed by untimely disclosure, etc. etc. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
“ | “....I firmly believe it shouldn’t matter that Trump is under audit — Trump should disclose his returns. A presidential candidate has to disclose his or her tax returns and is always at risk for audit of that return. That is the whole point. When you file a return, you sign it and are supposed to submit it in good faith and consistent with legal requirements. It’s an admission by you, you are laying out on paper your financial circumstances as they relate to taxes. Whether or not you are under a current audit is irrelevant, because your position would be and should be that your return as filed is accurate and complies with the law. Your signature is in a sense saying that what and how you’ve reported your income and deductions, etc. is entirely legitimate and unquestionably accurate. In spite of the audit, you should be essentially standing by what you submitted as being true and correct. The IRS will not disclose what issues are being examined, but honestly anyone can look at a Presidential Candidate’s return and do their own evaluation of what it contains and whether or not something is questionable. That would happen anyway, even if there was no audit. That’s why the return is made public. If Donald Trump filed his returns accurately, he should disclose them without any excuses. Whether or not he has been, is currently or will be audited in the future is not relevant to the imperative that he should disclose his returns as filed if he wants to become President. I can only surmise that perhaps there indeed is a “bombshell” in there that Mr. Trump doesn’t want anyone to see right now as it will slow his momentum during the primaries. I believe he is using this audit as lame excuse not to disclose the returns he signed and filed.” | ” |
The deleted language was, "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though it is not necessarily something that tax attorneys would advise". I would have no objection to clarifying that tax attorneys differ on the issue. For example: "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ as to whether such a course would be advisable". Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There are other sources besides LawNewz. See, e.g., the following two:
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
How do I apply to be a contributor to The Hill? Just fill in the form below and we'll be in contact.
* The deleted language--- "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though it is not necessarily something that tax attorneys would advise".
Buster Seven Talk 17:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Merely including the first part of the sentence (stating that release is legal), while omitting the second part (that tax attorneys disagree about advisability) would not be NPOV because it would imply that there's no valid reason to not release. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a section on this subject at Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Refusal_to_release_tax_returns and so it would be more standard to move this stuff to the corresponding section of the present article. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Wait, I'm a bit confused. Are you moving this info to a different article (the presidential campaign one) or are you moving it to a different section in THIS article? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Footnote 281 has just been edited so that it contains a bunch of sub-footnotes:
I don't see any need for bundling footnotes like this, and so I plan to un-bundle them. If there are too many footnotes, then we can remove some, instead of creating overkill within a single footnote. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Why is this against the "rules"? Can we please stop this rule for this article, who decided that? When for 1 sentence, more than 4 sources are necessary, it's just silly to not bundle them together. Sources with vital information are getting removed by people, I'm assuming because they think there are way too many. But they are all necessary. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1937 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
In the lead: Trump has suggested temporarily banning foreign Muslims from entering the United States. He did not "suggest"... See his official website; https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" - Cwobeel (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Foreign Muslims? Where did that come from? His call was for the total and complete shutdown of Muslims. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". A complete shutdown is a complete shutdown. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
We've already been through this multiple times. See talk page archives 12, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 (all mentioning "foreign Mulsims"). See what the sources say (emphasis added):
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem is this: Trump made this call to ban all Muslims in December 2015. After that he started slowly backing away, but the lead is presenting the continuum: he first called for a total ban, then much, much later, started talking about exceptions. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Let his words speak for themselves. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There must be context for this Muslim ban. Reliable sources show he made that statement in the wake of the 2015 San Bernardino attack. CNN and here, just to name two. He did not come up with the Muslim ban before the attack and he made the comment in response to the attack. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The current version of the Muslim ban does not present what he said and how he said it, both of which contributed greately to the notability of this aspect: "Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". NPOV is not WHITEWASH - Cwobeel (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I realize there's been a lot of discussion already over the sentence about Trump having made false statements, so I apologize for yet another false-related thread. I'd like to get a quick sense of whether there is support for modifying the controversial/false/media sentences in a way similar to the following:
Current | Proposed |
---|---|
Trump's 2016 presidential campaign has received a significant amount of media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false. | Trump's 2016 presidential campaign has received extensive media coverage and international attention, often focused on controversy surrounding many of his remarks. Political fact-checking organizations have singled him out as having made record numbers of false or misleading statements compared to modern presidential candidates. |
Among other changes this would attribute the bit about him making false statements to fact-checking organizations, with context for why it's significant, and move the "controversial" bit to the previous sentence about media attention. It also drops the bit about where his remarks were made (interviews, twitter, rallies) in an effort to be concise, though the added attribution makes the sentences a bit longer overall. ~ Awilley ( talk) 16:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I object to this edit. We now say that "Trump endorsed the invasion of Iraq in September 2002." But Politifact says Trump publicly dialed back that statement that he had made on the Howard Stern show, prior to the invasion. Why should we omit that Trump dialed it back? Here's what Politifact writes about it (emphasis added):
“ | Trump has a hard time getting past a September 2002 interview with shock jock Howard Stern. Stern asked Trump if he supported the looming invasion. Trump responded, "Yeah, I guess so." Trump dialed that back a bit in another interview in January 2003, a few months before the invasion. Fox News’ Neil Cavuto asked Trump whether President George W. Bush should be more focused on Iraq or the economy. "Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know," Trump said. "He's under a lot of pressure. I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned." So Trump put the economy ahead of confronting Iraq, but he didn’t speak against going to war. | ” |
I don't think this is a revisonist apology by Politifact, and I don't understand why User:Wikidemon wants to hide that Trump dialed back what he said on the Stern show. Moreover, we are characterizing the words "I guess so" as an endorsement, without saying it was hesitant or weak and without quoting it, and I would hardly characterize such a brief and vague statement as an "endorsement" without explaining further as I did before Wikidemon erased the explanation. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Due to the controversy surrounding Trump's initially stated view on the war, I can think of no better way to clarify this than directly quoting him.
From the present article: In 2002, when asked about whether he supported invading Iraq, Trump responded, "Yeah, I guess so ... I wish the first time it was done correctly."[ 416][417][418]
I can't think of a more straight-forward or neutral way of presenting this material. Thoughts. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to including that direct quote, provided we also give a direct quote from January 2003 when Trump dialed it back. Regarding Bush's plan for an invasion of Iraq, Trump said in January 2003 that Bush "perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations....I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned." Alternatively, here is a close paraphrase:
“ | Also on January 28, 2003 (two months before the March 2003 invasion), he publicly indicated that maybe an Iraq invasion should not be launched yet, that perhaps it would be better to wait for the United Nations, and that a bigger problem facing President Bush was the economy. [1] [2] | ” |
References
How does it serve our readers to pretend he never said any of this? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you (Anythingyouwant) are playing games with the sources. What you're doing is subtle (and thus all the more pernicious), which is why I think other editors have intuited that you're doing something that's not above-board, but are having trouble putting their fingers on it. To be clear, when it comes to Trump and the Iraq War, the central point emphasized by reliable sources is that Trump has repeatedly lied about opposing the war, and continues to lie about it despite being called out repeatedly. Sources are numerous, and include:
... and so on. The overwhelming weight of reliable sources indicate that Trump's position on the Iraq War is notable for his repeated falsehoods about having opposed it before its inception. An honest attempt to follow reliable sources would reflect this. Instead we have an editor cherry-picking from sources, even going so far as to use a source calling out Trump's repeated lies to instead water down clear and accurate language in the article. We need language that clearly and proportionately reflects the content of reliable sources, rather than a series of cherry-picked quotes designed to confuse the issue. MastCell Talk 00:36, 29 September 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
According to this new article [1] in a reliable source "...Trump had found a way to give away somebody else’s money and claim the credit for himself." I think it deserves mention (paraphrased) in the subsection here. Thoughts. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 01:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding giving away other people's money, it seems to be covered already in this BLP:
“ | Although the foundation bears Trump's name, the foundation's funds mostly come from others.[511] The top donors to the foundation from 2004 to 2014 were Vince and Linda McMahon of World Wrestling Entertainment, who donated $5 million to the foundation after Trump made a cameo on Wrestlemania in 2007.[511] According to news reports, Trump has not given personally to the charity since 2008.[511] As of 2013, the foundation reported $569,865 in revenue and $918,380 in expenses.[508] | ” |
This material was apparently added just before this talk page section was started, and I think the new section in the BLP can be shortened a bit per WP:Summary style. As for the inquiry by the New York State A.G., there is one sentence about it at Donald J. Trump Foundation. There are no charges AFAIK, and not even any public indication about what the inquiry into the foundation is about. So I don't think this particular article needs to mention it yet. This article already describes in detail a particular violation by this foundation:
“ | In September 2016, the Washington Post reported that the foundation had to pay a $2,500 fine for violating IRS rules regarding political contributions by charitable organizations when it made a donation in support of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's election campaign.[510] The $25,000 contribution received widespread scrutiny, because Bondi's office was at the time reviewing fraud allegations regarding Trump University but later dropped the investigation.[513] | ” |
That seems like plenty for now, and it ought to be more concise in view of WP:Summary style. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 12:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I've removed some of the content from the section which violates WP:WEIGHT. Also, wouldn't the Donald J. Trump Foundation article be the more appropriate venue? This would seem to be more Foundation related than Trump related. CFredkin ( talk) 16:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll also note that NONE of the Clinton Foundation controversies are currently included in Clinton's bio. They've been excluded based on the same rationale. I'm not sure why we should treat Trump's bio differently. CFredkin ( talk) 16:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
So we need to decide how much of the material belongs in this article per WP:Summary style. Here are 3 sources ( [5] [6] [7]) and there are others. Looking at the second source it states, "New York state's top prosecutor has made inquiries into Donald Trump's nonprofit foundation after questions about impropriety." Below is the additional material I think should be included at this article:
“ | Trump paid a $2,500 penalty for failing to disclose the gift to the Internal Revenue Service, and representatives for the Trump Organization said he also paid back $25,000 to the foundation after the media began asking questions, the newspaper reported. | ” |
The same source [8] states "...correspondence with the foundation began on June 9." Aside from stating the necessary initiation date, I don't think there is anything further to add until the inquiry is finished. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 18:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
In addition to being undue, the following content is not supported by the source provided:
Through its tax returns, the foundation has reported support for organizations including Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy, the Clinton Foundation and the New York Military Academy.[511] The beneficiaries listed by the Trump Foundation erroneously list some non-charities, such as a plane ride and gift valued at about $1000 for tennis superstar Serena Williams."[511]
CFredkin ( talk) 16:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Also, I don't see it mentioned in the discussion above. I think it should be removed per Summary Style, if not as a BLP violation. CFredkin ( talk) 16:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Also these edits were included in VM's blanket revert of my edits. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, but currently the first para in the section does not read like it's part of a biography. Also, substituting "charitable disbursements" for "expenses" would be more accurate based on the source. Any objections to restoring these? CFredkin ( talk) 17:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Since the first day of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has said that he gave more than $102 million to charity in the past five years. To back up that claim, Trump’s campaign compiled a list of his contributions — 4,844 of them, filling 93 pages.
In addition, many of the gifts on the list came from the charity that bears his name, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which didn’t receive a personal check from Trump from 2009 through 2014, according to the most recent public tax filings. Its work is largely funded by others, although Trump decides where the gifts go.
Some beneficiaries on the list are not charities at all: They included clients, other businesses and tennis superstar Serena Williams.
Trump listed a donation to “Serena William Group” in February 2015, valued at exactly $1,136.56. A spokeswoman for the tennis star said she had attended a ribbon- cutting at Trump’s Loudoun County, Va., golf course that year for a new tennis center. But Trump hadn’t donated to her charity. Instead, he had given her a free ride from Florida on his plane and a free framed photo of herself.
CFredkin ( talk) 19:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
CFredkin, you're going to have to explain yourself better; what is being conflated with what? Here is the Serena source [12] and here is the text: "In addition, many of the gifts on the list came from the charity that bears his name ... Some beneficiaries on the list are not charities at all: They included clients, other businesses and tennis superstar Serena Williams." "But Trump’s list was also riddled with apparent errors, in which the “charities” that got his gifts didn’t seem to be charities at all. Trump listed a donation to “Serena William Group” in February 2015, valued at exactly $1,136.56 ... But Trump hadn’t donated to her charity. Instead, he had given her a free ride from Florida on his plane and a free framed photo of herself." -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 19:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Now CFredkin has just removed the Serena material from the article [13] while this discussion is still taking place; that's very helpful and collaborative. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 20:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone object if the following material is restored? It was removed for no apparent reason.
“ | According to the Foundation Center, Trump's foundation gives primarily to "health organizations, youth development, and social services." [1] | ” |
References
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
“ | Trump's foundation gives primarily to "health organizations, youth development, social services and to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses" | ” |
.
Not sure where this material should be incorporated into the article. Source is here [15] --- Thoughts -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 02:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at the Village Pump (Proposals) that may be relevant to the subject of this article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
At present the lede reads:
Clearly this should be
I am sure this is a simple oversight in the original drafting, since it is obvious that many of the statements are controversial precisely because they are false - the two are not mutually exclusive and are very often combined. Guy ( Help!) 14:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
"or" prefix:Wikipedia:Manual of Style
: "...linked by this page's menu or listed at
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents..."; "...use the scientific or medical name"; "...employ formats or units inconsistent with these guidelines or with other formats in the same article." --
Dervorguilla (
talk) 02:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)I removed this recent addition to lede regarding Trump being the oldest president, if elected. This was discussed previously in Talk, and the consensus was that it should not be included in the lede. CFredkin ( talk) 16:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Not to include this is silly. It is a fact, not an opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
So tired of seeing that 1,5 year old orange photo. What about this new one from this month? Looks great to me. User1937 ( talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"Republican leaders such as House Speaker Paul Ryan were hesitant to support him early on. They doubted his chances of winning the general election and feared he could harm the image of the Republican Party.[286][287]" This is outdated information and probably not relevant for the lede anyhow. I think it should either be removed, or else supplemented with a sentence that says virtually all Republican leaders did eventually endorse him. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This content
References
As far as I know, documentcloud.org is not a reliable source, especially for BLPs. What do other's think?- Mr X 19:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Jared Kushner that may be of interest. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The Trump Foundation is not "incidental". One way to see this is to realize that it is called the TRUMP foundation. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
We recently had an RfC, the result of which was to include the following in the lead:
this has been changed to
Since the editor who has made this change has violated the 1RR restriction, I have requested that they self-revert. However, I wanted to check to see if I've missed a discussion in which there was consensus to change to "many" to "some".- Mr X 22:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit insofar as it removed the following longstanding material:
“ | Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though it is not necessarily something that tax attorneys would advise. [1] | ” |
References
The edit summary said, "rmv speculation and non-RS". I don't agree that there is any speculation here. The source says:
“ | As George Stephanopoulos pointed out in a rather heated interview, there is technically nothing legally barring Trump from releasing his taxes. The IRS even said in a statement “nothing prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information.” While Trump has sometimes been quick to say legal experts side with him, on this one, we have to say it is true. Tax attorneys who spoke with LawNewz.com said they would advise their clients not to release taxes in the midst of an audit. | ” |
As for whether this source is reliable, it certainly is. Here are details about its launch earlier this year, from CNN. The site is run by Dan Abrams, who is the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News. Abrams is also a former anchor of Nightline, and former chief legal correspondent, anchor, and analyst for NBC News. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
TFD, regardless of the answers to your questions, I don't see any reason in the world why we shouldn't include the LawNewz article as a source, and paraphrase its conclusions. I'm not aware that any other reliable source contradicts them. As to your questions, they can be answered by looking at the LawNewz source, in which tax attorneys cite various reasons other than self-incrimination. For example, auditors could show the returns to whoever they want, causing problems for other entirely innocent businesses you do business with, and anyone who has a grievance with you could misuse the released information, and try to intervene in the audit process, for their own personal, financial or political gain; also, business strategies that may need revision during the audit process could be harmed by untimely disclosure, etc. etc. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
“ | “....I firmly believe it shouldn’t matter that Trump is under audit — Trump should disclose his returns. A presidential candidate has to disclose his or her tax returns and is always at risk for audit of that return. That is the whole point. When you file a return, you sign it and are supposed to submit it in good faith and consistent with legal requirements. It’s an admission by you, you are laying out on paper your financial circumstances as they relate to taxes. Whether or not you are under a current audit is irrelevant, because your position would be and should be that your return as filed is accurate and complies with the law. Your signature is in a sense saying that what and how you’ve reported your income and deductions, etc. is entirely legitimate and unquestionably accurate. In spite of the audit, you should be essentially standing by what you submitted as being true and correct. The IRS will not disclose what issues are being examined, but honestly anyone can look at a Presidential Candidate’s return and do their own evaluation of what it contains and whether or not something is questionable. That would happen anyway, even if there was no audit. That’s why the return is made public. If Donald Trump filed his returns accurately, he should disclose them without any excuses. Whether or not he has been, is currently or will be audited in the future is not relevant to the imperative that he should disclose his returns as filed if he wants to become President. I can only surmise that perhaps there indeed is a “bombshell” in there that Mr. Trump doesn’t want anyone to see right now as it will slow his momentum during the primaries. I believe he is using this audit as lame excuse not to disclose the returns he signed and filed.” | ” |
The deleted language was, "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though it is not necessarily something that tax attorneys would advise". I would have no objection to clarifying that tax attorneys differ on the issue. For example: "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ as to whether such a course would be advisable". Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There are other sources besides LawNewz. See, e.g., the following two:
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
How do I apply to be a contributor to The Hill? Just fill in the form below and we'll be in contact.
* The deleted language--- "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though it is not necessarily something that tax attorneys would advise".
Buster Seven Talk 17:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Merely including the first part of the sentence (stating that release is legal), while omitting the second part (that tax attorneys disagree about advisability) would not be NPOV because it would imply that there's no valid reason to not release. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a section on this subject at Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Refusal_to_release_tax_returns and so it would be more standard to move this stuff to the corresponding section of the present article. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Wait, I'm a bit confused. Are you moving this info to a different article (the presidential campaign one) or are you moving it to a different section in THIS article? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Footnote 281 has just been edited so that it contains a bunch of sub-footnotes:
I don't see any need for bundling footnotes like this, and so I plan to un-bundle them. If there are too many footnotes, then we can remove some, instead of creating overkill within a single footnote. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Why is this against the "rules"? Can we please stop this rule for this article, who decided that? When for 1 sentence, more than 4 sources are necessary, it's just silly to not bundle them together. Sources with vital information are getting removed by people, I'm assuming because they think there are way too many. But they are all necessary. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1937 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
In the lead: Trump has suggested temporarily banning foreign Muslims from entering the United States. He did not "suggest"... See his official website; https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" - Cwobeel (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Foreign Muslims? Where did that come from? His call was for the total and complete shutdown of Muslims. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". A complete shutdown is a complete shutdown. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
We've already been through this multiple times. See talk page archives 12, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 (all mentioning "foreign Mulsims"). See what the sources say (emphasis added):
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem is this: Trump made this call to ban all Muslims in December 2015. After that he started slowly backing away, but the lead is presenting the continuum: he first called for a total ban, then much, much later, started talking about exceptions. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Let his words speak for themselves. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There must be context for this Muslim ban. Reliable sources show he made that statement in the wake of the 2015 San Bernardino attack. CNN and here, just to name two. He did not come up with the Muslim ban before the attack and he made the comment in response to the attack. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The current version of the Muslim ban does not present what he said and how he said it, both of which contributed greately to the notability of this aspect: "Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". NPOV is not WHITEWASH - Cwobeel (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I realize there's been a lot of discussion already over the sentence about Trump having made false statements, so I apologize for yet another false-related thread. I'd like to get a quick sense of whether there is support for modifying the controversial/false/media sentences in a way similar to the following:
Current | Proposed |
---|---|
Trump's 2016 presidential campaign has received a significant amount of media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false. | Trump's 2016 presidential campaign has received extensive media coverage and international attention, often focused on controversy surrounding many of his remarks. Political fact-checking organizations have singled him out as having made record numbers of false or misleading statements compared to modern presidential candidates. |
Among other changes this would attribute the bit about him making false statements to fact-checking organizations, with context for why it's significant, and move the "controversial" bit to the previous sentence about media attention. It also drops the bit about where his remarks were made (interviews, twitter, rallies) in an effort to be concise, though the added attribution makes the sentences a bit longer overall. ~ Awilley ( talk) 16:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I object to this edit. We now say that "Trump endorsed the invasion of Iraq in September 2002." But Politifact says Trump publicly dialed back that statement that he had made on the Howard Stern show, prior to the invasion. Why should we omit that Trump dialed it back? Here's what Politifact writes about it (emphasis added):
“ | Trump has a hard time getting past a September 2002 interview with shock jock Howard Stern. Stern asked Trump if he supported the looming invasion. Trump responded, "Yeah, I guess so." Trump dialed that back a bit in another interview in January 2003, a few months before the invasion. Fox News’ Neil Cavuto asked Trump whether President George W. Bush should be more focused on Iraq or the economy. "Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know," Trump said. "He's under a lot of pressure. I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned." So Trump put the economy ahead of confronting Iraq, but he didn’t speak against going to war. | ” |
I don't think this is a revisonist apology by Politifact, and I don't understand why User:Wikidemon wants to hide that Trump dialed back what he said on the Stern show. Moreover, we are characterizing the words "I guess so" as an endorsement, without saying it was hesitant or weak and without quoting it, and I would hardly characterize such a brief and vague statement as an "endorsement" without explaining further as I did before Wikidemon erased the explanation. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Due to the controversy surrounding Trump's initially stated view on the war, I can think of no better way to clarify this than directly quoting him.
From the present article: In 2002, when asked about whether he supported invading Iraq, Trump responded, "Yeah, I guess so ... I wish the first time it was done correctly."[ 416][417][418]
I can't think of a more straight-forward or neutral way of presenting this material. Thoughts. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to including that direct quote, provided we also give a direct quote from January 2003 when Trump dialed it back. Regarding Bush's plan for an invasion of Iraq, Trump said in January 2003 that Bush "perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations....I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned." Alternatively, here is a close paraphrase:
“ | Also on January 28, 2003 (two months before the March 2003 invasion), he publicly indicated that maybe an Iraq invasion should not be launched yet, that perhaps it would be better to wait for the United Nations, and that a bigger problem facing President Bush was the economy. [1] [2] | ” |
References
How does it serve our readers to pretend he never said any of this? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you (Anythingyouwant) are playing games with the sources. What you're doing is subtle (and thus all the more pernicious), which is why I think other editors have intuited that you're doing something that's not above-board, but are having trouble putting their fingers on it. To be clear, when it comes to Trump and the Iraq War, the central point emphasized by reliable sources is that Trump has repeatedly lied about opposing the war, and continues to lie about it despite being called out repeatedly. Sources are numerous, and include:
... and so on. The overwhelming weight of reliable sources indicate that Trump's position on the Iraq War is notable for his repeated falsehoods about having opposed it before its inception. An honest attempt to follow reliable sources would reflect this. Instead we have an editor cherry-picking from sources, even going so far as to use a source calling out Trump's repeated lies to instead water down clear and accurate language in the article. We need language that clearly and proportionately reflects the content of reliable sources, rather than a series of cherry-picked quotes designed to confuse the issue. MastCell Talk 00:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)