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.

As I have often stated here, the sourcing on Trump's legendary wealth is based largely on that -- legend. It is quite as plausible that all of what appears to be his personal wealth is instead a lifestyle funded by his investors in order to sustain the branding of Trump as a successful businessperson. This story in today's Washington Post helps us reconsider the weight currently given to reports that, in part, make undue inferences concerning wealth that is not directly audited or disclosed [1] SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Already added by Drbogdan -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Should have waited before adding that to the article. This is breaking news and has not been vetted, most just hearsay. I wanted to revert the edit but I don't want to start some type of hostility. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 02:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Added the word "allegedly" to the text with a cite from a CNN article using the word. All this news is slanted against the President and until is proven should not be written as absolute truth. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 02:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the world "is slanted against the President", and this IS a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I even cited an article from CNN so liberals can't refute that this is mere allegation. This encyclopedic article should be neutral. Personally, allegations shouldn't even be listed until they are proven in my opinion, but I'd rather avoid an edit war. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 03:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You mean an alleged edit war. SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

My point was that what some Americans might see as neutral would probably be seen as pro-Trump by most of the rest of the world. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Allegedly seems a little superfluous when it is already qualified as "ex-Forbes reporter said" which makes it pretty clear where it is coming from. "Trump allegedly did x" is fine, as the CNN source; so is "an ex-forbes reported said x" as other sources say, but both combined is awkward and unnecessary IMO. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree - adding the word "allegedly" (and relevant CNN ref ^[1]) to the article text (and the other related refs ^{[2] [3]}) seems indicated to me as well - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 03:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope my edit did not offend you. It's all well intended! :) Sovietmessiah ( talk) 03:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I would rather see the "net worth" thingy removed completely. Is it really a defining characteristic of the man, other than the fact his claims of his wealth outstrip reality? -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If anyone has the energy, it would be worth reevaluating everything in this article to take stock of how much of its content is parroting Mr. Trump's public relations narratives that have been crafted to generate media reports that have no independent verification. And now that he's in office, we see widespread RS reports that the people surrounding him (and recently departed) have felt obliged to promote false narrative in order to avoid termination or obstruction of their official duties. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a defining characteristic. Before the Presidency, President Trump was most recognizable for being a successful businessman and host of The Apprentice, attributed to him because of his wealth. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 19:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it was because of the appearance of wealth that he created. In fact, RS tell us he was broke which is why he reinvented himself into a pop-parody of a rich mogul that was sold to a certain number of credulous folks. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is weighted with far too much OR and speculation. NYTimes article in 2015 - apparently, there is some confusion here about "wealth" vs "worth". Stick to the facts, please. A person with $300 million is not exactly poor. Forbes recently published (4/21/2018) his real time net worth at $3.1 B so I really don't know what all the chatter is about. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 21:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding - I checked the cited sources - opinion pieces - I also listened to the recording...it was not what was represented. The edit is challenged as poorly sourced, and irrelevant. Why should we care what a Forbes ex-writer says, and how is that information encyclopedic? It is unsubstantiated fodder. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme You wrote "I also listened to the recording...it was not what was represented.". Could you please elaborate?- Mr X 🖋 21:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX, I actually listened to 2 recordings, each being a short clip. Listen to the very beginning of the 1st recording when Greenberg asks for person's name...what do you notice? Listen closely right up to the part where the person talks about consolidating the assets. The audio has been edited. Greenberg also wrote in the article that "...Barron told me, he [Trump] should be called a billionaire." That's not mentioned in either of the recordings. I also question why he waited 36 years to "unwind the elaborate farce Trump had enacted". I don't know about you, by my editorial judgment is waving a big 🚩. You also have to consider the methodology of the Forbes 400 list, and compare it to others in that same time frame, such as Bloomberg. Even with all that aside, what benefit does inclusion serve to our readers? It's certainly not the kind of scholarly sourced information that belongs in an encyclopedia; rather, it's one person's allegation after 36 years of not noticing anything unusual during the original phone calls. Whose competency does that speak to? Trump made the Forbes 400, so if that one phone call is all Greenberg and the Forbes editors needed for the listing, then maybe SPECIFICO is right about the Forbes' estimates being garbage. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 01:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, the Forbes estimates are garbage. This has been hashed over many times. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that Atsme is back to removing any negative content by spuriously citing WP:UNDUE. Also, the edit summary is false - it's not an opinion piece (doesn't matter if you make that claim twice) but a piece by an investigative journalist. And calling it "poorly soured" is a joke, right?

So is Atsme just going to consistently veto any changes to the article per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

VM: Read the alert at the top of this page then carefully reconsider your comment.

• Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

James J. Lambden ( talk) 22:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It has received third party coverage so whether it is an opinion piece or not is irrelevant with regards to its inclusion. The question is to the exact wording and making sure that is due. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think DUE could use some discussion. But, the sourcing appears strong. O3000 ( talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing is questionable at best, the article is based on an allegation about an event that took place in the 1980s, and it smells just like a hit piece, which is great for baitclick but WP is an encyclopedia. To begin, the WaPo piece is a Perspective, defined by WaPo as Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences; i.e., opinion. The 2nd cited source is nothing more than circular reporting, links back to the WaPo piece. The 3rd cited source is another opinion piece they call analysis, and it too points back to the WaPo allegations, so there is no reliable investigative journalism going on in either the 2nd or 3rd cited sources. Jonathan Greenberg hasn't worked for Forbes since 2008 or thereabouts - he's a blog writer for HuffPo. I don't consider digging up prattle that dates back to the 1980s to be encyclopedic...especially when it's based on nothing more than one person's allegations. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 23:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you please not use nose-words to discuss factual text. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you call a nose with no body? (answer's on my TP) ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 02:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• We can cite opinion pieces as opinion (that is, with inline citations describing them as such and saying who said it), provided it also passes WP:DUE. The bar is high when discussing a high-profile topic like this, definitely, but in this case there are numerous secondary sources that establish that this opinion was noteworthy and had significant impact, so it's worth at least a few sentences worth of discussion in the article. You can say that you feel this piece is dumb and groundless and just an attack if you want, but given that numerous reliable sources have covered it as significant and noteworthy, they're what we have to go with, not your opinion on it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• It’s on audio tape using an alias he’s known to have used in other like situations. The way I look at it is that the entire concept of talking about Trump’s net worth is sketchy at best. He makes various claims with enormous discrepancies within weeks and once said his claims are based on his feelings about his worth at the time. Forbes really has no info about his possible liabilities. Even their annual discussion provides disclaimers. He hasn’t released tax returns. We can’t just blindly accept a Forbes’ annual ranking based on a few major holdings without a bit of disclaiming text of our own. Now, I’m not saying this particular revelation requires a section of its own. But, coming from an analyst that was involved at Forbes with Trump’s first entry into a Forbes’ list, I think it looks DUE and adds perspective to the reported number. O3000 ( talk) 00:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree for the following reasons:

1. The recordings are clearly edited, do not corroborate what is written in the article, there are no time stamps, no way to prove identity, or context.
2. It has been 36 years for this so-called revelation to be made public.
3. The sources are not RS for this inclusion - I explained that above.
4. It is UNDUE, and clearly not encyclopedic based on the way the information was gathered and assimilated.
5. I consider it a disservice to our readers and to our encyclopedia to include this in the article. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 02:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include / restore: definitely of public interest and reliably sourced. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include / restore: yes - agreed => definitely of public interest and reliably sourced - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"The sourcing is questionable at best" - what exactly is questionable here? That it's reported in three different sources? That it's in a "Analysis" section which is NOT "opinion"? This is utterly spurious. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

VM, I have already explained my position above. The primary source was the WaPo opinion piece (based on a 36 yr. delayed revelation that resulted in allegations supported only by 36 yo edited & unverifiable audio recordings), plus one of two sources that is basically circular reporting; it refers readers back to the WaPo article for the full article. The 3rd source, a CNN analysis (it's still opinion "analysis") states: The specific veracity of Greenberg's allegations, though backed up by a recently discovered audio recording, will have to be sussed out, but it is notably still true that we don't know as much as you would think about the President's finances. But the sources aren't the only problem with that sentence as I've already explained. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 04:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That is NOT a "primary source". That is a SECONDARY source. And it's not your job to evaluate reliable sources - that's original research. An "analysis" is NOT an "opinion piece". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources is not OR, the first paragraph says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 10:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

VM, perhaps the following will help refresh your memory - WP:NEWSORG states: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Your arguments are becoming more unconvincing, not less. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 13:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"X said Y", however, is something that we can cite to an opinion piece (and, in this case, we also have secondary non-opinion-pieces backing that up.) You can argue with them that you don't feel that they should have reported on that piece, but those are things you should take to letters to the editors of those publications - they pass WP:RS, it's clearly WP:DUE given the level of coverage, and, therefore, we have to go with what they say. Regarding the DUE issue, here's some additional sources: [2] [3], [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. It's a big enough story to justify one sentence in the article. (Also, let me know if you feel any of those sources would be preferable to the ones we're using at the moment; most of them are clearly not opinion, at the very least.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Newsworthy doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion, and if your only argument is that it's popular in the realm of circular reporting, I'm not convinced. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 14:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Newsworthy (beyond a certain point) absolutely does make it worthy of inclusion. From WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Something, like this, that is extremely prominent relative to other news about the subject, deserves at least a sentence in the article. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, I think we're going in circles here. We have the main arguments (the question of WP:DUE, the question of whether we can include an opinion piece with an inline cite, arguments over the quality of the sources.) By a quick nose-count of the conversation, I'm seeing ~5-7 people supporting inclusion and at most maybe 2-3 opposing it - and that is being very generous to Atsme by including anyone who has voiced any direct objections at all at any point in the discussion; nobody, that I can see, has backed his specific objections explicitly, while several people have given detailed answers. Does anyone other than Atsme want to weigh in or add another argument, or to argue that this is not a rough consensus to include for now? We can refine it and try to improve it to meet objections; or, if someone other than Atsme really objects, we can go to an WP:RFC or something, but right now I'm seeing a rough consensus to include despite Atsme's vehement objections, and discussions seem to have devolved into like five or six people actively arguing with one person, with the arguments just repeating themselves over and over. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the exclude column myself over concerns that it would be undue to have such a significant mention from only one source. If the information is true, other reports will corroborate it soon. Per NOTNEWS there is no rush. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

But what credible source do we have as to Mr. Trump being wealthy? SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This report by The Guardian (citing Forbes) lists his wealth at $3.1 billion. There's nothing more credible in the landscape that speaks to something else unfortunately. Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The only useful piece of information about Trump's net worth is that it has always been substantially less than he's claimed it is. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What? When the Brits parrot the guano from borderline RS Forbes it becomes the gold standard over other sources? Forbes is nonsense. It's like Basesball fans spring predictions of which teams have the best shot at the playoffs. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Keeping things aligned with the political genre...it's more like the media's predictions of which candidate had the best shot at the presidency in 2016. (I'm wearing flame-retardant underwear ). ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 21:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not relying on only one source; we have, at this point, something like ten different sources, many of which corroborate the tape's existence and contents. See my post above. If that's not enough to corroborate its existence and contents, what is? -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If a person believes they're running in circles, they may need to stop cutting so many corners. Aquillion, your comment that editors are somehow "being very generous to Atsme" leaves the impression of WP:OWN, and I find it very condescending. While your input and suggestions are certainly welcome, the same way comments from all editors are welcome, I don't recall an election that placed you in charge of our discussions, so please dial it back. There are no deadlines on WP. Your comment "despite Atsme's vehement objections, mischaracterizes my position. I never "vehemently" object to anything. I may seem adamant at times, but I can be persuaded by a convincing argument. You have not presented such an argument, so kindly adjust your aggressive momentum and try a more collegial approach.

I'm glad to hear that your objections are not vehement, at least; if they're not as strong as I believed, that means we are even closer to reaching a consensus. But whether it's possible to persuade you or not, it's both unreasonable and unnecessary to convince every single editor about every single sentence. That said, though, since you say you can be convinced on this point - what would convince you? When you complained about sourcing and due weight, I produced numerous sources, several of which ( [11] [12] [13]) report the contents of the tape as fact. Your response, as far as I can tell, was to say that I hadn't presented any convincing arguments and then decide that this was a WP:BALANCE issue instead. So... tell me what you would find convincing in this case? -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I am now of the mind that NPOV, specifically WP:BALANCE, is what applies best in this case (my underline): For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. While it may be a recent event in the news, it certainly wasn't an issue 36-years ago. It is nothing more than a one-sided allegation based on edited recordings by an ex-employee of Forbes who now writes a blog for HuffPo. It obviously didn't stop Trump from being included in Forbes or Bloomberg, so at this point in time, what difference does it make? I mean the irony is off the charts. Media is now attempting to discredit the wealth of a person they have, for decades, portrayed as an extremely wealthy person. It is not only disingenuous, it punches all kinds of holes in the argument for inclusion. Oh, look - RS say Trump is a multimillionaire...no, a billionaire...and now that he's president, despite their consistently wrong predictions during the campaign, they're saying nah, he's not that rich. *lol* And while we're on the subject of worth, what exactly is that allegation worth to the quality and credibility of our encyclopedia? Our readers will not miss that sentence if it isn't included, and even if it is included, our readers will either choose to believe it or not; some simply won't care. I doubt that a large number will actually get past the lede anyway. Keep in mind, Trump hasn't even completed 1½ of his term, so there's going to be more material added to the article, and it's highly likely that a lot of the unneccessary gossipy stuff will be removed. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 14:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

you don't get it if its anti trump no matter how idiotic it is it gets in. עם ישראל חי ( talk) 14:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have Trump's net worth in the article as soon as he releases his tax returns and the mainstream media is in a position to credibly verify his claims. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I hope we don't have remove net worth from everyone who hasn't released their taxes, because that'd be thousands. OTOH if tax return is a Trump-specific requirement that's an even bigger problem... 31.171.155.106 ( talk) 15:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If you look at most of those at the top of Forbes’ rich guys list, their money is in stock in publically held corporations and is public information. We don’t see their tax returns – and we don’t need to in order to understand their wealth. The problem we and Forbes have with Trump is that his companies are all private. Without his tax returns, there’s a lot of guess work. Frankly, that would still be true with his returns. We have to make do with what we have. In my mind, that means using the Forbes’ number with appropriate disclaimers, which I believe would include the statement from the Forbes analyst about being fooled into adding him into the list in the first place. Or, just say unknown. O3000 ( talk) 16:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure but wealth is assets minus debt. So their public assets are public but their private debt is... private meaning most cases are best guesses. 31.171.155.106 ( talk) 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, the Kochs don’t need debt. We know how they made their money. It’s public information by law. Trump has called himself the “King of debt” as his money came from large, risky investments with borrowed funds. His finances are clearly more murky. That’s not a criticism. It’s just how it is. O3000 ( talk) 16:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not just the issue of debt vs. equity, although that's part of the uncertainty in such estimates. It's that Trump's business is to manage assets owned (directly or via pooled funds) by others (e.g. according to his son, Russian others). Trump's enterprise earns a management fee but does not own the assets. It's as if we said that some American baseball manager hit 200 home runs last year when that was actually his team total and he didn't even go to the plate. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I produced ten reasonably high-quality, high-profile reliable sources covering this. If people were pushing to create an entire paragraph, I could understand your WP:BALANCE objection, but for something that has seen overwhelming, sustained news coverage, I think it's a bit silly to suggest that a single sentence on a tape that received heavy coverage is unbalanced or WP:UNDUE. Just for comparison to things already in the article, compare to the "professional wrestling" section, for instance; numerous things in the article have received far less coverage in reliable sources than this. EDIT: Here's some additional sources. [14] [15] [16]. Again, note that these ones unambiguously report the tape's contents as fact (and the last one provides extensive context to show why it's important.) I'm not sure what else people want given that we only need to establish due weight for a single sentence on a topic that has received extensive coverage. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

it's one source just because others reported it it's still based on that one recording by one reporter who cant prove that whoever was on the call actually lied. עם ישראל חי ( talk) 19:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No, what the sentence says is "the reporter said this". We have something like fifteen sources for that fact. If we were stating the reporter's claims as fact, we would have fewer (although not just one, since some of the sources reported it as factual.) Part of the reason we rely on WP:SECONDARY sources in a situation like this is because we trust anything that falls under WP:RS to do proper fact-checking and to give us proper context; when a reliable source says "X said Y" without any significant disclaimers, we assume that they've found that statement to be at least minimally credible to the point where we can report that it was said. Similarly, if we had fewer sources, your speculation that the reporter may have been mistaken would carry more weight - but we have ~fifteen reliable sources, none of whom treat that prospect seriously, which gives us a pretty clear view of how we should cover this here. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because people are jealous of Trumps wealth or dislike the fact that is via a private company and not a public company doesn't mean that we should WP:CENSOR it. Sources have claimed his wealth is what they claim it is, even if you state that it just goes back to Forbes we need to remember that multiple sources have reported on it and therefore it is WP:DUE. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting censoring any claims about his wealth (or lack thereof.) We have to cover all claims made about it in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources; and this tape is obviously prominent enough now to support a single sentence. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

An editor literally wrote I'd be happy to have Trump's net worth in the article as soon as he releases his tax returns above. We should not be waiting for tax returns but the reliable sources. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess I should've made it more obvious I was being sarcastic. The larger point I was trying to make was that it is very difficult to determine Trump's exact net worth, particularly because he intentionally hides some of the details. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh there is no doubt about that, but it doesn't mean we remove all mention of his wealth until it is fully explained. Rather we work with what we have. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. That's what we're trying to do with this addition, though, isn't it? -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I am kind of late the party, but I had hoped to clarify the situations just so I understand. Is all this basically to see if we should reinstate this material possibly with other/additional sources? PackMecEng ( talk) 20:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn’t really matter how many sources say that this report was issued. Only one agency has done the editorial legwork in reporting the original story. That does not add to the credibility. Until the report can be corroborated independently by additional sources it will be undue. Mr Ernie ( talk) 00:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to be clear on what the disagreement is so I know what I have to find to resolve it. What you want is a source confirming the existence and content of the tape in its own words, rather than relying on someone else's description of it, correct? And if I can link you to one or two additional reliable sources that unambiguously say "the tape exists, these events around it happened, and it means XYZ" in their own words, then that would be sufficient to overcome your objections so we could devote a sentence to the tape in the article? Basically, I want to know what you mean by "editorial legwork" and what a source that would answer your objections would look like. -- Aquillion ( talk) 01:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we please try to be more compliant with WP:RECENTISM? May I also suggest a refresher read of the essay WP:Relevance? There appears to be an attempt to conflate Trump the person (this BLP) with the Trump Organization, which happens to be a LLC so it appears even that article is incorrect - see Bloomberg. Are we reporting on Trump's personal wealth or his business wealth; i.e. the LLC. If it's business, it belongs in the LLC, with very limited mention here. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 16:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include - It's just not looking like a major part of his life with major effect. A recentism POV/interpretation opinion piece that someone thinks he's overblown ? Exactly what wording is proposed here ? Across a 70-year life what was written earlier this week just doesn't have a lot of duration to have any effect anyway, and since its the umpteenth complaint about him I struggle to see it as being much more than 'this weeks complaint'. Markbassett ( talk) 04:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include Aquillion's version – While I would argue the Forbes piece alone is UNDUE the press seems to have picked this up. I have seen articles in The Week and The New Yorker. Unless I have misread the credibility of the Forbes' reporter I think Aquillion's text in this edit is warranted. James J. Lambden ( talk) 05:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue I would have with that is it does not say when this happened. He came out in april 2018 but this supposedly happened in 80's making them less relevant to today. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

But we do include his 80s net worth; so it is relevant. Also, relevancy to today doesn't determine WEIGHT, RS coverage does Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Forbes It's not RS for this wealth figure and we don't have the net worth of other public figures, e.g. Pres Bush, Clinton, Gov Spitzer, et al. Then we don't need to include why it's not RS SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO: Would that not basically remove the whole section? PackMecEng ( talk) 15:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Good question. As it stands now, the section is more about Forbes and more on-topic for the Forbes article than for this one. I think a section could be well-sourced to discuss Trump's claims of wealth in all their varieties, contexts, and applications, and so forth. Some of this content is already in the article. We should not do anything to suggest the Forbes estimates are fact and they should not appear in the infobox. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include - it's a 36 yr old unsubstantiated allegation dependent upon edited audio tapes produced by an ex-staff member of Forbes who now authors a blog for HuffPo. It adds -0- value to the article, it is noncompliant with NPOV WP:BALANCE, and while it makes good baitclick fodder, it is not encyclopedic, regardless of how many news sources have published it. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 13:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Do not include first off even if it was Trump on the tape who says he was lying about his net worth and since this was 36 years ago how does that make it that affect his net worth now. עם ישראל חי ( talk) 14:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Same as I said to PackMecEng; we do include his net worth in the 1980s in the article, and thus it is relevant. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include per my comments above, as long as his forbes 400 listing in the 1980s is included, this is very relevant. This text is also extremely relevant since we speak of his net worth at 1982 and his inclusion: In our first-ever list, in 1982, we included him at $100 million, but Trump was actually worth roughly $5 million' — a paltry sum by the standards of his super-monied peers — as a spate of government reports and books showed only much later.. In fact one of other RS we use here this nytimes piece (fron 2005) shows our wealth section needs reworking to show how much doubt there is about the various estimates given Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC) More RS are there [17]. The wealth section really needs a rewrite. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include - as before => definitely of public interest and reliably sourced - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include – I'm now convinced this is DUE. Trump has made a huge deal about his wealth for decades. The fact that he has lobbied Forbes to increase their estimates is not new. The fact that his estimates change radically from time to time and differ radically from estimates by Forbes and Bloomberg are well known. It’s known that numerous of his business ventures failed, even a multi-level marketing company that examined your urine and sold vitamins. [18]. As none of his companies are public, and no one has seen his tax returns, we can’t discuss his net worth without some context, of which there is much in reliable sources. And we should mention his net worth as he has spent so much time talking about it himself. We can add as much inline-attribution or "alleges" as we think prudent. O3000 ( talk) 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

See my comment above. It appears we're going to need an RfC. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 16:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include. This is very interesting and well sourced information (I have learned about it some time ago and was surprised). Actually, it explains a lot; this is one of most important facts to know about this person. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to have the sentence below, with footnotes, added to the end of the first paragraph of "Early life and education," following footnote 14. (There were more articles on this and McIntosh was interviewed for a few Frontline shows on Trump but I thought the footnotes below were adequate. Was not going to add McIntosh's name but since he is listed on Wiki, did, according to policy. FYI: ultimately McIntosh thought Trump was likable and he did watch out for him, but thought that was not Wiki appropriate to add since it was a judgement.)

"Trump was asked to keep an eye on an underclassman, Sandy McIntosh, son of a business acquaintance of Trump's father, who has been interviewed extensively about how the culture of hazing at the New York Military Academy formed Trump's behavior. ^{[1] [2]}"

Thank you. Ogmany ( talk) 23:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. PBS & Salon are good sources, and the text makes no value judgements. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 00:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of the sentence? I'm having trouble understanding why it should be included. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I am wondering the same. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is not significant enough for inclusion. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 02:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Does not look to me like a major part or major effect in his life that should get into a BLP. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel this is necessary in a space-constrained article such as this one. It is effectively promoting Mr. McIntosh. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The sentence currently here doesn't even say exactly how the culture of hazing affected his behaviour. Oppose inclusion per above. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I have strengthened the sentence and also the footnotes supporting it: it is well worth including as it speaks to President Trump's leadership style and its roots. School is a major formative experience, particularly a military academy that you have been sent to as a very young teenager because your parents could not control you. I am not including Sandy Mcintosh's name because the point is not about him, (and had hesitated to do so anyway as per my first inquiry) but his direct experience with DJT and the culture at the NYMilitary Academy, where leadership was taught by old school military men, and how it clearly effected and informed DJT's leadership style, and he is now President. Also relevant in light of James Comey's promotion of his book, which he states is a book primarily about leadership and how decisions are reached. There has been a lot of attention to how Roy Cohn's mentoring of Trump effected his leadership style and the way he deals with opponents, and the roots of Trump learning leadership, which favors the style he perfected under Cohn's tutelage, is what he learned from the hazing culture at the NY Military Academy. It was deemed important enough to get coverage in major media outlets and is a formative part of DJT's leadership education. (And maybe speaks to why he like surrounding himself with Generals.) If I did not manage to do it this time, would appreciate any help in getting this point across. (It got coverage in other major media outlets but I do not have access behind their paywalls unless I go to the library, classmates in the various articles have confirmed this version of their time there, Frontline used the interview in other shows on Trump. I could add more footnotes but want to be brief but get across a very relevant part of Trumps leadership education.)

"Trump was asked to keep an eye on an underclassman, son of a business acquaintance of Trump's father at the Academy, which "could be a brutal place where grown men who were veterans of the real military ruled with threats and force," who has discussed how the culture of hazing formed Trump's behavior. Trump’s first year, "was hellish" and he was reprimanded, but eventually assumed a leadership position at the school and "lied about his athletic exploits, escaped accountability and did everything for show." ^{[3] [4] [5]}" Ogmany ( talk) 18:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't think this sentence improves the article. Mr Ernie ( talk) 19:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

As good as the sources may be, sounds like armchair psychology to me. O3000 ( talk) 19:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

-- Mr Ernie ( talk), Emir of Wikipedia ( talk), Sovietmessiah ( talk), power~enwiki ( π, ν) There are an unprecedented number of generals working in the White House. ^{[6] [7] [8]} Trump's only military background, his school, and history of his formative years is important presidential leadership background. How about this, shorter, more direct, and Markbassett, ( talk) Galobtter ( pingó mió) it explains the culture where Trump came of age and the roots of his leadership style, with a direct quote from Trump on the NYMA's impact on his leadership style:

The Academy "could be a brutal place where grown men who were veterans of the real military ruled with threats and force. Trump's first year, "was hellish" and he was reprimanded, but eventually assumed a leadership position at the school and "lied about his athletic exploits, escaped accountability and did everything for show." ^{[9] [10]} The culture of hazing formed Trump's behavior, ^[11] where "You had to learn how to survive, essentially, with some of these guys. I learned discipline — how to dish it out and otherwise.” ^[12] ( talk) 02:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Still no. If there's an effort to collaboratively write a book-length biography of Mr. Trump, it would be useful there. In this article, the fact that he attended the school is sufficient, there's no need for further detail. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone link the Iran withdraw in the lead to United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action? Thanks. FlowerRoad ( talk) 00:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. [20] ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

In January 2018, South Korean president Moon Jae-in praised Trump's tough stance toward the North, stating that Trump deserved "big" credit for his efforts in facilitating talks between North and South Korea[597] and has endorsed him for the Nobel Peace Prize - The part about the Nobel Peace Prize has been added and reverted [21], so let's discuss it. My take is that "being nominated for a Nobel Prize" is virtually meaningless (virtually everyone prominent in global affairs is nominated [22]), and doubly so in this case as it would be based on a peace deal that hasn't even happened yet. So it shouldn't be included, particularly in this article where space is at a premium. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice try. The New York Times of the gold standard of the leftwing, so since the source can't be impeached the strategy is to employ "UNDUE"? North Korea is the most prominent topic of Trump's foreign policy coverage. And with the South Korean president endorsing the Nobel it is most certainly meaningful and "due."– Lionel^{( talk)} 05:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The committee that awards that prize does not discuss nominations, and there has been speculation about many people being nominated over the decades. This should be mentioned if and when Trump (or any other person) actually wins the prize. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not a Nobel nomination. Until there is a nomination it's an inconsequential sound bite and WP:UNDUE. Lionelt may note that violating WP:AGF never strengthens one's case. ― Mandruss  ☎ 05:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

What we want to avoid is a similar situation like what happened here. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 22:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - As Cullen said, it seems any nomination wouldn't be public information. Therefore we can only wait until there is an award. ― Mandruss  ☎ 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to Trump and this whole DS thing. While I hate to curtail all of the enlightening discourse, can I fire up a RFC right now or is there some kind of waiting period? – Lionel^{( talk)} 06:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing formal, but we would generally wait at least several days to see if a consensus develops. For something like this, a local consensus should be sufficient in my opinion, but I don't run the place. This has nothing to do with the ArbCom restrictions or DS. ― Mandruss  ☎ 06:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the meaningless endorsement being added to the article. Per WP:WEIGHT, I will oppose any such addition unless Trump actually wins the award. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not only would this endorsement be meaningless if genuine, it's not even a real endorsement:

  Mr Moon made the comment in response to a suggestion that he receive the [Nobel Peace Prize] by the widow of late South Korean president Kim Dae-jung, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000 after a summit with then North Korean leader Kim Jong Il...Mr Moon responded to the suggestion of Nobel glory by saying, “President Trump can take the Nobel prize. The only thing we need is peace,” according to the South’s presidential office.

• In other words, Moon was basically saying, "I don't need it, let him have it." That is NOT an endorsement, so it's even MORE meaningless. -- Calton | Talk 13:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:10YT WP:NOTNEWS Not meaningful at this point. If we did publish stuff like this, more interesting would be: [23]. Not suggesting it be added either. O3000 ( talk) 14:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:10YT and WP:NOTNEWS. As I heard on NPR yesterday during the story discussing this topic, foreign leaders have learned that the quickest way to Trump's good graces is flattery. That's all that Moon's comment was. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 14:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Did NPR say whether he's being considered for an Order of Saint Catherine? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as utterly meaningless, also per above & NOTNEWS. – Davey2010 ^Talk 18:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - while I certainly endorse global peace, and recognize who the primary players are in that negotiation, it's all still speculation at this point. Let's not put the cart in front of the horse. Let it incubate. 🐣 ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 21:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Sovietmessiah ( talk) 22:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This comes up all the time. We NEVER mention Nobel Prize nominations. They mean absolutely nothing. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• UNDUE at this time - if he was awarded one it would be mentioned in the BLP, but meanwhile it's not got enough buzz to be worth consideration. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 02:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment we now have an "actual" nomination [24], as mentioned above this changes absolutely nothing. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket! I hope that nom doesn't jinx anything. I'm feeling like a sitting hen who was just shooed off her nest by Don Tyson. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 21:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

18 out of 236 Republican members of the House (Gohmert didn’t sign - was he indisposed?) - overwhelming endorsement, biggest ever. The sinkhole that appears to be swallowing the North Korean nuclear test site might have been a better candidate. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not news after a few days of aging. And definitely not encyclopedic meat & potatoes for the ages. Greg L ( talk) 02:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nominations aren’t news, at least not for the 50-year waiting period until the non-winners’ names are published, and definitely not encyclopedic. Quoting the Nobel Prize organization: To be nominated for a Nobel Prize is not an official endorsement or extended honour to imply affiliation with the Prize or its related institutions. Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize require no invitation and can be submitted from all corners of the world to the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The broad eligibility of nominators means thousands of people – with no affiliation to the Nobel Committee – can put forward a name and motivate their opinion of why they consider a candidate worthy. This is what differs the selection process for the Nobel Peace Prize from many other prizes where awarding committees or academies select all the nominees as well as the winner. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Totally meaningless and not even public information. "A nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize may be submitted by any person who meets the nomination criteria. A letter of invitation to submit is not required. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later." And "Qualified Nominators" include: "university professors, professors emeriti and associate professors of history, social sciences, law, philosophy, theology, and religion etc etc etc." We're talking about tens if not hundreds of thousands of qualified nominators here. See [25]. -- Tataral ( talk) 18:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

by editor Richwales with the comment WP:DOX: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=840922337. I can't figure out why or exactly what happened. My edits among the blanked ones don't contain any personal information on anyone; I haven't checked on anyone else's. The actual edits are still on the Talk page, it's just not possible to call them up in the history. Can someone undo whatever was done? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 07:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• As an oversighter, Richwales hid the revisions from when the apparently WP:DOX information was added till it was removed from public view. That doesn't mean your or other people's edits had personal information, just that that section of the page history had personal information somewhere in the page and thus had to be hidden. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Weird, it was all experienced editors. What happened? SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No idea, indeed strange.. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned the Propecia, right? SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Collective punishment on Wikipedia? Or reverse Clockwork Orange, stapling my eyes shut, to make me unsee something I may have seen (I sure don't remember seeing any personal info)? Couldn't the editor just have blanked the edit in question? Just grousing to myself. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I would think the link to WP:DOX (now given three times) would be enough to explain why the content was removed. Being an experienced editor doesn't mean you can't (either accidentally or intentionally) reveal someone's personal information in a comment. As mentioned in the first reply, the other edits were suppressed because they also contained the removed content, and all revisions between when the content was added and removed need to be suppressed. Primefac ( talk) 15:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Except you have no factual basis for that. We all read the posts. None of us saw anything that would have required this. The only one who knows is the Admin who did the deed. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. Maybe I'm just dumber than the average bear. And what part of "just grousing to myself" didn't you understand? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we got some type of clue so we don't inadvertently do anything wrong. All that is left is a chilling sense of dread. I assume the offending editor has been informed of their error. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 19:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Chill out, folks. When something has been oversighted, it is hidden from EVERYONE. Even admins can't see oversighted material (unlike revdel material which we can see). What oversight amounts to is a very high level of "classified". Since the reason given was DOX, presumably there was some kind of personal information revealed. Since the editing around that time was in the Doc Bornstein section it's possible the material related to him, but we can't tell because it is gone, gone, gone. It might have been something about one of the other people posting on the board. It might have been about something completely unrelated. Whatever it was, it apparently stayed on the board for several dozen subsequent edits before an oversighter found it and decided it could not stay on Wikipedia. That kind of judgment is what we entrust oversighters with and it's why they get the big bucks. The intermediate edits were removed from view because even though the edits were innocent, the view of the page from that date and time contained the problem material. I think you can all rest assured it was not something you did - or need to worry about. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If nobody did it why is it undid? SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone made a comment in which they referred, in passing, to another editor's activity on another site. That other editor expressed concern, off-wiki, that connecting him to said other site (a connection which he himself had never made here on Wikipedia) could lead to disclosure here of his real-life identity. Per our outing/doxing policy (WP:DOX) and our suppression/oversight policy ( WP:OVER), I redacted the mentioning of the other site, and I also made all the intervening snapshots in this page's revision history invisible to everyone except the approximately 50 editors currently granted the "oversight" permission (listed here).

Note that suppressing the revisions in question did not remove other people's comments made on this page — all it did was hide some of the page's revision history. It was essential to do this in order to keep the outing/doxing material truly hidden. Unfortunately, there is no way to edit a past revision (snapshot) of a Wikipedia page; the only way to deal with a past revision which contains problematic material is to make that past revision invisible in its entirety.

This whole matter has been discussed on an e-mail list used by the aforementioned 50 "oversighters" (a group which, btw, also includes present and past members of the Arbitration Committee). By the very nature of situations like this, the details cannot be disclosed on-wiki — hence the e-mail list. Fwiw, User:Primefac, who commented earlier in this discussion thread, is an "oversighter" and is aware of the details here.

That's really all I (or any other oversighter) can say here. I am not going to name the editor who originally made the comment that triggered this kerfuffle — who, btw, has not been blocked or otherwise disciplined, since their action was almost certainly certainly not a deliberate or malicious doxing/outing attempt. Nor am I going to identify the other editor, and I'm certainly not going to name the off-wiki site where he allegedly also participates. And as a courtesy to that other editor, I would urge people not to try to deduce or reconstruct the redacted material; I can assure you that it's not relevant to any discussion here about Donald Trump (and much as it may grate on some of you, I'm afraid you're just going to have to trust me on this). —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC) 23:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Richwales: I only hope someone has advised the editor who made the mistake, lest they make a similar one in the future. If necessary, it could be done by email, but I don't see the need if the user talk comment were sufficiently vague (and of course not all editors are reachable by email). We shouldn't assume the editor deduces that they were the offender, even if they are around to see the oversighting and this discussion. ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I remember it now, and certainly won't "use" that information. I suspect you meant to write: "...since their action was almost certainly NOT a deliberate or malicious doxing/outing attempt." I wish that others who perform necessary revdel/oversighting would provide such explanations. Please discuss that with the others and get them to always do that. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

With the preceding comment, never mind, although my comment still applies in general. ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: You're right — I accidentally omitted a crucial "not". I've fixed this. Thanks for pointing it out. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm...is there really a reason editors should be afraid of what happened? Sorry, I'm late to the party. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 00:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

In one word, "no". I honestly don't think there's any more that can be added to this conversation. If someone wants to discuss it further, you're welcome to email me. Primefac ( talk) 01:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit by Winkelvi ( talk · contribs) violates ArbCom's ruling on political articles on the basis that it reverts material that has been challenged. That edit has previously been notified of the ArbCom ruling and the associated discretionary sanctions. No effort has been made by that user to engage in talk page discussion, so I have created this thread on Winkelvi's behalf. My view is that the material should be excluded on the basis of notability, for the reasons documented in the edit summary given by Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk · contribs). -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree, and anything here on this broad article needs more than one news source or so and a snopes fact check that pretty much explains how it isn't important on WEIGHT reasons Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The material is probably worth Including on the basis the section in question is slim for an important and controversial aspect of his administration. May also warrant a new sub-head dealing with his administrations position on religion in general, either way, agree that better secondary sources could be added. Cypresscross ( talk) 15:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    • If it is supposedly "important and controversial" then the sources should be there; if you present them then material can be added. Things should be added just because we feel they are important. Per NPOV we go by WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Doing a basic Google search brought up quite a few stories on this in several news sources, I chose the one with the most recent date. And since when does Wikipedia consider Snopes a reliable source? One more question: Does no one apply WP:AGF anymore? While it would seem the answer is 'no', let's not forget that the policy still exists. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm able to find a couple of sources but nothing indicating particular important/more than any of the numerous executive orders he has signed to be in this, again, highly summary style article. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's very hard to see this passing DUE WEIGHT for Trump's biography, a story rich with events far more significant that we do not even mention here. It may belong in the Presidency article. There does seem to be at least a smattering of RS coverage (not cited here) and it appears to be quite unflattering. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree this material is better-suited for Presidency of Donald Trump and/or Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q2. I've also BOLD-ly added Winklevi's exact wording to Social policy of Donald Trump. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you also boldly add some of the reporting about RS comments about what a nasty bit of fake policy this is. Also maybe something from its supporters and the benefits they expect to flow from it. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please consider adding link at "Vatican" (the only mention of such on this page, re Trump's audience with the Pope) to this article discussing details of Trump's visit to the Vatican: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/world/europe/trump-pope-vatican.html

The above article link describes in detail the visit and particulars of historic interest.

Thank you!

Cato1713 Cato1713 ( talk) 04:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 17:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Redone using a better NYT source. [26] ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I made some corrections, but didn't touch the last sentence. The source from April 1, 1987, doesn't say that he operated the rink for a year, it merely mentions the first winter's profits. I haven't found any source that says how long he operated the rink/restaurant/concessions the first time around. The agreement for the construction also awarded him the operation of rink/restaurant/concessions, with the profits to be given to charity and public works (he did, but the sources only mention the first winter). Trump wanted a 10-year contract, the city offered 4. Did he accept 4? He (or rather Wollman Rink Operations LLC) won a contract in 2001 to operate Wollman and Lasker rinks from November 1, 2001, to April 30, 2012, and I read in one of the sources that he lost out to another bidder in the Nineties but it didn't specify when. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Found it, along with a picture of the man on his Trump-branded Zamboni. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I have a quick question regarding the birthplace in the infobox: should we list it as "New York City, New York, U.S.", or just keep it as "New York City"? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

See #Current consensus item 2. ― Mandruss  ☎ 02:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Just wanted to make sure since I don't intend to get involved in an edit war. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's perfect like it is. We all know where New york City is. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 20:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican, and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries."

There shouldn't be the comma after the word "Republican," as the first part of that sentence is an independent clause but the second part is a subordinate clause, so putting a comma with the conjunction is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.35.209 ( talk) 16:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 17:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)