Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Financial net worth is overstated

Any assertion about Trump's financial net worth is pure hearsay. The only documented, audited financial disclosures Trump has ever made are found in the court records from his numerous bankruptcy filings. If you read the actual source documents cited by Forbes in compiling its list of 'billionaires', you will quickly learn that the number displayed in this article's Infobox is simply hearsay that originated with unsubstantiated assertions made by people in Trump's organizations. This number should be removed from the Infobox. Speculation about Trump's financial net worth, and about whether it is a positive number, should be included in the body of the article. Jrgilb (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The stuff in the infobox has a footnote that says:

“ Forbes Staff (July 18, 2016). Donald Trump: His Worth, Work, And World. Forbes Media. p. 16. ISBN 1531289452. After interviewing more than 80 sources and devoting unprecedented resources to valuing a single fortune, we're going with a figure less than half that—$4.5 billion, albeit still the highest figure we've ever had for him. ”

If you think this is incorrect, please provide us further hearsay from a reliable source. Wikipedia prefers hearsay, also known as "secondary sources". You can find more about his net worth here in this Wikipedia article at Donald_Trump#Net_worth.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I did read the Infobox footnote. As we know, there are numerous secondary sources that speak to the question of Trump's net worth, and they suffer from the same problem that they all originate from Trump's own unsubstantiated assertions. Based on Wikipedia policies, this means, sadly, leaving the Infobox as is. Jrgilb (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Forbes has just revised DJT's net worth to $3.7 billion. This is from their Real Time Net Worth. The billionaire list still shows $4.5B, but links to the newer, lower number. I think it's general policy to use the Forbes list. But, I'm not sure which number. The newer one is, obviously, newer. Objective3000 (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

But I see the better known the reference of Forbes list, even their 'real-time' list, is showing $4.5B at here. I think both might be included as part of the sources are saying that calculations vary or it's a moving target, and even other figures. As these are being stated as POVs or an argument, all figures $9, 4.5, and 3.7 by WP:NPOV would get included in due WP:WEIGHT of prominence. It's nuts, but then again -- other than 'billionaire' I don't see any reason we'd give specific numbers other than it being a matter of dispute, and I really do think that valuation is a persons opinion and moves over time so WP is just conveying the 'best-known' figure as minor sidenote. Markbassett (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

WP typically uses the Forbes list. If you click on the picture of DJT in the link you provided, you will see that Forbes has updated the number to $3.7B. Objective3000 (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Donald Trump tax avoidance controversy

There doesn't seem to be sufficient content to justify a separate page. Marianna251TALK 11:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, the page has been deleted. Marianna251TALK 11:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality

Could somebody bring this article up to featured article quality, so it won't look like Wikipedia endorses Hillary? I don't have the knowledge or time to do so. BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

BorkBorkGoesTheCode, what do you think makes it look like Wikipedia is endorsing Hillary? Just the fact that there's no gold star in the top right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly yes. I don't like the pettiness of it, but it will be used to slam Wiki. BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have flirted with the idea of upgrading the article to "good" and then "featured" but I'm not sure that I want to legitimize crap like I described in the previous talk page section. In other words, I don't want to make the article look all nice and sparkly if people insist on inserting little bits of propaganda. I prefer to try and make the article half-decent, and spend my limited time fighting as hard as possible to make it neutral. Also, if I brought it up to featured status then the regular editors here would be at a great disadvantage protecting the article from hit-and-run edits, because we're only allowed one revert per day (unlike in previous presidential elections).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Our quality assessments are a reflection on the article, not the subject. You can forget about getting this article up to FA status. You'd have a much better chance getting Hillary Clinton downgraded. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Stability alone would make this impossible to get up to FA in the near future, as substantial new information is available daily. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Mitt Romney article became featured on 2 November 2012. In theory, the same could be done here. In practice, not so much.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Rob. This article is not stable enough even for GA, much less FA. In fact I see that it quickfailed GA just a few weeks ago. There were some specific recommendations for tweaks to the article, which would improve it but not affect its eligibility for GA. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Public Image

Can we get rid of all the content in the section "Public Image"? Seems to be rather pointless information that shouldn't be included on a presidential candidate's wiki-page, especially since none of it seems to be of encyclopedic value. NationalInterest16 (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That content sort of fits under "Personal life", but the subheading "Public image" don´t make much sense, maybe it´s a relic from earlier versions of the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point, I agree that it "sort of" fits Personal Life. Public Image doesn't work at all though. Any suggestions on what it could be changed to? NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"Sex and drugs and rock and roll"? We could move germophobia + drugs to the health-bit (under "general election"), and call the rest... "Other relationships"? Not good, but better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, works well enough for me. Mind undoing the warring that http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Somedifferentstuff is causing on the page under the section "First presidential debate"? NationalInterest16 (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I´ll move the text, we´ll see if it sticks. Assuming you mean this [1], I agree with Somedifferentstuff, I don´t think this kind off online polls have any place in these articles. I wonder if there´s a guideline or essay about that somewhere? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. And I simply think that it should be talked about here before being added or reverted so that a consensus can be found. I think there are plenty of people who would agree that it should be mentioned, both that Donald Trump did poorly in scientific polls and did well in online polls. Both are simply just adding information. For example, if Donald Trump wins the election, it would be of use for people to come back and see that the online polls were potentially more accurate than the scientific polls. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Online polls are about as meaningful as Facebook likes. Fortune says:

"Many online polls are labeled with caveats, warning readers that they are not scientific surveys; nor do they accurately represent the American electorate. The Daily Dot reports that supporters of Donald Trump even took to sites like Reddit and 4Chan in an attempt to intentionally skew online polling results (including those of Fortune.com)."
— Fortune

Also, please remember that this article and other political articles have restrictions applied, as explained when you edit the article: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. You can be blocked or topic banned for violating these restrictions, so please edit accordingly.- MrX 13:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Our obligations when media sources differ

I am not convinced that this edit is an improvement. When a lot of sources say one thing and a few sources say another thing, I don't see the harm in mentioning such a split. WP:NPOV gives us the job of "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It doesn't say to pretend that the majority view is the only view.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

And I'm not convinced that this edit is an improvement....or that it is true. How do we know that Trump was referring to The Gulf War? None of the sources provided mention the 1990-1991 Gulf War. Can you provide a source that specifically says that Trump was referring to the 1990 Gulf War? Buster Seven Talk 06:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

According to ABC News, "Trump then alluded to the first Gulf War in 1991, which ended with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein still in power. 'You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.'". Do media sources differ on this point?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:YESPOV. This example is apropos:

"For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."

- MrX 12:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk about the views of a small minority of reliable sources rather than the views of a small minority of fringe activists. Do we say in the voice of Wikipedia that a majority view of reliable sources is the only view, implying that the small minority view of reliable sources is wrong, while even omitting the latter's existence? I don't think we're supposed to do that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There are five sentences about this in the article, one of which quotes Trump directly. The Cavuto interview cannot reasonably be interpreted as a declaration by Trump that he did not supporting the war. His words:

"Well, I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy,..”. “They’re getting a little bit tired of hearing ‘We’re going in, we’re not going in.’ Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don’t do it.” “Perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.”
— Fox News

That you are able to find a blog or two that says the opposite of what the vast majority of major, reputable news sources report is not the least bit convincing. In fact, the more you try to convince me, the more I read and realize this is nothing more than naked POV pushing.- MrX 13:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what one or two unreliable blogs say. I care what reliable sources say. Later today, I will make a list of them. I don't think it's unreasonable for a reliable source to say that Trump suggested before the invasion that perhaps Bush shouldn’t be doing it yet, and should focus on the economy, and in any event your views of reasonableness do not authorize us to ignore and contradict reliable sources. I will report back later with a list of reliable sources that you apparently wish to contradict in the voice of Wikipedia. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

C I look forward to seeing all of these sources that say Trump was telling the truth when he said "I was totally against the war in Iraq" and "Iraq is one of the biggest differences in this race. I opposed going in, and I did oppose it, despite the media saying, no, yes, no,".- MrX 14:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The language you reverted did not say, and did not say anyone else said, that Trump was telling the truth. Even if my search later today turns up nothing more than the sources you deleted, I am unconvinced that we are allowed to contradict them in the voice of Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually you used WP:SYNTH to take a fringe opinion from The Hill and a rather outlandish claim by Fox News, and conclude that Trump's claim was rated "not entirely false by a few others." This misleads our readers. You also changed "falsely claimed" to "a claim rated false by numerous media sources", thus bolstering Trump's campaign narrative that the disgusting, corrupt establishment media is putting false meaning into his words. We're not going to use Wikipedia as a platform for promoting Trump's desperate conspiracy theories and outlandish lies, supported by original research, cherry picking, and a tiny minority of questionable sources. - MrX 14:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Saying that numerous reliable sources emphasize Trump has repeatedly lied about opposing the war very obviously does not bolster Trump's campaign narrative. Give me a break.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with MrX and Buster; this is a case where reliable sources are clear and virtually unanimous in describing as false Trump's claim that he opposed the Iraq War before its inception. We need to follow the reliable sources rather than scouring the Web for ways to water them down. MastCell ^Talk 15:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

So, you're against saying that reliable sources are "virtually unanimous" and you're against scouring the web to see what reliable sources say? Incidentally, Buster has not (yet) said one word about the edit in question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think your penchant for twisting what other people say is tiresome. My point is that we need to write content by looking for the best available sources, and following where they lead. In this case, they clearly indicate that Trump is lying, repeatedly and shamelessly, about his opposition to the Iraq War. Now, if one is unwilling to accept that verdict for ideological or other reasons, it is possible to scour the Web and find a few low-quality sources here and there claiming otherwise. But that's a bad habit, because you're not actually interested in following sources; you're actively looking for sources that you can leverage to push your viewpoint and to "rebut" or counteract the conclusion found in the best available sources. MastCell ^Talk 15:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

To clarify: I support this edit by Mr X. We've played this game with "falseness" or "falcity" before. Its tiresome. In addition, I questioned this edit because I don't think Trump was referring to the Gulf War of 1990-1991? I think you and your source think he was but that's not good enough. WP:YESPOV states:Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. Stating he was referring to the Gulf War is a stretch I'm not willing to support... and...no matter what Trump and FoxNews say, after the fact; Trump supported the war. He told his good friend, Howard Stern, that he "guessed" he supported the war. He had reservations, perhaps, but he supported the war. Buster Seven Talk 18:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MrX, Buster, and MastCell. The Hill source isn't reliable, and the Fox News source doesn't actually come out and say that Trump did not support the war. So, as far as I know, there is no conflict among the reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it's quite clear that Buster and those who agree with Buster in this thread reject the explicit statement that I provided above from ABC News: "Trump then alluded to the first Gulf War in 1991, which ended with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein still in power. 'You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.'" In view of that, it's unsurprising to me that you also want to insist upon using Wikipedia's voice for statements that are not fully supported by our available reliable sources. So I won't waste my time summarizing what further reliable sources say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Haven't been involved in this discussion so far, but will interject here to say that using phrasing like your above comment is an incredibly rude accusation to level at other editors and assumes bad-faith that I simply do not see when reading this section. Here's to hoping we can all assume better of those around us! Cheers! Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 21:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wishing the first Iraq War was done correctly isn't the same thing as opposing the second war. The ABC News source says that Trump gave lukewarm support for the war, and expressly rejects the view that Trump opposed the war. Lukewarm support is still support. It would be interesting to see whether the sources collectively support adding the "lukewarm" qualifier, but that's a separate issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump gave 'lukewarm' support for the war in Iraq, but later opposed the war. That seems simple enough. It should also be mentioned that Trump was a private citizen. He was not an elected member of the House or Senate, like Senator Hillary Clinton. The weight being given to Trump's opinion of the war is out of proportion to Trump's ability to cause the war to come to fruition. There are sources that mention he was speaking as a private citizen and those should be added. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

But its proportionate to the attention it has received in sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

We are not obligated to include everything in sources. Just because the media, which supports Hillary, en masse, has decided to make this a focus, does not mean this BLP must also make it a focus. This is still a BLP. This is not The Donald Trump Attack Page. The media are attacking him, but we are not a news agency. We do not have to give out of proportion weight to what they are saying. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"Just because the media, which supports Hillary, en masse, has decided to make this a focus..." Verifiably false. The media gave this attention because Trump himself made it a huge issue during his primary campaign and used it as an attack against Jeb Bush, and he never let go of it. This was long before his and Clinton's nominations were secured. It received further media attention because it was false and it feeds into the narrative about Trump's honesty. The fact that Trump was a private citizen when he made those comments has nothing to do with the veracity of the claim. It has been hugely covered, end of story in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec) This isn't "including everything in sources". This is including a major issue in the campaign. Trump himself in fact made it an issue by, um, "touting", his opposition to the war. It came up during the debate. It's not surprising that this is being reported in media (and your own personal opinions about reliable sources are sort of irrelevant here). We are not giving out of proportion weight to anything.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You only need to say that he gave this 'lukewarm' support for the war, but then opposed the war, and is now claiming he always opposed the war. He's spinning what he said back then. But that doesn't change the fact that he had no power to bring the war to fruition. He was a private citizen. And that should also be mentioned. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Does our article claim that he had any power to influence the decision? Does it say he wasn't a private citizen? I don't see what any of that has to do with anything since it's not in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Majority of NBC polls

It seems to me the section about the first presidential debate, should read as follows: "The majority of NBC polls showed that Hillary Clinton won the debate." Currently, the sentence is suggesting that a majority of polls conducted by multiple organizations were in-favor of Clinton as the victor. However, that is incorrect, only the majority of NBC's polls came out in-favor of Clinton. NationalInterest16 (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

NationalInterest16 Do you mean NBC surveys....or NBC polls? Buster Seven Talk 06:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Well the original says "polls" which I am fine with keeping. I just think that it should be mentioned that all of those polls were conducted by NBC. NationalInterest16 (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed this, and sourced the claim that all scientific polls showed her winning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This material doesn't strike me as biographically significant. It belongs in the campaign article, but not here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Polls on debate performance do not belong here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, was just trying to make the section more accurate if it had to be there. But I also think the information could just be gotten rid of. NationalInterest16 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

p.s. I see the mention is gone from here -- but it had been duplicated at the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 without TALK there -- so figure I'd put a backnote here that I've tried to clarify by wikilinking poll to Opinion poll; remove the "All" in "All scientific polls" as source didn't say "All" ("All" is kind of open-ended and presumes no poll took place in say Texas or asked questions other than 'who won'); and then say "most voters" versus "voters" since that's more accurate about the source ... the poll said some voters felt the other way, and a smaller number felt 'neither'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Every single scientific poll conducted to measure performance in the debate has shown Clinton to be ahead of Trump. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Debate performance is relevant, just as convention performance is relevant. Those are arguably the two most important events of his 2016 general election campaign and has had a clear impact on his prospects for becoming President. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Taxes and Trump's net operating loss

I made a minor correction to the reference to the New York Times report on Trump's Net Operating Loss (NOL), to reflect what the Times actually said. The Times article, which is more or less accurate in describing the tax law, indicates that an NOL generated back in the mid-1990s would entitle the taxpayer to reduce or eliminate income taxes for up to eighteen years. That means eighteen years in total, not eighteen years subsequent to 1995. (Actually, we're talking about up to nineteen years, as explained below.)

If the NOL were generated entirely in the tax year 1995 (and we can't tell for sure in this particular case), that would have entitled Mr. Trump to a carryback of the NOL for up to three years (to 1992, 1993 and 1994), and a carryforward for up to fifteen years (1996 through 2010), until the NOL were used up.

As an aside, the news reports correctly point out that the information on the NOL was gleaned from Trump's state income tax returns, not from his 1995 federal return.

The total number of years for which no taxes might be due could actually be up to nineteen years, not just eighteen (i.e., we cannot forget the year in which the NOL was generated!). In short, if the entire NOL were generated in 1995, a taxpayer could theoretically have no Federal income tax for nineteen years -- 1992 through 2010.

There is an added complexity because of the separate rules on the Federal alternative minimum tax net operating loss. That is, some federal income tax could be due for a given year because of a statutory limitation on how much NOL can be deducted in a given year for alternative minimum tax purposes. Again, there is no way to know how this would have affected Mr. Trump -- without access to a lot of additional data.

Congress changed the tax law on NOLs years later. For example, for tax year 2015, it's a two year carryback (to 2013 and 2014) and a twenty year carryforward. Famspear (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, The New York Times' article on the taxes was rather sweepingly worded, clearly their journalist did not have much knowledge in tax law. Peter J. Reilly has done a good article at Forbes what the NYT's news article missed taxation law wise [2]. --Pudeo (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

In particular, Reilly questions Mitnick's action in talking about Trump's tax situation. I had the same sort of response. If Mitnick did not have Trump's permission to talk about Trump's taxes, Mitnick might have legal problems, at least theoretically -- particularly with respect to Federal taxes. See 26 U.S.C. § 7216. Normally, I do not even disclose whether a given person is or is not a client. Famspear (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Just some information to clarify the tax situation: I had been puzzled why he would show that enormous loss on his personal taxes when it was a business loss. But when I researched it just now, I found out that the Trump Organization is an LLC, a limited liability company, with Trump as the sole owner. That means that all of the Trump Organization's financials - profits, expenses, everything - roll onto his personal tax returns. So the bottom line is, there is no difference between his personal taxes and his business taxes; it's all personal. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the general rule under the Internal Revenue Code and related Treasury regulations is that if the LLC has only one owner, the LLC is a "disregarded entity" for Federal income tax purposes, unless a special election is made to treat the LLC some other way (for example, as a "C corporation"). If no special election is filed with the Internal Revenue Service, then the income and deductions of the LLC would generally be shown on a Schedule C (sole proprietorship) as part of the individual's Form 1040 tax return.

A more precise way to say it would be to say that there is no difference between the person's "individual" income taxes and the LLC's income taxes. A "personal" tax return (such as Form 1040) can have both "business" and "non-business" revenues and "business" and "non-business" deductions. If I set up a lemonade stand in my front yard, and I sell lots of lemonade without setting up a corporation or LLC or other separate entity, and I sell that lemonade on a regular, systemic, continuous, on-going basis, that activity is probably considered to be a "trade or business" activity for Federal income tax purposes. The revenue I realize from that sole proprietorship activity is business revenue that is reported on Schedule C of my Form 1040 tax return. If, instead, I set up a single-owner LLC for the lemonade business (and I don't file any special election), the activity is still treated as a Schedule C sole proprietorship, and the revenue is still business revenue. If my lemonade business generates a net loss, that net loss on the Form 1040 may be a Net Operating Loss (NOL).

Isn't Federal income tax law fascinating?

Uh, or, do I need to get out more? Famspear (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you don't. Wikipedia IS getting out. I mean, Wikipedia beats working, doesn't it? 0;-D And your expertise is appreciated. But personally, when I found out that this whole enormous worldwide enterprise is reported on a form 1040, I suddenly began to believe what one of his sons said: that Donald's tax form is 1500 pages long. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"I found out that the Trump Organization is an LLC ... with Trump as the sole owner." Where did you find that out, MelanieN? All I could find is this blog entry: "Trump may be the sole owner of the Trump Organization. More likely, his children have at least some ownership share." (The BPI Squirrel, blog entry, BPI Campus, October 4, 2016.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The sources are listed at The Trump Organization#Organization. Bloomberg is the source for it being an LLC, and for the officers. Trump's attorney is the source for Trump being the "sole or principal owner" of the 500-or-so entities that make up the Trump Organization. Your blog writer is just speculating. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"Various Republican lawmakers and conservative figures have disavowed him"

I removed this but it was restored to the lead. It would be ledeworthy if the lawmakers belonging to one party unanimously endorsed their presidential candidate, but that has not happened here so it doesn't seem ledeworthy. It also seems biased to include non-endorsements while omitting information from List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that it would be ledeworthy if Republicans endorsed Trump, or am I misunderstanding you? Because it would be S.O.P. if he had consolidated Republicans. What's actually happening is quite different and unexpected, and therefore more ledeworthy, though it probably only belongs in the lead of the campaign article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe what he's saying is that both parties have had divisions for a long time now, so it is routine and to be expected that a party that represents numerous factions would have some representatives not endorse a candidate from another faction (much like a number of more progressive democrats, i.e. the Bernie wing, has broken off and gone third party). If there was party unity and he was unanimously endorsed by everyone, that would be nearly unprecedented and newsworthy enough to be in the lede. As it is, this is the status quo for Presidential candidates. I remember a number of leaders not endorsing Romney as well, and major rifts between the economic conservatives and the evangelical wing going back decades. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be ledeworthy if Republicans unanimously supported Trump. Instead, his level of support is routine. "In this unconventional year, at least one conventional thing is occurring: Traditional Republican support is coalescing around the GOP nominee, Donald Trump." Seib, Gerald. "As Election Day Nears, Republicans Come Around to Trump", Wall Street Journal (Sep 23, 2016).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

His current level of support from Republicans is far from routine. Kelly Ayotte is in damage control mode because she accidentally called Donald Trump a "role model". Mark Kirk, Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse... I could go on. This disunity is not routine. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

As you said, it probably only belongs in the lead of the campaign article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be disingenuous to even hint anything other than far too many Republicans (in the words of the NYT) "seek distance from his wobbly campaign..." and the best that they can hope for is to "lose close to salvage other republican candidates" down ticket. The level of "soaring unpopularity" is far from routine; it is unprecedented. True. A number of Republican leaders did not endorse Romney. But it never got close to this many that are fleeing their nominee. . Buster Seven Talk 19:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm rethinking that. It's not that they're running from him because of policy differences. They're running from him because of him. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It is clear, from all reliable sources, that his lack of support from many prominent Republicans is far from usual, in this or any other year. (And you're right, Mobushgu, it's him, not his policies; did you see, after the vice presidential debate, how many top Republicans said or implied that they wish Pence was the nominee instead of Trump?) But I also think this belongs in the campaign article, not here in a BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

For that matter, another thing which is unprecedented: the unanimity with which daily newspapers are rejecting him, often in the strongest terms, sometimes from papers that have endorsed the Republican ticket in every election for a century or more. But again, that doesn't belong in this article, it belongs at the campaign article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

We have to be very careful when adding this sort of material. I oppose the addition of anything that says many Republicans have disavowed Trump without also including balancing material that says many other Republicans have endorsed him. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The number of Republicans who had refused to endorse him was unusually large even before the Access Hollywood tape release. Now it is even easier to argue that the fact is lead-worthy. Concerning the grievance of User:DrFleischman, the sentence could be reworked to inform readers that he has greatly divided the GOP while still leading readers to the fully correct conclusion that the number of conservatives who have disavowed him was abnormally high then and is even more so now, after late Friday. AndrewOne (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Lewd comments controversy needs a subsection and its own article page

Why is there none already? AHC300 (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You think that deserves its own Wikipedia article? User1937 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not. At least not yet. Maybe if it has some dramatic effect on the race, but not at this point. --MelanieN (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

L M A O. So sorry, just needed to let that sink in, and Mel's monotonous reaction just made it even more funny. Esmost ^πк 22:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a page on it: Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, like a good Wikipedian, I respect consensus. When you're wrong, you're wrong. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Dagnabbit. The obligatory "Pussygate" search led me only here, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk about inclusionist. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

What I have learned from this election campaign: never look at pictures of Donald Trump and never click on links provided by Martin Evans.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Never? "It brings it back to the body and to purity." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

As this is now looking like it might be historical, I strike my previous comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I interpreted "inclusionist" as referring to Honeysuckle Divine.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:THREAD, one indent level more than the comment you are replying to. No opinion as to Ms Divine's notability. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

We've had many discussions about asst Trump stuff and "Historical" often got mentioned. But not one of us could have imagined this. Its actually quite sad. Buster Seven Talk 06:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest, and that's enough of a WP:NOTFORUM vio for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

My comment was a joke and that's probably a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:THREAD. No doubt I will soon be attacked by crusading knights templar.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I meant none of us could have imagined this level of Historic. It's Historic X 2. Buster Seven Talk 06:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It's HUGE.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

As you know, I'd never joke or engage in WP:FORUM about such an historic event. Shame on you. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Shame on me indeed. I looked at pictures of HUGE numbers of NUDE persons, after saying that I would resist the temptation. People who know me know that this was out of character. I hope I will still be accepted as a candidate for administrator.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You got my vote, Jack. You have a huge following of female editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

In the words of James Bond, "I must be dreaming". Buster Seven Talk 13:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed material (medical letter, tax returns)

I noticed that the following paragraphs were recently removed from the general election section in this edit with little explanation. I'll leave it to others to decide what, if anything, is worth keeping, but figured I'd stick it here since it is pretty heavily sourced.

A medical report by his doctor, Harold Borstein M.D., showed that Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid function were in normal range. Trump says that he has never smoked cigarettes or marijuana, or consumed other drugs. He does not drink alcohol. He also has germaphobic tendencies, and prefers not to shake hands. In September 2016, Trump discussed his health on the The Dr. Oz Show.

Trump has declined to publicly release any of his full tax returns. Former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have questioned Trump's purported wealth and his unwillingness to release his tax returns, suggesting Trump might be wary of revealing a potential electoral "bombshell". Trump responded by disclosing the existence of the ongoing audit. Trump says he will not yet release records for audited years that he had "passed" because such records "mesh" and "interrelate" with current disputed IRS filings. High-income individuals are audited more frequently than the average taxpayer, but it is unusual for an individual to be audited for several consecutive years. When asked by journalist George Stephanopoulos if he would reveal his tax rate, Trump replied: "It's none of your business, you'll see it when I release. But I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible". If he does not release his tax returns before the November 2016 election, he would be the first major party candidate since Gerald Ford in 1976 not to do so. During Congressional hearings of IRS commissioner John Koskinen in September 2016, Koskinen was asked by Jerry Nadler, a Democratic representative from New York, if "there (is) anything that would prohibit someone from releasing their tax returns, if they want to, because they're under audit?". Koskinen's answer was "no". Tax attorneys differ about whether such a release is wise legal strategy.

~Awilley (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Added reflist-talk in anticipation of need. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I restored much of this. The health stuff I put into a new subsection within the "Personal life" section, instead of within the campaign section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ty Anything. I don't think any of the recent wide-of-the-mark edits by User1937 benefited the article. Can the all be undone? Buster Seven Talk 06:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I think they have been mostly undone. If they are repeated in smaller installments then that might be a better approach because it would let us take one suggestion at a time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Awilley - I think these items don't belong here - the 2016 questions of health and tax returns are related to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, not his BLP. So consider moving or deleting them out of this article. I think the tax item is covered there, but not the health check -- maybe somebody decided it was a campaign issue that's no longer significant. Markbassett (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Producer, not personality; president, not owner

Trump Organization LLC says that Trump is its chairman and president -- not its chairman and owner. Donald Trump Biography ("DONALD J. TRUMP: Chairman and President, The Trump Organization").

So does Trump's campaign. About Donald J. Trump ("Chairman and President, The Trump Organization").

The Trump Organization Legal Disclaimer suggests that Trump doesn't own The Trump Organization LLC. (Nor does it own him!) "This Website may contain Content not owned by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization LLC or any of their affiliates..."

And Black's Law Dictionary says that a limited liability company is "taxable as a partnership", not as a sole proprietorship. Trump manages the company's affairs and most likely owns a controlling share of its stock. I've yet to find a source that says he owns the company itself.

Also, Ivanka may be notable for being a "television personality" (see Musmanno Group news release) but Donald seems to be more notable for being a television producer and host. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Dervorguilla: For Federal income tax purposes, an LLC is treated as a partnership only if it has two or more owners and only if it does not file a special election to be treated as another kind of entity, such as a C corporation or an S corporation. For Federal income tax purposes, an LLC is a "disregarded entity" treated as a sole proprietorship of its owner if it has only one owner -- again, unless it files a special election to be treated as another kind of entity, such as a C corporation or an S corporation. If an LLC has only one owner, it cannot be treated as a partnership under the Internal Revenue Code. The rules are much too complex to be adequately explained in Black's Law Dictionary. Famspear (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: If a person owns a share of stock in a company, he is an owner of the company (that is, he owns the company itself), whether he holds a controlling share or not. Period. If I own one share of Microsoft, Inc., I am one of the owners of Microsoft, and I "own the company itself" in that sense. (I don't hold a controlling share, though.)

In an LLC, ownership may or may not be described as owning "shares of stock," but that's a minor point. Famspear (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Famspear: Thank you for the free tax advice!  :)

It sounds like you're saying that Trump is (1) "an" owner or (2) "the" owner, and that you haven't found out which.

Nor have I. For now, we ought to just go ahead and take out the text that says he's "the owner" (cf. BLP Regulation 2.5, § 1 (remove any unsourced contentious material)). --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a little complicated. According to this letter from Trump's lawyers, "The Trump Organization" is the collective name for about 500 entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner. Toohool (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up, Toohool. Yes, tax counsel's letter to Trump does indeed say:

"You hold interests as the sole or principal owner in approximately 500 separate entities. These entities are collectively referred to and do business as The Trump Organization."

It sounds like "The Trump Organization" may be the assumed name of a collection of separate businesses, each of them incorporated under a different name. (More at Black's Law Dictionary, s.v. "doing business as".)

Tax counsel takes care not to call him "the owner of The Trump Organization". Likewise the company itself calls him its "Chairman and President", not its "Owner". --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Does the Trump Organization belong to Donald J himself? One relevant search result suggests that someone at the organization thinks so (or at least, someone hired by the organization thought so).

Trump

www.trump.com/

The Trump Organization

Official website of Donald J. Trump's business organization. Includes portfolio (real estate, hotels, golf, entertainment and television), publications, merchandise ...

This information doesn't appear anywhere on the page itself, however (or in the page source). So someone else at the organization may think otherwise...

??? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

New wonderful photo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Skidmore took a really good shot of Trump, in my opinion.

It's high quality, and he looks very good here. The current picture is 1.5 years old, and isn't relevant to everything that's been going on with Trump right now. He's a presidential candidate now. So are we doing this, or does someone actually have a problem with this? User1937 (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that he's not smiling, shows too many wrinkles, might be less than 1.5 years old but still looks old, doesn't electrically demonstrate his electability, isn't appealing enough to women, has shadows in the photo but still wouldn't appeal to Afro-Americans, is wearing a conservative suit but still isn't appealing to the Republican establishment, looks constipated but not to the extent that that is health policy, looks like an orangutan but not enough to appeal to the conservationist lobby, doesn't look as good as Hillary Clinton and never will, and the photographer's name is Skidmore.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That made me laugh out loud hahaha. Thank you. --User1937 (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? —MartinZ02 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on, he's obviously joking... —User1937 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Still, it's an improvement over the current lot. Dervorguilla immediately switches her six votes from pic C to pic Z (or other designation).

Also, Jack Upland's remark about showing "too many wrinkles" is degrading to men. Editors need to start valuing them as more than just pretty faces.

So, who wants to start a parallel RfC? --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) 01:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure that was a joke. —User1937 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@User1937: Most of it. I do agree with you about the quality being much higher, though. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as the photo taker. Calibrador (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do you oppose it? What's the problem you have with using a recent, good looking, high quality picture of him instead of a 1,5 year old photo? User1937 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you ARE Gage Skidmore, so why do you not want your open picture to be used? That's confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1937 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Calibrador IS Gage Skidmore. And as for this photo, I personally do not think it is an improvement over the current one. In this one, he is squinting, and the light is poor. Skidmore has taken many photos of Trump, several of which were evaluated in the recent Request for Comment, and several of them are better than this one. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they are. I've looked through them, most of them are with a microphone or something else in front of him. And if they're so much better, why do we still have that picture from 2015? Nothing gets done in here, and dude, Trump isn't squinting. Look at ANY picture of him, he has SQUINTY EYES. And how in the world is light is not poor.. It's so clear? So idk, all I've seen you do is complain about EVERY single photo ever proposed here. Like honestly, if you don't want to change the photo at all, just say that, but don't be rude about every single photo ever proposed here. User1937 (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

User1937. Please stop rearranging the furniture. I'm sure your efforts are well intentioned but you won't get the results you want if you continue to make wholesale changes without even considering collaboration with fellow editors. As Melanie states, repairing what you have done will take concerted effort by many editors. You can't just barge in and make dozens of drastic changes and expect long-standing editors to sit quietly on the side lines. Buster Seven Talk 20:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest a one-year moratorium of DJT photo discussions in the article. Objective3000 (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Buster7, not good to make dozens of changes. Agree with Objective3000. We definitely need a moratorium on this photo issue. In the first place, if he wins, he'll get an official presidential photo. If he loses, what's there now will still work. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. MB298 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The lighting is harsh and the colors look very cold and stark. Look at the flag pin alone, the balance is off enough that the red isn't even there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Terrible pic. Skin is blotchy, he is squinting, Christmas-y necktie, he looks older than he is. No more photo discussions please...it is a huge waste of our precious time. Buster Seven Talk 05:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was hopeful for a looking-at-camera decent picture of Trump, but his facial expression is a grimace, and that's immediately a non-starter. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Summoned by bot, again. No need to change the current photo. Also I would like to point out that RfCs should not be the first step in a discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More recent photo

I suggest that should be published a more recent photo (2016) of Donald Trump in the infobox. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. There was an enormous, weeks-long discussion about what photo to use, see here Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 28, and I don't think anyone is anxious to re-open that question. --MelanieN (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The RfC in that section had no activity for 7 days, causing the section to be archived without a close for the RfC. No one has restored the section from archive, suggesting that everyone is happy to let the issue die. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Amen! Buster Seven Talk 21:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Let it die. Please. That poor horse. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Why no lead citations?

There doesn't appear to be a single citation in the lead. Shouldn't there be, e.g. for assertions such as "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false"? WP:LEAD suggests that at least one or two wouldn't be out of order. Sleety Dribble (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

General consensus for this article is not to have citations in the lead. Please see talk page archives for more detail.- MrX 14:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Also WP:LEADCITE. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require consensus for candidate article edits through the election.

I have proposed further editing limitations on these articles through the election at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require consensus for candidate article edits through the election. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I oppose a request for editing limitations. As political articles go, this article has not suffered the "usual" level of vandalism (if that is the reason for the proposal). With the level of editor participation, problem editing gets handled pretty quickly. Buster Seven Talk 02:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: This is not the proposal, so it's the wrong place for your Oppose. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mandruss. I may be old but I don't need a crossing guard...at least not yet. I had stated my proposal in the correct place so rather than the wrong place I see this as "an additional place".:~)... Buster Seven Talk 02:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Tax audit

Do we have verification that Trump is in fact under audit as he claims to be? This Newsweek source says we have no evidence beyond Trump's say-so. In both of the sections in which we mention his tax returns, the fact that Trump is in fact under audit appears to be assumed. We should probably qualify that language appropriately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly should say "claims to be" if it doesn't. The IRS is not allowed to verify such. Objective3000 (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Do we have to verify what he's said? Or do we have to just go with reliable sources? My understanding is that he says it, it's a campaign issue, then just put in what sources say. I don't think it's our job to verify. It's just what reliable sources say. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This could be moot if we go with a shortened version of the paragraph as suggested above. But certainly we should say "Trump says he can't disclose the returns because they are being audited"; the current wording "disclosed the existence of an audit" is giving him too much credit. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with O3000. "Trump claims..." hints at the fact that Trump could easily produce the Audit Letter from the IRS. The reader should know that the option to not produce the letter or the tax form is a choice not a requirement. Buster Seven Talk 03:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to "Trump responded that he is unable to release his tax returns because they are being audited". BTW does that paragraph really need 15 references??? --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Stating it that way implicates us in his lie. "Trump claims..." puts the onus on Trump. Buster Seven Talk 03:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and change it. Fine with me. --MelanieN (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The recording prompted Trump to make his first public apology during the campaign

That is all what the tape prompted? In what alternative reality is this article living in? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's fix the General Election campaign section

Right now, that section is quite messy, clutered with dozens of sources and literally an entire copy-pasted essay on taxes for some reason. And all in all, it's waaaaay too long. I'm proposing this:

General election campaign

Main article: United States presidential election, 2016

After becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Trump's focus shifted to the general election, urging remaining primary voters to "save [their] vote for the general election." Trump began targeting Hillary Clinton, who became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 6, 2016, and continued to campaign across the country. One month before the Republican National Convention, Secret Service agents thwarted an assassination attempt on Trump by a 20-year-old British man illegally residing in the U.S. during one of his rallies in Las Vegas.

Trump accepting the Republican nomination at the RNC, July 2016

Clinton had established a significant lead in national polls over Trump throughout most of 2016. In early July, Trump and Clinton became tied for the first time following the FBI's conclusion of its investigation into Clinton's ongoing email controversy. FBI Director James Comey concluded Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified government material.

On July 15, 2016, Trump announced Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. Trump and Pence were formally nominated by the Republican Party on July 19, 2016, at the Republican National Convention. Two days later, Trump officially accepted the nomination in a 75-minute speech inspired by Richard Nixon's 1968 acceptance speech. The historically long speech was watched by nearly 35 million people and received mixed reviews, with 40% of Americans reacting positively while 48% of Americans saying it did not reflect their views.

Following the RNC, Trump became tied in national polls with Clinton following a 3 to 4 percentage point convention bounce. A week later, Clinton received a 7 percent convention bounce after her appearance at the DNC, extending her lead significantly in national polls at the start of August.

Two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 recording surfaced in which Trump is heard discussing women using vulgar language and talking about his efforts to seduce a married woman. The recording, largely referred to by the media as the Trump Tapes, prompted Trump to make his first public apology during the campaign.

References

As far as I know, this covers the issue pretty well. Feel free to leave suggestions for adding or adapting certain parts, perhaps a part on the taxes etc. But I do believe this is already a big improvement on what we currently have. Let's work on this together, alright? :) —User1937 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be an improvement; it has gotten too cluttered for a biography. I think your simplification of the convention section is good, although you may have lost or misplaced a reference in the process. And I do think we need a brief mention of the tax issue, but not as long as it currently is. Tweaks I propose:

• Reference problem: Reference 7 shows Trump in the lead post convention. And there is no reference for the next sentence, about him being tied and having a 3-4 percent convention bounce.

• Add a one-sentence paragraph: Trump has declined to publicly release any of his tax returns, breaking a presidential campaign tradition that goes back to 1976.

• I do think moving the tapes out of the "debates" section is an improvement. But I would rewrite the last sentence to eliminate "largely referred to by the media as the Trump Tapes"; that really isn't a very common meme except as a hashtag. Instead I would add more about the uproar it caused. My suggestion:

Two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 recording surfaced in which Trump is heard discussing women using vulgar language, talking about his efforts to seduce a married woman, and bragging that as a "star" he can kiss or fondle women at will. The recording touched off an immediate media and political uproar. Several Republicans renounced their support of Trump and some called for him to withdraw from the race. Trump issued a public apology, his first of the campaign, but said he would not withdraw.

References

Thanks for bringing this here for discussion, that is exactly the right thing to do with a controversial article like this. MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read the section on taxes yet (so can't comment on it), but I disagree that your proposals above that part are an improvement:

* It is more correct to say that Clinton's lead narrowed, rather than tied. Trump only ever tied or narrowly lead Clinton in 2 days in May and 2 days in July in the RCP polling average[3]. The HuffPo poll aggregator[4] shows her in a lead throughout the race, and so do the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregator[5].

* I don't understand why you prefer to mention the specific numbers in one poll on the reaction to his convention speech as opposed to the overall results in two polls.

* I lean towards keeping the text on how Trump's post-convention bounce measures up with past bounces. The convention is arguably the most important event of the election after the debates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

it has gotten too cluttered for a biography. - For use with WP:SIZERULE, which applies to articles in general, the current readable prose size is 81 kB. I assume you could substitute "dramatically trimmed" for "divided". My only strong opinion is that it's damned annoying to wait about 10 seconds for a Wikipedia article to finish downloading. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rappeport source links to a source with contradictory data; the article should mention both. Here's "draft UM/d" (the text is mostly from drafts written by User1937 and MelanieN and compiled, condensed, revised, and supplemented by dervorguilla).

After becoming the presumptive nominee, Trump shifted his focus to the general election. A month before the Republican National Convention, an undocumented British alien tried to assassinate him at a rally in Las Vegas; the attempt was thwarted by federal Secret Service agents.

On July 15, 2016, Trump announced Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate. They were formally nominated on July 19, 2016. Trump accepted the nomination two days later, in an historically long 75-minute speech watched by nearly 35 million people; it received mixed reviews.

[Cruz withholds support; polls bounce around.]

Unlike Clinton, Kaine, and Pence, Trump has declined to release any of his tax returns, thereby breaking a bipartisan campaign tradition that began in 1976 and was also broken by Bush/Cheney.

Two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump confides to Billy Bush that he once tried to seduce a married woman and says he found that as a "star" he could kiss or fondle many women at will. Both speakers used vulgar language. The recording touched off a media and political uproar. Several Republican politicians renounced their support for Trump, and some called on him to withdraw from the race. Trump issued an official apology, his first of the campaign.

References

The claim that "Trump would not withdraw" is so superlatively noncontentious that it doesn't even need to be mentioned here (one would hope!). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump® value

More material about brand value, branded facilities, and things named after Donald J. Trump (or the Trump family?):

Adding the Trump name to virtually any product or service increased its perceived value, according to Brand Keys. In 2015, that "added value" was anywhere from 20% to 37%, depending on the category, said Robert Passikoff... "That's a range enviable by any category or brand standards."

As of June 2016 ... the added value of the Trump brand in entertainment was as high as 43%. But that added value has been significantly diminished since the video surfaced. The perceived added value in TV and entertainment ... fell 13 percentage points as of Oct. 9, while the value of the Trump brand dropped 8 percentage points in real estate and 6 percentage points in country clubs and golf clubs...

Alexandra Bruell, "Is Trump Teflon? Most Say No as Brand Perception Takes a Hit", WSJ (Oct. 11, 12:24 ET). (See also copyedits of Oct. 11, 01:08 ET and Oct. 10, 23:24 ET.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

We how have more of this topic from other WP:RS:

• Michelle Castillo, "Tape release further erodes Trump brand: Survey" http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/10/tape-release-further-erodes-trump-brand-survey.html
• Danika Fears, "Donald Trump’s vile video comments could hurt his brand" http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/donald-trumps-vile-video-comments-could-hurt-his-brand/
• Jennifer Rubin, "Commentary: Donald Trump's brand is now a total disaster" http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-woman-assault-creepy-20161010-story.html

Note that the change values being reported seem to be measured in percentage points, so that the hit to the brand value, measured as a percentage ratio, would actually be considerably higher. What I find remarkable is actually how little the perceived brand value has dropped, given the "grab them by the pussy" comment.

-- The Anome (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've now added a reference to the above issue to the article, supported by three of the cites given above. -- The Anome (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"Following the revelation" -- when?

"Following the revelation of Trump's 2005 remarks". The dating here is unclear. The revelation, and all of the subsequent fallout, appear to have all happened in the last week or so, at least going by the Washington Post citation that appears to just be about the 2005 video coming to light and dates to October 7. If this reading is correct, then technically the WP source is cited in error; it should only be used for the statement that "It was revealed that in 2005 Trump made lewd remarks on the set of Days of Our Lives". Or is it being used simply for the quotation because all quotations need citations? If so, it seems like it would be better to give the quotation it's own sentence ("The comments included ...").

But the date needs to be clarified either way.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Far-right politician instead of politician

I think the description "politician" in the lead doesn't really do it. Firstly, unlike most other people described as "politician" in the lead of their biographical article, he doesn't have any track record as a politician; he has never held any political office. His political activity is limited to making prejudiced/discriminatory comments towards various minorities and towards women in media outlets, comments that are widely regarded as politically extreme and that would send people to jail in countries like e.g. Germany, over the last year or so. His views clearly belong in the far right tradition and are also considered as such by experts (e.g. Cas Mudde[6]). Thus, "far-right politician" is a more accurate description than "politician." --Tataral (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Not even Goldwater or Buchanan are so-classified in their leads. Objective3000 (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Remember we must follow WP:NPOV. Trump has formed a campaign for President of the United States, first by winning the nomination of the Republican party, and now as one of the two major candidates in the general election. He has also had political activity in the past, such as exploring a presidential campaign in 1988, 2000, and 2012. I think he meets the definition of "politician" – he even claims himself to be such. MB298 (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not think that would be accurate. A majority of people in the right-wing of the Republican party view Donald Trump as a moderate and as a Rhino. I also take issue with your comment that people who are discriminatory towards minorities must necessarily be right-wing. How did you come to that conclusion? NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sentence on sexual misconduct in lede paragraph on campaign

I added a sentence on the most covered isue of the campaign, to the lede paragraph on the campaign. 21:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I boldly added the following sentence to the lede paragraph devoted to the campaign: "Since October 7th, much of the coverage of the general election has focused on allegations—made by eight separate women, and bolstered by an audio recording in which Trump appears to brag about committing sexual assault—of sexual violence allegedly committed by Trump." This was since deleted by User:Epicgenius, who cited "BLP."

I don't see the BLP violation; the allegations have been covered at length by reliable sources, and if we don't pass judgment on the truth or falsity of the allegations--other than noting that they come from at least 8 women, include groping and raping, etc--there is no problem. Moreover, as I noted, it is the most-covered issue in the campaign, a fact confirmed by Martha Raddatz at the debate. Thus a mention of the allegations--based on the tape and the statements of women, both of which are described in Wikipedia's Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page--deserves one sentence in the lede.

I invite Epic Genius to state his case as to why there is a BLP violation. If he is unable to do so, I encourage other users to re-add a tweaked vversion of my deleted sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 21:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

the most-covered issue in the campaign - I'd say that's a judgment call on your part. In any case, this is a bio of Trump's entire life and, in the greater picture, this probably does not warrant mention in the lead unless the media gives it sole credit for his losing the election. See leads of Bill Clinton and Gary Hart for comparison. This article does already include content about this, just not in the lead, and there is another article about his campaign. There is also another article about this specific controversy. That's enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that a new article on this specific topic survived an AfD, one day after creation, with a snow result, in one day, would suggest that the topic is rather important. OTOH, I always tend to dislike recentism. Objective3000 (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The sexual misconduct issues are clearly important enough to be mentioned in the lead. First of all, he is recorded on tape admitting to such acts, secondly, his behaviour and comments towards women have received an enormous amount of media coverage, not only recently, but over a longer period of time as well, and on a global scale. Thirdly, it already has a significant impact on his campaign[7]. I should also mention that he himself has made sexual misconduct allegations the most important point of his own presidential campaign, so this is certainly not one of many less important issues or anything like that, but clearly the most high profile issue of his presidential campaign/five minutes of fame. [8]. --Tataral (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel an RfC coming on. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

These are clearly important issues for the election and ones that should be on the page. However, these issues belong in their own section not in the lead. I would also note that this is being treated completely differently on the HRC page. On the HRC page her comments about Bill Clinton's accusers haven't been included at all. Not one line in the entire article. Yet, on the Donald Trump page, its been insisted upon that not only should the information be included, it should be included in the lead. How exactly is this a fair representation? NationalInterest16 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction noted

Please be kind, I'm not wiki savy and (thankfully) cannot change the page myself.

Under 'The Apprentice' heading, last para, quote 213, it says NBC cancelled their business relations with DT due to neg comments on migrants on June 29 2015.

Further on under the heading of 'Involvement in politics 1988-2015', last para, it says DT opted to not renew the contract due to his potential presidential run - dated FEBRUARY 2015.

Seeing as DT cancelled the business relations first and the possibility that the first quote from NBC may have been deliberate propaganda against DT (because not relevant); it should be removed. (Edit: or altered)

Dormouse7 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I adjusted the second instance to more closely reflect the cited article. Objective3000 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

2nd edit : But ......

I hope this goes to the right place!

I wanted the contradiction to be erased. Keep the NBC quote if you like but add something like 'but DT had already cancelled their business dealings/contract in Feb 2015' - add quote and delete from second section. Please :)Dormouse7 (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormouse7 (talk • contribs) Dormouse7 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I was kind enough to not suggest that your edit here was WP:NPOV, and simply removed the apparent contradiction. But, that's how it appears. WP is based on reliable sources WP:RS. You will need to frame your complaint according to WP guidelines. Objective3000 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion notice

More participation is needed in a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Objectifying women, in the hopes of avoiding an RfC. The article is about allegations of sexual misconduct, as per its title. Currently, it also includes an entire level 2 section, over 500 words, about allegations of things that imply sexism but do not rise to the level of sexual misconduct. Should this material stay or go? Please comment there. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved for the time being. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Article structure

We currently have a subsection titled "Trump–Bush recording controversy" and another subsection titled "Sexual assault accusations". They should be together in the same section, so I plan to make it so, unless someone beats me to it. All of it occurred during the 2016 general election campaign, so that's the best place for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a logical merge. --Pete (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that I'm suggesting to juxtapose rather than merge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced content in Sexual assault allegations

Please provide inline citation for unsourced content in Donald Trump#Sexual assault allegations. The sentence with "multiple women presented new stories of ... People magazine" doesn't have any inline citations. The next citation basically covers only "Jane Doe" case. Per WP:BLPREMOVE unsourced or poorly sourced content must be removed immediately. I used expression "sexual misconduct" because that is totally non-contentious in this case and didn't consided blanking the whole sentence a viable option. My believe is that some citation were left out mistakenly, but not all removed content can be verified. Pinging Sabot Cat who originally added this section, maybe they can clarify. Politrukki (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be breaching the WP:1RR restriction on spurious grounds. The multiplicity of the complaints is well-sourced, as are the precise words of "rape", "sexual assault", "groping" and so on. I suggest you self-revert, allow discussion, follow consensus. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have made two consequent edits and one revert within 24-hour period stating WP:BLP reasons for making the revert. If you think that removed content can be verified, could you perhaps mention some sources that verify that multiple women have presented new stories alleging rape after the lewd tapes were published, and say why none of these sources are cited in the article? I believe this is the People magazine piece mentioned in our article and this is the NYT piece. Neither of them mention any new rape accusations. I'm seriously trying to figure out what we are talking about here. For example this NPR piece mentions only the "dialed back" allegation of Ivana Trump and our subarticle mentions that Ivana Trump and "Jane Doe" have made rape accusations. Neither of them are new accusations and I don't know if neither of them have made any allegations publicly. When you have provided the sources I asked, maybe we can discuss how this paragraph can be improved. I don't for example object using term "sexual attack" in this section that is what multiple reliable sources use, and if we actually cite the sources using inline citations. Politrukki (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This edit and this one are identical, both reverting to previous wording of "sexual misconduct". In this edit you removed a New York Times piece which is a reliable source, providing details of sexual harassment. I'll agree that no new claims of rape have been brought forward since the tape was released, though a fresh claim of rape was made a few days previously. This needs to be worded accurately, I agree, but I find your repeated assertion that "sexual assault" and "sexual harassment" is unsourced to be inaccurate. --Pete (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Sexual touching". Is that like when Donald thanked his daughter for a great speech at the Republican Convention, gave her a congratulatory peck on the cheek, but also touched her lower hip area? Buster Seven Talk 20:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "Sexual feeling"? The key point is the lack of consent, as opposed to what people do normally. --Pete (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Racial discrimination

The section dealing with the Justice Department charges of racial discrimination in housing used to include the fact -- not allegation -- that Trump's managers had refused to offer apartments to black "testers," and then offered apartments to white testers who arrived soon afterwards. That fact has been deleted, and simply says that it was settled with "no admission of wrongdoing", implying that there was no wrongdoing. This is a false implication. Many WP:RS reported that Trump's managers refused to rent to black testers, and we should say that.

Tony Schwartz, Trump's ghostwriter, said that this was a deceptive strategy that was typical of Trump:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/opinion/campaign-stops/donald-trumps-playbook-:for-smearing.html

Donald Trump’s Playbook for Smearing

David Leonhardt

OCT. 17, 2016

“This is a classic example of where Trump begins to demonstrate something he talks about all the time today, which is he’s a counterpuncher. So somebody comes after him and says that he’s done something nefarious and horrible, and he just goes back at them with all guns blazing — you know, boom, boom, boom. And admits nothing, never admit anything, never say you made a mistake, just keep coming.

And if you lose, declare victory. And that’s exactly what happened there. He lost as clearly as you could lose but he loudly proclaimed his victory.”

This quotation comes from Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter of Donald Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal.” Schwartz is talking about Trump’s response to a 1970s lawsuit against his company for refusing to rent apartments to African-Americans.

I think that at the very least, the WP article should include a description of the fact that Trump's managers had refused to offer apartments to black "testers," and then offered apartments to white testers who arrived soon afterwards. However, given the speed with which it was deleted in the past, I'm not optimistic. --Nbauman (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI an Arbitration Enforcement complaint has been filed

FYI an Arbitration Enforcement complaint has been filed concerning this article. See this thread if you are interested.

SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying

Re this edit by Lord Laitinen, I think it's neither neutral nor verifiable to say that Trump later "clarified" his position on immigration of Muslims. Many folks would say he flip-flopped on that issue and that his current policy position was made less clear. Better to simply use the word "stated," as supported by our guideline on words to watch out for. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I think it's clear that you are being politically motivated to cause a fuss about such a minor vocabulary change, and that it is you who needs a little bit of a lesson in neutrality. It is obvious from the context in the article that Trump clarified his position. He originally stated that he would ban all Muslims from entering the country, then later CLARIFIED (stated) that he would focus on countries not vetted by the government. Immigration is not an important topic to me in this election at all, and my edit was not politically motivated. However, I am glad to say that I support Trump because Hillary Clinton's beliefs on social issues, especially abortion and marriage, are ignorant and contrary to my religion. I truly believe that Hillary Clinton is a lunatic who will do irreparable harm to our nation, but I would never let this personal belief interfere in my editing habits, and I take umbrage at your above remarks. In other words, there are areas I avoid editing specifically because I am politically motivated by them; immigration is not one of those areas. I hope I have clarified this enough for you, and God bless! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a habit of fussing over such minor vocabulary changes. There is a whole page about that at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Unless you can present fairly strong RS support for "clarifying", you are committing original research and we should opt for the more neutral word. State and clarify are not synonyms as you appear to claim. Thank you for your political opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I belatedly see that the OP already linked to that page and you ignored it. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I am an extremely skilled linguist and I understand context. I know the definitions of "clarified" and "stated," and though they are not synonyms, I can see how both would be appropriate based on the context in this article. I don't know what you mean by your second statement; if there is something with which I can assist you, please reply with a more detailed response. I do not like to "ignore" anything, especially if it paints me negatively. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was that you appeared not to absorb the message of that page, which appears to render your claims of politically motivated editing baseless—and a violation of WP:AGF. The OP explained adequately why "clarified" is not neutral here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

My opinion was, and still is, that "clarified" is no more or less neutral than "stated." However, I do not wish to enter into conflicts with you or the editor who started the section. I am upset that such a minor, inconspicuous change caused this much of an upheaval. Also, I wish to point out that I did not directly accuse anyone of politically-motivated editing, and thus, did not fail to AGF. I was first accused of failing to uphold neutrality, to which I responded that the revert of my edit was certainly less neutral than the edit itself. I hope this clears everything up, and I really do not wish to elaborate any further on this. God bless, and happy editing to all! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You are on record as saying, and I quote, "I think it's clear that you are being politically motivated". That directly contradicts the statement, "I did not directly accuse anyone of politically-motivated editing". Where have I seen this behavior before? God bless you as well! ―Mandruss ☎ 06:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen, welcome to the editing of political articles. You happened to step right into the hornet's nest, so you can expect each word and phrase to be picked over. I meant you no wrong by referring to the non-neutrality of the "clarifying" language. In my view, the best we can do is to focus on our policies and guidelines and avoid casting aspersions on our fellow editors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)