Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Bankruptcy details

Currently the details of the Trump's corporate bankruptcies are documented in three sections of the article: the "Business Career" section, the "Trump Taj Mahal" section, and the "Bankruptcy" section. This seems excessive and undue to me. Also, it's not clear to me why Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Tower are broken out into their own sections. (There are other major buildings that Trump has been play a significant role in building.) I'm wondering if it would make sense to fold these 2 sections (Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Tower) into the Business Career section, in order to reduce redundancy. Any thoughts on this?CFredkin (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi CF-I sent you a note on your TP. I agree with putting AC casinos together. Is there any way to word this so that the bank-ruptures of properties/projects that were licensed with Trump's name be somehow mentioned here correctly? That may help readers and even editors who are trying to update, because there were quite a few-(no official tally as far as I know), of the licensed projects that went into bankruptcy and foreclosure. (something like how Trump licensees his name and brand to companies/projects, but with the caveat that it is NOT a "Trump" bankruptcy? The_Trump_Organization#Real estate licensing-some can be found here, but some of the ones on this list did go into foreclosure/bankruptcy but it is not mentioned in the articleTeeVeeed (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not averse to folding Trump Tower and Trump Taj Mahal into the Business Career section, where they would probably merit sub-sections. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Should bankruptcy(s) have it's own section? It is a strategy he has used, and it is a concern to readers and editors I am sure--so maybe it would be easier to kind-of condense all of the bankruptcy into one section, and break that section up into where he was more responsible vs. where his brand/licensed was used, and/or he was not in control?TeeVeeed (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump Taj Mahal

Fellow editors, There appears to be a disagreement played out in the edit summaries of edits adding & removing material from the Trump Taj Mahal section. We would be better to have the discussion on the merits of that material here on the Talk page. On the basis that this article is a BLP, and there are questions as to whether the inclusion is WP:UNDUE (and therefore not aligned with WP:NPOV); and in the spirit of WP:BRD, I will remove the material pending formation of a consensus. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be undue, but (since the sources provided don't mention Donald) it is definitely WP: original research.CFredkin (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Don't include. The cited WSJ article from Feb. 11, 2015 by Peg Brickley says: "Mr. Trump hasn’t been involved in the management of the casinos for seven years." This suggests the material is okay for our article about Trump Taj Mahal, but not for our article about Donald Trump. As far as this New York Times article is concerned, it doesn't mention Trump at all. If Trump had named his business something else (like "Make America Great Again Corporation") then his last name wouldn't even appear in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me the $477,700 fine from 1998 for failure to report currency transactions is relevant, given that Trump was then an active casino manager (until 2007/2008). The $10 million fine from 2015 (and warnings from 2010 and 2012) is mentioned with the caveat from the WSJ that he was not actively involved in management. He did have a licensing agreement and retained, I believe, a 10% ownership interest. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, the WSJ article specifically states that Trump was not involved in managing the casino at the time that the violations occurred. The information does not belong in his bio.CFredkin (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Trump was certainly involved in management in 1998 and in 2003, and the Reuters article states that the 2015 settlement resolves violations going back to 2003. The Wall Street Journal states that Trump was not an active manager for seven years as of January 2015, when the settlement was reached. Read the sources. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• I note that essentially the same information has been re-added. The onus is on editors to achieve a Talk page consensus prior to taking such action. I would suggest that no such consensus has been reached. Please discuss and form a consensus. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, in keeping with Bank Secrecy Act statutes designed to thwart money laundering. The casino was later assessed an additional $10 million fine in January 2015, settling currency transaction violations going back to 2003 about which it had been "repeatedly warned"; according to The Wall Street Journal, however, Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino for seven years as of the date of the settlement.

References

That's the copy I've proposed, and I note that it incorporates as sources both a 1998 New York Times article on the $477,700 fine and the February 2015 article from the WSJ which distances Trump from the $10 million fine, noting that he was not an active manager at the time. Note that the 2015 fine was the result of a settlement, after more than a decade of investigation, and came in the form of an unsecured debt against the bankruptcy (i.e. the government will only get $50,000 of this $10 million, although this paragraph obviously does not delve into those weeds). Is this copy acceptable? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Vesuvius Dogg: Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and User:Ryk72 above, please remove your edit until there is consensus here for it to be included.CFredkin (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This material is relevant to Trump Taj Mahal but not to Trump himself. It should be removed from this page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph per CFredkin's request, but reject the notion that the $477,700 money laundering fine in 1998 is irrelevant to Trump given that he was the active casino manager at the time. Also, the copy is footnoted to contemporary reliable sources. Please discuss. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Not everything that can be sourced to reliable sources is necessarily relevant to this main bio page. This article has become particularly choppy lately. Some consolidation and weeding would be appreciated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep/restore the deleted material. This involves charges and sanctions imposed on Trump, if I am looking-at it correctly. Therefore it is part of his personal bio.TeeVeeed (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You're not looking at it correctly. The charges and sanctions were imposed on Trump Taj Mahal.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

During the time periods mentioned, Trump was an executive, or owner, or whatever highly-responsible position he was named-as, (at those times), I'm going to go-with keeping my Keep/Restore vote with the request that the statements be parsed even further to make it less murky, or confusing-with when Trump Entertainment, (which Trump was less-involved, but WP readers cannot be expected to know that), was responsible, as-opposed to Trump-whatever it was called when the dealings occurred under Trump's supervision.TeeVeeed (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

-Declaration WP:COI full disclosure, Trump signed my paychecks for a few years, and I never shook his hand because of the germaphobia-thing, lol, but I have no personal agenda or problem. A lot of people here were employed by Trump.TeeVeeed (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@CFredkin: You previously deleted this material, stating that it was "original research" and not grounded in reliable, secondary sources. I don't believe that is the case. The paragraph was moved to this page at your request for discussion. Would you care to weigh in, and perhaps suggest emendations or compromise language? Many thanks. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The WSJ article is the only source that mentions Trump and it indicates that he hadn't been actively managing the casino during the period. You can't combine information from multiple sources to make a claim in Wikipedia. That's WP:original research.CFredkin (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin: The Reuters source (as well as the FinCEN press release) makes clear the $10 million fine linked back to violations occurring in 2003, before Trump stepped down. And wasn't Trump in charge in 1998, with the $477,700 fine was reported by the New York Times? Do you also feel that the fact Mr Trump stepped down from active management in 2007-2008 makes it "original research" to report the fines paid by the casino under his active management in 1998? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what I feel or think. We can't combine information from different sources in order to make a statement about a subject in Wikipedia. That's clearly original research. Until there's a source that indicates that Trump was personally responsible when the casino was penalized, the information doesn't belong in his bio.CFredkin (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump was clearly in charge in 1990/1991 and remained so in 1998 when the $477,700 currency exchange violation fine was assessed. Are you saying we can't include that? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've stated why that violates policy multiple times already. At this point, I'm going to wait for the appearance of new sourcing or information before commenting further.CFredkin (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you have avoided explaining why you believe the 1990/1991 currency reporting violations, for which Trump Taj Mahal paid a $477,700 fine in 1998 while still heading the casino, should not be included. This is reliably sourced to The New York Times. That is not OR. I am a highly amenable editor but your intransigence on this issue, and inability to respond to this specific question, is trying my patience. Do you have a problem with The New York Times as a reliable, secondary source? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My issue with using the NYT article that you're referring to as a source for the content you're trying to add in this article is that Donald Trump is not mentioned in the source. I've said that repeatedly. Once again, I'm going to wait for the appearance of new sourcing or information before commenting further.CFredkin (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, are you really using WP:SYNTH, a part of WP:OR, to prevent Wikipedia from reporting on this case? Let's review the rules in question (and not forget about WP:IAR): Wikipedia must not contain original material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. So by this rule, you wish to say, "Trump has no relationship to the $477,000 fine paid by Trump Taj Mahal in 1998 for failing to file reports required by the Bank Secrecy Act" and therefore, "Placing a reference to the $477,000 fine on this Wikipedia page amounts to original research, which is unattributable, or at least doesn't pass the inline citation standard of WP:BLP." CFredkin, this is zealous application of the rule and not a good reason to remove the material. If necessary, I would write, "in 1998 Trump Taj Mahal was fined $477,000 for ___. Donald Trump maintained over 51% ownership of Trump Taj Mahal at the time and served as chief ___" to satisfy this WP:SYNTH application, but even this is really unnecessary. WP does not have to become stupid and turn backflips in order to avoid synthesizing "something happened to Trump Taj Mahal in 1998" with "Donald Trump was the majority shareholder and leading executive of Trump Taj Mahal in 1998." Such a synthesis is definitely not original research, and removing content because of such a synthesis is a misuse of the principle. SocraticOath (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, contemporary references are available which link Trump Taj Mahal, then controlled indisputably by Donald Trump, with the 1998 fine (https://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/html/19980128.html, http://calvinayre.com/2015/03/11/casino/taj-mahal-can-keep-trumps-name-faces-anti-money-laundering-charges/). If you think the first one isn't a good reference because it's a press release, please say that below so that we can continue this discussion. A press release which says exactly the same thing as news isn't guilty of being the wrong kind of reference. SocraticOath (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The Fincen press release you referenced above doesn't even mention Donald Trump. Regarding the article on calvinayre.com, I'm not sure that's a reliable source, but regardless it's silent on the matter of Donald Trump's potential involvement with the casino's money laundering charges. Your many additions to this article indicate that reliable sources have been covering Trump's activities closely for a long time. If those sources are silent on the matter of Trump's potential involvement with money laundering charges at this casino, then I don't think we should violate WP policy regarding WP:original research in order to insert such a claim here.CFredkin (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep/restore the deleted material. This information, cited back to The New York Times, is reliably sourced. The "original research" reasoning being used to delete it is unfounded. Maslowsneeds (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I just notified a deleting editor who deleted this again, that there are TWO properly formatted consensuses here, both for Keep/Restore. At this point, consensus is Keep/Restore as far as I can tellTeeVeeed (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. In addition to myself, User:Ryk72, User:Anythingyouwant, and User:William S. Saturn have all expressed concerns about this content here.CFredkin (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you speaking on behalf of others ? Others can't register their own opinions on their own behalf ? Also, consensus is not a majority vote. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Maslowsneeds (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In response to the comment on the edit reversion, the NYTimes published the findings that led to the fines. There shouldn't be a cramped reading into the length of the NYTimes' news brief about what was important about Trump himself. That Trump was owner/operator of the Taj is material to the fines being included here, and the NYTimes didn't have to report all the facts about the investigation that led to the fines for the fines to be material to Trump. It was his company, and, at the time when it was his company, an investigation led to the imposition of the fines. Maslowsneeds (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump was not the owner. A publicly traded company, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, purchased the Taj Mahal in 1996, in a transaction that valued the property at $890 million. Publicly traded companies are owned by shareholders, and typically have boards of directors, and executives who answer to that board.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. In 1998, Trump was chairman and 41% owner of a then publicly-listed company (retaining control of the majority of preferred voting stock) at a time when the Treasury assessed a $477,700 fine for currency trading violations occurring from April 1990 (the month the casino opened, when Trump was incontestably the owner) to December 1991 (by which time he had ceded about half his ownership stake to junk-bondholders). Kind of puts him front and center, but who is to say Trump bears any personal responsibility? Maybe he was too busy going bankrupt to operate his company within the law. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that including content which is sourced to articles that don't mention Donald Trump in his bio is a straightforward violation of WP:original research..... One can use your argument as justification to include references to anything that happened at the State Department while Hillary was Secretary of State or at the Clinton Foundation, regardless of whether she's mentioned in the sources. I encourage you to try applying your standard at Hillary's bio, and see what happens.CFredkin (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't edit Mrs. Clinton's bio, but I'd argue that if she's being held accountable for falling short in her day-to-day supervision of the Benghazi mission security detail, Mr. Trump surely ought to be held accountable for the fact that, per the IRS, half the required currency transactions above $5,000 at his namesake casino, even in 2003 when he was chairman and CEO, went unreported. I don't think Mr. Trump gets a pass, on the assumption he was too high up in the organization to be responsible. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have concerns too. But for the sake of determining consensus in a lengthy discussion, a bolded vote should be made if one wants to support one side or the other.TeeVeeed (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

After the IPO, Trump retained a 41% stake and was the chairman of Trump Entertainment Resorts. (http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/trump-hotel-casinos-pay-failure/) I think this is an acceptable place to insert language distancing Trump from TER, although this distance is really pretty small. And when it comes to the Business Career section, this is totally within the scope of the article. Imagine if we couldn't write about Yahoo's CEO's performance in that role because she wasn't a majority shareholder herself! SocraticOath (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If not only the NYT but also every other reliable source on Earth chose to attribute this to the company rather than Trump specifically, then we ought to respect that. They may have had good journalistic reasons for doing it that way. Not only was a board of directors ultimately responsible, and not only was Trump a minority shareholder, but also this was a purely civil matter (not criminal), and was not unusual at casinos (there were civil penalties from 12 Atlantic City casinos over the last five years, reports the NYT article).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The WP article about Donald Trump is about a businessman (among other things), and has a section on his business career. Something happened at a company that was under Trump's CEO leadership, and of which Trump was the lead shareholder. Are you saying that it's original research to include this story here? Are you saying that it would be inappropriate point of view to include it here? Are you saying that it's not verifiable that Trump the man had anything to do with what happened at a company that was this close to him? Maybe the section should be written to make these relationships clear. But holding reporting on any other CEO to this standard would be absurd, because you would never be able to say, "CEO Bob Roberts did this" or "CEO Jim James allowed this to happen..." It would be like Wikipedia denies that CEOs receive authority from the board and are thus not responsible for the actions of the company in any way, personally or even in some alternately-defined businessy sense. SocraticOath (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, Trump was CEO. As CEO, he was in charge of carrying out the affairs and plans for the business. The affairs included conduct that were found suspect, investigated, and resulted in fines for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. It's material to the time when he each was CEO and had authority to execute on the affairs of the company on behalf of all shareholders and directors. Add to that, he was the majority shareholder. This is material. Maslowsneeds (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course we can say "CEO Bob Roberts did this" or "CEO Jim James allowed this to happen" if reliable sources say so. For example, see Warren Anderson (American businessman).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, are you saying that this article can't cover the $477,000 fine against Trump Taj Mahal in 1998, and the other fines, because of verifiability / original research? You are asserting that for us to report "the company did something while Trump was in leadership" is not supported by the references, or is making an unsupportable synthesis of references. Or are you waiting around for the pro-inclusion editors to provide language that correctly distinguishes between Trump and his company? SocraticOath (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's take another pass at the re-write of the section in question:

In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, while the casino was still privately owned by Donald Trump. The statutes cited, of the Bank Secrecy Act, were intended to thwart money laundering. In 2015, government assessed a $10 million fine against the casino, settling currency transaction violations of the Bank Secrecy Act going back to 2003. Since Donald Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino business since about 2008, not all of the violations of the settlement occurred under his watch.

References

Any comments? Votes?SocraticOath (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

SocraticOath (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your "proposal" is basically the same as the original edit. It does nothing to address the issue of original research. The only source you've cited that actually mentions Donald Trump is the WSJ article, and it specifically states that Trump was not involved.CFredkin (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with CFredkin for the reasons stated. If you cannot find a single reliable source linking "Donald" to this stuff, then there must be a reason why he wasn't explicitly linked to it. You may be able to find a reliable source linking him to it, and I encourage you to look harder. For example, perhaps you can find the full text of this article:

“ TRUMP TAJ MAHAL FINED $477,000 \ IN '90 AND '91, IT VIOLATED ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING RULES ON REPORTING CASH TRANSACTIONS OVER $10,000.

Author: John Curran, ASSOCIATED PRESS Date: January 29, 1998

Publication: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) Page: B02

Federal banking regulators have slapped Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort with a $477,000 fine for violations of anti-money laundering regulations in 1990 and 1991, officials said yesterday.

It was the biggest fine ever levied against a casino for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.

On 106 occasions between April 1990 and December 1991, the casino failed to file forms for transactions above $10,000, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury's financial crimes division.

”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, this is what you seem to be saying: "For WP to include on this page a story about a fine levied against a company that was operated by Donald Trump, during a time when he was the majority shareholder and CEO, but for which the news doesn't name Trump as CEO of the company, would be original research." There is no dispute about the facts of the fine, which company was implicated, or who was responsible for that company's actions during the years in question. Or are you claiming that for the WP article to report who the CEO and owner was at the time, a verifiable fact, is inappropriate synthesis? SocraticOath (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's inappropriate synthesis. If there was a reason for directly linking Donald Trump to this, then why would every single reliable source decline to report that link? Your hurdle is not high: just find a reliable source that makes the link. In searching for a reliable source, you may uncover the reason why Donald Trump was not directly linked to it; I can imagine lots of reasons, but it would be speculation on my part. What does the full text of the Curran article say?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Add/restore the proposal by SocraticOath, since it qualifies that not all of the fines were assessed under Trump's watch. That provides clarification, and it serves as a good faith compromise. It should be added to the article now. Maslowsneeds (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I tell you what.... Here's an article from the Washington Post in April 2014 stating that $6 billion in contracting money spent by the State Department over the preceding 6 years could not be accounted for and citing “significant financial risk and . . . a lack of internal control.”. That means the issue overlapped Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. The article doesn't mention Hillary, but by your standards here, it can and should be included in her bio. Why don't you try to do that, and if you're successful I'll support your edit here. OK?CFredkin (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground for you to block edits about Trump just because you are here to advance some kind of political agenda that is really all about Hillary Clinton. Twice now, Hillary has been invoked, when she has nothing to do with the fine, the fine being material to Trump, or about the good faith effort to reach compromise language. That you keep relying on Hillary as a crutch in your arguments here is material to you grasping at straws. I think we may need input from other editors here to effect the compromise language. Maslowsneeds (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course your non-response to my proposal just confirms that you're really suggesting that different standards be maintained between the articles in order to justify your POV pushing here.CFredkin (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC) And the so-called "compromise" proposal is really just an insistence that we suspend WP policy regarding original research.CFredkin (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's not compare apples to oranges-this is confusing enough. The fine from the Feds @ US Treasury, are pretty standard for a casino operator. At only about a hundred instances, and yes it would be WP:OR, but 100 out of how many that WERE correctly filed? The material/ref above is fine concerning the casino businesses, and Trump casinos had the "highest" ever fine for that problem, but again,(and it is WP:OR at this point), they probably had the MOST transactions at that time? For whatever the reasons, I agree that WP should NOT have this in the article in such a way that makes it look like Trump's casinos did something that doesn't happen to every casino that deals with lots and lots and lots of $$. I am talking wheelbarrow/giant trash-bags-full of money, when a casino opens, (we are talking about the 1st year that TAJ was open) they are usually overwhelmed. -So that really was not a serious problem for a busy casino. We are talking about another subject besides the bankruptcy issue here? A new section would be nice. 00:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeVeeed (talk • contribs)

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral

"Political opponents have described Trump as "divisive," "unserious," and a "bully." "A comprehensive "encyclopedia" of Trump's tweeted "insults" was published in the New York Times." "Former Mexican president Vincente Fox stated on live US television on February 26, 2016: "I'm not going to pay for that fucking wall"."

The 2016 campaign part of this page is so unneutral it's laughable. It's just a compilation of what opponents have called Trump. It doesn't even mention the primaries, any of the polls, or literally anything positive. I'm trying to make it more neutral, but apparently it's "too bold" to remove info of his Twitter wars with celebrities and the "fucking wall" comments need to stay there because it somehow matters what an ex President of some country says about him in this race? All of his policies shouldn't even be there at all, they should be in the page that's dedicated to it. It's supposed to be a summary, but when I try to summarize, people scream censorship because it's a "highly visible article"?

It's currently 7992 characters long. Can we at least please agree to remove the policies section. It's literally copy and pasted from the main article of his policies. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about censorship, just that you should slow down a little. The reason there is a quite a bit if negative content is because that's how sources have covered him since he decided to run for President. If you plan to trim and summarize material (which I support), you might consider proposing it here first.- MrX 01:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality includes the negative coverage his campaign has gotten, and what it says about him personally. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps content can be reduced (keeping top summaries) and put campaign details over to Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016 -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC) -- Yes, put campaign details over to his campaign site.

Way too many pictures

You should not have so many pictures. 8 in the main article would be acceptable if they had a specific use but they all come across like Trumps office showing off himself over and over and over. This is very bad taste. Also there are way to many pictures in the talk page. Please choose one and be done with it. Arydberg (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What I find interesting, taking a skim of the article, is that there are lots of pictures in the first half of the article, and then none after the personal life section. Also the three pics in the personal life section (Ivanka, Melania, Eric) are too bunched up. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to shorten the "Presidential campaign, 2016" section tremendously

We all know on a person's biography page, sections like presidential campaigns should be largely summarized and expanded upon in the main articles. The section largely copies the main article, with several sections devoted to his general policies, his "Twitter wars" and is it generally very biased. It focuses mostly on all the controversy, reactions from his opponents, and says his support is largely due to the "large media coverage", not because people might actually agree with what he's saying. I think it needs to become a lot more neutral, a lot more shortened and anything detailed should go into the main article from now on. Thoughts? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, a brief overview & link to the main article makes more sense. JamesG5 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It could use a trim, sure. It's just a matter of figuring what to keep and what to toss. Maybe start by pruning words here and there, and proposing the big stuff to remove here on the talk page for consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree. MB298 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Also agree w/ ThiefOfBagdad's premise & proposals. IHTS (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-interventionalist views on foreign policy

In the lede the article states that Trump rose to prominence because of (among other things) his 'non-interventionalist views on foreign policy.' However I think this statement may be lacking a bit in nuance. Yes, Trump has made waves for speaking openly as a Republican about opposing the Iraq war -- but he has also spoken out aggressively about how he would like to fight ISIS more aggressively -- possibly to the point of sending troops into the ground. These stances are not consistent with a view of non-interventionism.

As this article explains well:

"Trump's non-interventionism also seems to be on the table. In the Detroit debate he talked about creating "safe zones" in Syria to stem the refugee flow. And in the Miami debate he said he would commit ground troops to Syria and Iraq: "We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS... I would listen to the generals, but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000." It is unclear which generals have Trump's ear, but the number of troops he cited sounds remarkably like he has been told about Frederick Kagan's white paper on defeating ISIS. Essentially, Trump endorsed the plan for Iraq and Syria that has been promoted lustily by Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. In other words, gone is the America-first foreign policy, in comes the non-credible plan to transform the region again through force of arms, with America leading a mythical, and surely quite moderate, Sunni fighting force."

I propose we change the sentence to:

his non-interventionist and belligerent approach to foreign policy,

Based on these sources:

...his rhetoric-a revanchist stew of foreign policy belligerence,... - Slate

...his belligerent approach to foreign policy. - The Daily Banter

... GOP presidential contender Ted Cruz has unveiled a foreign policy team full of conspiracy theorists and arch-neoconservatives who support policies just as belligerent as those of Donald Trump. -- The Intercept

"When Trump says he would “bomb the sh-- out of” the Islamic State, supports waterboarding and even harsher tactics, and says he has no problem killing the family members of militants, many diplomats wonder whether he is just playing to angry voters or signaling that he would actually pursue a more belligerent U.S. foreign policy." -- The Washington Post

"Why should anyone be surprised to see this posturing, er, trumped by the unapologetic belligerence offered by nonestablishment candidates?" -- The New York Times

References

Belligerent approach, when combined with his non-interventionist descriptions captures well the sentiment of sources that Trump's foreign policy includes a tendency towards provoking conflict with other nations. Perhaps another word could be used to capture this tendency better, but I think it describes accurately a big part of what got him attention. Non-interventionism alone does not describe many of Trump's foreign policy positions that have received attention: such as when he said that he order the assassination of terrorist families, bomb ISIS "harder than anyone", or that Mexico "will pay for the wall". These aspects of his foreign policy approach need to be mentioned in the lede too. Spudst3r (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that non-interventionist is probably inaccurate but belligerent isn't a type of foreign policy. The Times quote is about Trump's personal belligerence, which is not an actual type of policy. Slate seems to be describing Trump's belligerence in how he describes foreign policy (which I agree with). Rhetoric being a "stew" of X belligerence is describing the tone of the rhetoric as belligerent, not belligerence as a type of policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that "belligerent" is being used by the sources to describe Trump's discussion of foreign policy, rather than actual foreign policy positions.Eeyoresdream (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

On the face of it, "non-interventionist and belligerent" looks like an oxymoron. Not saying that it is, but it would need some explanation. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

How about instead: non-interventionalist and transactional approach?

A major element of Trump's foreign policy discourse has been around confronting the bad deal he perceives America getting in its global alliances. E.g. that South Korea should pay more for its protection, that NATO allies need to contribute more and that America needs to fight to win in trade with China. Quid-pro-quo would be another way to describe it. I was going to suggest "confrontational", but I think "transactional" may summarize his approach more accurately since he doesn't necessarily want to confront dictators into war, for example. I can also find citations to back up that specific word to describe him. What do you think Nizolan Ricky81682 and Eeyoresdream? Spudst3r (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

The existing language in the article seems fine to me.Eeyoresdream (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Change main picture

The main picture is of very low quality, and Mr Trump isn't even looking directly into the camera. I propose to use this new picture:

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThiefOfBagdad (talk • contribs) 10:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Scroll up ↑ There's already an open RfC. Perhaps suggest your favorite there?- MrX 22:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I would like to note that in the new picture, Mr. Trump is still not looking directly into the camera. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Signature

The included file is NOT an authentic scan of his signature. It is vector graphics near-facsimile. The possible fraudulent use of the these signatures in the infobox has been discussed in the past. An example discussion that was weighed in on by @Jimbo Wales himself and can be found here. If you go to commons, you will see that the uploader (an admin no less, albeit apparently inactive) claimed it as their own work traced in Adobe Illustrator. As presented in the infobox, there is nothing to indicate that it is not authentic. Strongly recommend removing it from the article. Nyth63 19:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And what leads you to this conclusion? The following sources: Ex.A, Ex.B, Ex.C, Ex.D. These images all are similar to the file in question, and I believe the file is close enough within the range of variation which one's signature will see in real-life application. There is no problem with this file.   Spartan7W §   14:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Read the description in the file. Source=Own work by uploader, traced in Adobe Illustrator. Also a quote here from the above linked discussion from Mr. Wales Given that, and the serious BLP/privacy/identity theft issues involved in publishing the signature of a person (if it is indeed her signature) we should be extremely cautious about this sort of thing. Nyth63 16:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not an admission of fakery. Look at the above sources of images of Trump's signature. Visually compare to the file. Source: own work Simply means that he traced a copy of Mr. Trump's signature in order to create the file. Where else would you get a SVG file of his signature, or anyone else's, without doing it yourself, or being provided such by the signer himself?   Spartan7W §   16:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Tracing is a forgery no different than photocopying money. Just because it just looks kinda real does not make acceptable. Nyth63 16:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware that a facsimile of a signature can't be used on Wikipedia. Would any one care to point to a policy that defends that view? The privacy concerns are not valid, because obviously Trump's signature has already appeared many, many times in publication.- MrX 17:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons. When in doubt, leave it out. Nyth63 18:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Also at issue are problems like this. In the case of Lisdey Stirling, there were allegation of fake merchanise and also the fact that she had actually registered her signature with the USPTO. Nyth63 18:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What am I supposed to be seeing at that essay? That the matter is unsettled and should be decided on individual article talk pages? I also don't understand the relevance of the credit.com article. If someone wanted to use Trump's signature to (try to) steal his identity, there are a multitude of sources for it. I feel pretty safe saying that no one is going to be taking out a second mortgage on Trump Tower by using the vector version of his signature found on Wikipedia. - MrX 23:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

People tend to read into things what they want to based on their existing views on things. What I read into it is that signatures should not be used in articles for BLP reasons unless the signature itself is notable for some reason. The Donald's signature is just messy and not artistic in any way that I can see. He has also not made any effort to publicize or promote his signature in any way. The other issue is that the image file that was inserted is just a rough facsimile of his signature with no effort to disclaim it as not really being authentic. It did not carry any of the weight, thickness, velocity, and crossing information that a signature expert would use to authenticate a signature as you may get from a high quality raster scan from an original live signature. It is a forgery at worst and a Derivative work at best (or maybe next to worst). Furthermore, if he were to trademark his signature like Lindsey did (U.S. Trademark 85,828,519) then you would have copyright issues on top of everything else. I really don't see have anyone could argue that there was any good reason to include these faked, so-called signatures in Wikipedia. Nyth63 01:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The facts are the Mr. Trump's signature has appeared in countless public documents, from real estate titles, to lawsuits, to contracts, to elections filings. His signature is out there, just as is President Obama's, Secretary Clinton's, even actor Mark Hamill's signature is used without conflict on wikipedia. The fact is you cannot have an SVG copy of someone's signature unless you make a trace of it yourself. This is not forgery, for example, here is from California Penal Code:

§ 470. (a) "Every person who, with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so, signs the name of another person or of a fictitious person to any of the items listed in subdivision (d) is guilty of forgery."

As you can see, this usage of Mr. Trump's signature does not constitution forgery under a state penal code, in California nor other jurisdictions. We are NOT defrauding Mr. Trump, nor doing so with intent, nor applying his signature in a manner for which authority is required. There is no conflict here. There has been no conflict since October 2009 when this file was uploaded and added, and nothing has changed to create new conflict. It stays.   Spartan7W §   03:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It it still a facsimile and not being disclaimed as such, As presented, it appears to be claimed as authentic, which it most certainly is not. You have also again reverted a controversial BLP edit without a consensus. Nyth63 10:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that it appears to be claimed to be authentic. Anyone interested in the signature can simply click on it to be transported to the page explaining that it was traced. Trump's signature, messy or otherwise, is recognizable and has some informational value for his bio. The signature has been in the article for nearly 6 1/2 years and obviously enjoys tacit consensus. A single person cannot overturn that by claiming that it's suddenly recognized as contentious WP:BLP content, and then simply remove it. If you feel strongly about this, I recommend creating an RfC proposing that the long-standing signature be removed from the article. - MrX 12:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is a facsimile, it is physically impossible for Mr. Trump, or anybody else, to apply their signature to the internet. Nobody is claiming he signed it, and nobody thinks it. If you see an article on President Obama, you see his signature, if you see one of John Hancock, you see his signature, if you see an article on Mark Hamill, you see his signature. There is nobody more than 5 years old who would reasonably believe that that is his actual (applied by his own pen) signature. As you saw in my first post, with links to his signature, this SVG file is consistent with what his signature looks like; it is an accurate depiction, and the creator of the SVG file traced it from an image of Mr. Trump's signature. Therefore, it is an authentic representation of his signature, which is something easily in public domain. Therefore, what objections arise? If it is a copy, which it is, and if nobody thinks he actually signed the internet, which he didn't, then the only violations Wikipedia may face are legal objections tantamount to fraud. In this instance, as I provided an example of the California Penal Code, consistent with laws of the U.S., this is by no means a fraudulent application.   Spartan7W §   14:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, John Hancock was most known for his signature. I don't see the point in adding it to other bios, particularly BLPs. Are we trying to lend credence to graphology? Objective3000 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a rather silly debate, why don't we just add a JPEG signature? Browsing through commons:Category:Signatures, it looks like SVG signatures are not the norm. Toohool (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Toohool: I agree. Find a document which Trump has signed, and use that! MB298 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Toohool: @MB298: The issue is not the file type, there is really not issue here at all. Nyth83 was insinuating that this is a fraudulent signature, that it was fake, it isn't. Looking through the commons category isn't a barometer for the actual usage of signatures. The reason there are JPEG signatures is that nobody has made an SVG version. SVG is a preferable file for many reasons, but the reason that any JPEG are used is not because there's any legal issue with an SVG copy, its that one has not been made. In Mr. Trump's case, we have an SVG version, and that should stay.   Spartan7W §   21:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: SVG is preferable for some types of images, and not for others. The question is authenticity. Someone could probably "trace over" the Mona Lisa in Illustrator and make a lovely SVG version of it, indistinguishable to the untrained eye. But it wouldn't be the Mona Lisa. Toohool (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But there is a distinction between those two examples. The Mona Lisa is a piece of artwork, an oil on canvas that is 500 years old and displayed in perhaps the world's foremost museum of art. A signature is something entirely different. It can be pen on paper, pencil on paper, electronic (credit card machine for instance), it could be posted on an email, it could be traced by one's finger into a cement slab. It is something whose medium is not important, rather its physical appearance is. This is why we make SVG renderings of campaign logos, official seals, coats of arms, etc. Because their medium isn't important, their content is. Mr. Trump has signed in black and blue for sure, and certainly in an array of sharpie colors on the campaign trail. Therefore, an SVG rendering is the highest quality way to portray and display his signature. For a Secretary of the Treasury, for instance, the argument could be made to use an image file of a scan of U.S. dollar notes, as such is an important and universal application. Here, however, medium and application are irrelevant, and the appearance of the signature itself, wherever it may be applied, is.   Spartan7W §   00:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The common element of signatures in all those media is that the signer is the person who signed them. If you trace over a signature, you might get a "close enough" copy of the signature, but what you don't have is a signature. Toohool (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you make any SVG rendering of anything you lose this elusive quality you speak of. What an SVG rendering does is it makes it versatile, clean, and attractive. An exact trace of a signature makes it a copy, like any other. I don't see the difference, nor the difference which would exclude using the more friendly SVG format. President Obama has authorized the use of AutoPen to sign bills into law. That is not his actual signature, but its effect is law. Same applies here. It is a direct copy for our purposes, it doesn't have to be from the pen and hand of the individual. Even then, a JPEG or other file may not capture certain qualities depending on its composition. The idea is, there has never been conflict with use of SVG copies of a signature before, and the practice is man years old and has massive consensus. I see no reason for change.   Spartan7W §   01:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You really don't see a difference between this and this? Maybe there is some tool that can create a vectorized "direct copy" of a signature, but the tracing technique used by the creator of this SVG is clearly not it. Toohool (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Illustrator has the ability to automatically create a vector image from a raster image, and it can apply smoothing to remove the rough spots. I would be surprised if Connormah actually traced the signature manually, rather than using the automated method. Perhaps he will comment here.- MrX 10:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: - It was traced using the pen tool, if I recall correctly (it's been a while). I believe that there was an automated version here previously but the "rough spots" you mention hindered its quality. SVG traces of signatures are common here, used on many prominent American politician articles (look at all the presidents and vice presidents, some governors and senators). Connormah (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps an interjection from a somewhat-disinterested third-party would be helpful? I've seen many bio articles which include the person's signature. Often they are people with historical provenance (founding fathers, politicians, etc) - and Trump would seem to qualify here. The way we go about utilizing the person's signature format-wise is irrelevant. According to WP guidelines, if a living person has published their signature and a secondary source has re-published said signature, then it is acceptable to place it on their WP article. I don't quite understand why we wouldn't include it, since the signature has been up for many years, and many other less-notable figures have signatures on their pages without issue. If the problem is authenticity, then we ought to be able to confirm the signature through a secondary source, or else not include it at all. If it is confirmed through a secondary source, then this discussion can be closed. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this Politico article could be such a secondary source? Although it may not be a neutral piece, it does seem to suggest the signature we have is real. SamWilson989 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC : Taj Mahal

This RfC is being amended for clarification : We need outside input to add this section as a compromise language :

In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, while the casino was still privately owned by Donald Trump. The statutes cited, of the Bank Secrecy Act, were intended to thwart money laundering. In 2015, government assessed a $10 million fine against the casino, settling currency transaction violations of the Bank Secrecy Act going back to 2003. Since Donald Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino business since about 2008, not all of the violations of the settlement occurred under his watch.

References

This compromise language was proposed by SocraticOath in a preceding talk section and was copied down here for ease of reference. Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Despite reliable sources and good faith efforts to reach a compromise on language (that was later slightly amended) about fines assessed to Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, an editor is blocking these edits based on arguments including about Hillary Clinton. Can we have outside input concerning the compromise language that is not colored by possible political bias ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep::As I said in too many words above, I think that it is an interesting addition to the Taj Mahal part of the article, but I agree that it should be made clear (the compromise version?) that it is standard operating procedure especially with casinos for businesses that deal with large and many transactions. And that 10 grand ceiling was a newer thing then iirc-(but that would be WP:OR)TeeVeeed (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep::I added the language and sourcing and have sought compromise. I don't see an OR issue when it comes to reporting fines levied against Trump Taj Mahal while Mr. Trump was the owner/manager/chairman. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Exclude - The disputed content is WP:original research because the sources provided don't actually mention Donald Trump, except to say that he was not involved at the time of the infractions. We don't have to like Trump, but for the sake of the project we should apply WP's policies consistently and neutrally.CFredkin (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, on the contrary the references say Trump was indeed involved at the time of the infractions, beginning in 1990 and continuing until Trump resigned as CEO in February 2009. SocraticOath (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SocraticOath: Great. Then why don't you post the actual text from the sources that says that?CFredkin (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/29/nyregion/metro-business-trump-casino-pays-fine.html - some violations occurred in 1990 and 1991.

"Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts has paid a penalty of $477,000 for failing to file timely reports on currency transactions, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act, the United States Treasury said yesterday. The fine is for violations that occurred from April 1990 to December 1991 at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort in Atlantic City, the Treasury said."

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/business/timeline-trump-s-bouts-with-bankruptcy/article_ec9ce213-dbfd-5b6b-9ca5-76b9eb0dfd71.html?mode=story

"August 1991: U.S. Bankruptcy Court approves financial restructuring of Taj Mahal, giving half ownership of the casino to bondholders in exchange for lower interest payments."

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/29/business/company-news-court-backs-trump-s-plan-to-shed-half-of-taj-mahal.html

"A Federal Bankruptcy Court judge today approved a plan by Donald J. Trump's Taj Mahal Casino Resort to restructure its giant debt by surrendering half the developer's equity in the Atlantic City property."

... so before the bankruptcy settlement in 1991, Donald Trump was the 100% developer / owner of Trump Taj Mahal.

What kind of person would deny the relationship between these two sources in order to say this?... "Sure, Trump Taj Mahal violated some rules in 1990 and 1991. And yes, Donald Trump was the 100% owner / developer of Trump Taj Mahal at that time. But it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to report on those violations on the Donald Trump article, in the business section, because Wikipedia's original research standard prevents us from synthesizing the two different kinds of references together." SocraticOath (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

So what you're really proposing is that we suspend WP policy to enable you to insert your claim into this BLP. From WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.

CFredkin (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The proposed addition to this article is not contrary to the SYNTH rule, because each individual sentence is properly referenced. (I will make an adjustment so that Donald's ownership is also properly referenced inline.) You are disputing this proposed addition by saying, "even though each sentence of the proposed addition is properly cited according to WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP, and even though WP:SYNTHNOT allows two different sentences to be juxtaposed side-by-side, the mere inclusion of the story about the fines levied upon Trump Taj Mahal in the Donald Trump article constitutes a WP:SYNTH violation because including it would imply an inappropriate connection between Trump Taj Mahal and Donald Trump." The WP:SYNTH rule prevents editors from creating certain kinds of improperly-cited sentences, but in my reading of it, it doesn't specifically apply to the scope of an article as would be necessary for your interpretation to be governing in this case. SocraticOath (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Second compromise" version

In 1998, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts paid a $477,700 fine to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for currency transaction reporting violations at the Trump Taj Mahal in 1990 and 1991, a time during which the casino was privately owned by Donald Trump (he ceded half his ownership to bondholders in August, 1991). The statutes cited, of the Bank Secrecy Act, were intended to thwart money laundering. In 2015, government assessed a $10 million fine against the casino, settling currency transaction violations of the Bank Secrecy Act going back to 2003. Since Donald Trump had not been involved in active management of the casino business since about 2008, not all of the violations of the settlement occurred under his watch.

References

Your "revised" proposal is not substantively different and still violates WP:SYNTH in exactly the same manner.CFredkin (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, please state which sentence of this proposal is original research. SocraticOath (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing is a synthesis of (reliably sourced) information regarding his ownership of the property, which is already included in the article, and information regarding infractions at the casino from sources where he isn't even mentioned. That is textbook WP:SYNTH.CFredkin (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk about the textbook.

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)

References

CFredkin, you are claiming that in this article the entire report on the 1998 fines, and the more recent fines, are somehow afoul of the original research policy. I think the short version of your claim is that "for Wikipedia to say that Donald Trump is in any way associated with fines levied in 1998 and later would be original research of the form of synthesis." For your claim to be true, there must be some conclusion that the proposal reaches that is not supported by published sources. What is the original conclusion? The facts of the matter are clear, and there is nothing original in the statement that Donald Trump was in charge of this business when it incurred these fines by the government. SocraticOath (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Can we have some background of other language or different versions? The discussions here are not about whether your efforts were in good faith as if that's the only concern. Diffs that show individual comments tell me nothing other than it looks like an issue about the perception of good faith effort to discuss than whether the actual text is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding more. Are you advocating for the original text, the amended text, some other text? Can you just point to the previous discussion? Is it Talk:Donald_Trump#Trump_Taj_Mahal? Is there more, further discussion? We don't need to rehash everything down here. And so far the same individuals above have commented here which is going to happen if no one bothers to start at the top. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Votes below for 'include' refer to a "compromise" version of the section, which I provided at "21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)". This re-write was intended to address the concerns that were raised at the time which were not based on an improper use of Wikipedia's original research standard under the category of synthesis. SocraticOath (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I just provided a "second compromise" version of the section to accommodate an ongoing dispute about the use of the WP:SYNTH rule. SocraticOath (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Your "revised" proposal is not substantively different and still violates WP:SYNTH in exactly the same manner as described above.CFredkin (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, would you please state which sentence of the "second compromise" proposal above is original research? SocraticOath (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The full discussion is at Talk:Donald_Trump#Trump_Taj_Mahal. We don't believe any version of the text should be included until a source is provided that actually implicates Trump as being involved in the violations.CFredkin (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a terribly formatting RFC if you people are going to change the wording in the middle of the discussion. People aren't even voting on the same text. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:SYNTH until a reliable source is found that links Donald Trump to the $477,000 fine instead of merely linking his company to it. The sources provided do not mention him, and only mention "Trump" because that happens to be part of the company name. I have pointed to an in-depth article on this subject: by John Curran, Associated Press (January 29, 1998) in the Philadelphia Inquirer but no one has apparently checked out that full article to see if Donald Trump is mentioned. There are many reasons why he might not be mentioned, or maybe he's mentioned as being outraged at the malfeasance of his underlings. But one thing is clear right now: the sources cited for the proposed edit do not support associating him with this guilty behavior. Please get better sourcing that mentions Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Include The proposed language does not state that Trump was personally involved, except to make the provision that he was owner/operator of the Taj at the time of the violations, and that is material to Trump. The provision represents the good faith compromise to reach a consensus, because there has been a pattern of violations. Later violations took place when Trump was majority/lead shareholder. This pattern is material to his ownership/management. As you no doubt know, when Federal investigators conduct a criminal probe, they don't name all targets, nor do investigators release all information from a probe at the point where one aspect of a probe reaches a disposition, particularly if other aspects of the probe are or may be on-going. Just because Federal law enforcement authorities don't name their targets, it doesn't necessarily mean that those unnamed targets have been cleared of wrong-doing at that time then. Look at how just a few years after the violations from the first fine were settled, a second set of violations took place. These are facts, as are Trump’s ownership/management positions. The wording of the compromise provision makes this clear and represents a good faith effort to reach consensus to include this language. Maslowsneeds (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Probably exclude: Setting aside the synthesis arguments, I think bringing that particular business transaction up in this article would serve to give undue weight to that particular incident. There's nothing wrong with spinning out subarticles on Trump's career or a discussion of businesses owned or operated by Trump. However our goal should be to provide a top-level overview of the man's entire life in this article, supported by summary style sections and subsections that refer to sub-articles that discuss particulars. If, however, there's an indication that this particular incident was a defining moment or the beginning of a downward turn in Trump's career, there might be an argument for including it in an overall section about that defining moment or downward turn. Remember, we're writing an article, not just cobbling together a loose collection of factual information about a person. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

A brief review of WP:SYNTHNOT helped me resolve a few questions I had about SYNTH. Most importantly, the clarification article explains that WP:SYNTH is only against original research of the form of synthesis. If synthesis is clearly not original research for one or another reason, then the synthesis is totally fine. SocraticOath (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude - this assigns undue weight. No sources provided even mention Trump the man. This matter is relevant to Trump Taj Mahal and should be included there. It is not a significant aspect of Trump's bio, however. As I wrote above, this article has become choppy as editors have added little hits here and there. Insignificant bits need to be weeded from this article and short paragraphs (particularly in the "Legal affairs" section) should be consolidated to return this to an encyclopedic article rather than a bulletin board.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

While the small paragraphs on lawsuits are not each interconnected, and while the list of them is long, it has been my contention and the seeming consensus here that the lawsuits of Donald Trump are notable and thus belong in Wikipedia. Nobody has proposed a synthesis of the lawsuit reporting that would be an acceptable substitute for the way the section looks today. SocraticOath (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuits should be looked at on a case-by-case basis to determine significance. Not every single lawsuit he has been involved with is relevant to his bio. Relevant cases should be infused elsewhere (be the it Business, Politics or Personal sections) where appropriate. The way it is now is not encyclopedic.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Notability isn't relevant to inclusion here, just for article creation. What matters is WP:UNDUE. We can't give undue weight to particular events or incidents that aren't individually important. As I said above, the proper way of addressing this would be to spin the content out into a subarticle and including a summary in this article. Even if we assume this particular set of events are significant enough to include in this top-level article, then it's likely that so many sentences would still violate WP:UNDUE. Trump has had a LOT written about him over the course of his life. A top level article is supposed to work like a pie chart of those things, giving due weight to each part within the limitations on article length before it becomes inaccessible. As I said before, if this particular set of events is part of a connected trend affecting Trump's career (and that trend has actually been written about as a trend, rather than synthesized by our editors), then that trend might bear mentioning in this top level article. That's just how Wikipedia is supposed to address very broad subjects. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are news sources that report on Donald Trump's pattern of legal activity as a separate idea from any one lawsuit. Several such articles are cited under the section heading of legal affairs in the Donald Trump article. SocraticOath (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep – notable and well-sourced information about Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude until someone first comes up with a single unified text and gives a sensible formatted RFC. People seem to be voting to include different language since the actual language keeps changing and all we have are "include"s. It would be better to re-start this with separate headings for each of the various languages rather than a roaming, ever changing language that the closer will have to guess at which time had the consensus for inclusion. Otherwise, I really don't understand why the push for it on Trump's personal article and skipping it at Trump Entertainment Resorts which was the actual entity that owned the property. I also have no idea why a ten million fine during a what $900 million needs to be put on the owner of the company's page when he isn't directly named in the fine, especially when it's hedged that he wasn't even managing it during that entire time. The hedge at the end gives a better reason for why it belongs at Trump Taj Mahal and the company which I presume was the entity fined and not him personally. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - The content is WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTHESIS. We will need sources confirming Trump's involvement for it to be added to his BLP otherwise, it should be added to Trump Taj Mahal. Meatsgains (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude as undue weight. None of the cited sources even mention Donald Trump, so there's nothing to indicate that this is important to the topic of this article. Toohool (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - he lost ownership in 1991 so a 2015 fine does not belong in the article about Trump, it is WP:OFFTOPIC. I'll also suggest to avoid smelling like just politics, come back in December. Markbassett (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - He owned Trump Casinos and Resorts in 1991, the fine was given in 1998, for events that occured during the time of his ownership. The New York Times is a reliable source, the only source really necessary. --Bobtinin (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - Clearly WP:SYNTH.Eeyoresdream (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude summoned by bot undue weight, synth to 'pin this on Donald' in a way source doesn't. 'Pruned' version possibly belongs on 'Trump Taj Mahal'. At present no wrong-doing has been clearly linked to Trump. I agree with everything said by Ricky81682, including about the lack of clarity of this RfC. Pincrete (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)