Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump/Archive 1

Cf. Books by Donald Trump published in other languages
I re-added titles of books that were made available in German and French. How far a book reaches internationally can of course also be indicated by the translations that exist in other languages. The titles were removed -- reason: Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- well of course it's not -- and if you literally translate the titles you will not end up with the titles chosen for these translations -- and you won't know whether they exist in the first place. 93.224.96.64 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC
Should the foreign book titles be included, per the above arguments? I have started an RfC and notified the Donald Trump WikiProject. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - I smell peacock a little -- do we need such a list? Do other politicians have such bibliographies? are any of these actually written by Trump? And yet. If we must have such a list -- and I personally would prefer that wikipedia had *no* lists -- it is however true that translations often have a completely different title than the work in the original language. For instance, the French title of Marcel Proust's Rememberance of Things Past translates literally as In search of the wasted time, or possibly In search of time lost. So while it makes me sad that we have this article at all, if we do have it, then the translation titles seem like a legitimate point to me. Assuming we have other online bibliographies we should do exactly the same thing for any translated books that may appear in the them, for all bibliographies, and imho that one thing should be including the translation title. Elinruby (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a start here: Bibliography of Hillary Clinton, 93.224.110.135 (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. My opinion. Keep the foreign titles in their native language with a translation of the title in English.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The issue her is not WP:NOTDICT, but rather WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Many of these books may have numerous foreign titles; collecting them all here just for the sake of compiling a complete record is exactly the kind of clutter that several sections of WP:WWIN proscribe against.  This particular list article frankly strains our policies concerning encyclopedic content and format as is: we don't usually compile lists of sources about any topic on Wikipedia, so that section of the list frankly needs to go.  And we usually don't have bibliography articles unless that bibliography, in and of itself is a notable topic (that is, scholars actually talk about their body of work, which is massive and influential; WP:SYNTHing together the claim that some of their individual works are notable, and thus that their bibliography is a notable topic, will not suffice, without RS to support it).  We certainly don't need to compound this mess by including every piece of publishing minutia available for each work, including every translated title for every language it appears in.  To the extent any of this books is notable in themselves, editors should feel free to broach including the translated titles in those articles, but the proposal here is clearly against NOTDIR; indeed, it's a textbook case for demonstrating that policy.  S n o w  let's rap 19:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Very simple answer -- do you see a mess? Time enough to oppose clutter, when there actually is clutter -- and there are not that many translations. Furthermore adding the titles of translations that actually do exist does not mean "including every piece of publishing minutia available for each work". Sincerely, 93.224.108.48 (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PS You will not end up with the analogue of this: List of Bible translations by language, just a guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.224.108.48 (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're actually reinforcing my point. Notice that every entry on that list is a Wikipedia article of its own, because the topic of the each language's translation(s) of the bible is independently notable as a topic.  You simply can't compare a synthed-together topic of a list of books about or by Donald Trump to the broad encyclopedic relevance of what is probably the single-most widely read piece of  written work in human history, sorry.  Also, your analogy is flawed in other respects: one article concerns multiple translations of a work that is an imminently notable topic (with that work in each language being a notable topic in its own right), whereas the other article is a list of multiple works, most of which are not notable in their own right and thus do not have their own article to begin with, let alone independent articles for each translation of each individual non-notable work in that list.  And no, we don't "wait until it's a real problem" if content runs against guidelines; the entire reason we have policies based on community consensus is to head off unencyclopedic content and problems with organization before they become unmanageable messes.  This page very much runs against WP:WWIN, a major policy, and the desire to further archive/compile lists of translations for each individual listed work will only compound that.  S n o w  let's rap 23:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support As long as it doesn't go against WP:AWW.  Adotchar | reply here  10:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Translations should not be mentioned, unless Trump translated them himself. Imagine what Herman Melville bibliography would look like.  His books have been translated into dozens of languages multiple times and in different editions.  TFD (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If there were enough translations so that they might clutter the article, one could make an extra article, cf. here: List of translations of works by William Shakespeare -- but this is not going to be the case with most authors. Thus if mentioning translations does not make the article a "mess" (like somebody wrote), why would it be harmful to inform about this kind of outreach? 93.224.109.236 (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PS I added titles of translations here Bibliography of Hillary Clinton, too, no mess to see there either.
 * There are about a dozen editions of the Art of the Deal and it has been translated into over a dozen languages and Trump has written about a dozen books. Trump's election to the U.S. presidency will likely lead to an increase of interest with more editions and translations.  So clutter will happen.
 * The purpose of this article is not to advertize how successful an author Trump is, but to assist researchers and others who want to read what Trump wrote and what has been written about him. They are not looking for translations.
 * TFD (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So you know that people are not looking for translations and that "researchers and others" are looking for what "has been written about him", and you know that people don't want to know what has been written in other languages and also they don't want to know in what languages translations of books by the subject exist ...
 * does this article Bibliography of Hillary Clinton disturb you? It is much bigger and even includes columns.
 * Is that an article "to advertize how successful an author" Clinton is? Why even come up with such a point? In my opinion it's useful information -- and it can cost people a lot of time to find out. 93.224.108.245 (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PS The number of editions is a different subject.
 * PPS And again -- time enough to fight the clutter if it should actually happen. Wait and see.
 * To answer your question myself, I think we probably should be bothered by what is going on the Hilary Clinton "biography" article, precisely because it is suffering from many of the same policy violations as this article, including the general free-fall into blatant rejection of the long-standing and deep community consensus surrounding WP:NOTDIR. I actually think TFD misplaced the emphasis a little in his statement there.  While we can't be certain that absolutely no reader would ever find use out of one of these many alternative/translated titles, I think TFD is right to say that the vast, vast majority of our readers, interested in Trump or his writings as an encyclopedic topic, are going to find little to no use out of a complete archive of every translated title of his works.  But that's only striking at the periphery of the real issue here.  We simply are not here as a project to create detail directories of superficial information. If someone wants to find a complete list of Trump's works, or a particular translated title, there are hundreds of organizations that maintain formal archives for exactly that purpose, from governmental agencies, to library associations, to commercial, academic, publishing and research entities, all devoted to keeping that information straight and easily accessible for public use; I trust you understand the general purpose of those ISBN codes you've been adding after each entry?  But that kind of comprehensive listing is not what this project is for--and, in fact, this kind of cruft gets in the way of the actual purpose of this project: providing an  encyclopedic  summary of our topics.  In fact, I can't imagine a clearer example of content that qualifies under WP:NOTDIRECTORY and demonstrates why we have the guideline in the first place.  And no, once again, we do not wait until the problem is "big enough" before applying community standards that were designed exactly for the purpose of keeping the problem from arising in the first place.   S n o w  let's rap 10:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So by these standards you are going to delete the directory of Scholarly articles in the Bibliography of Hillary Clinton which has already grown big -- much bigger (directory of articles, not books) -- than what you can expect to happen in this article soon? 93.224.98.94 (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PS Does this article: List of translations of works by William Shakespeare have the right to exist by the standards as you see them?
 * PPS Do you mind that this article: Bibliography of works on Che Guevara is huge and includes articles and Audio CDs with Non-English titles or does a Marxist revolutionary get other standards as a President of the United States?


 * Oppose - it is sufficient to simply mention the number of languages into which each book has been translated and, if it seems important, a notation of in which countries that translated version made that country's bestseller list. LiPollis (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we don't do this for other bibliographies as far as I can tell, and I don't see any reason to treat Donald Trump differently. The only exception that I see is Bibliography of Hillary Clinton, and I think the translation titles should be removed from there too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's clutter, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is not done elsewhere, it is a small mess that will become a bigger mess, and adding the titles doesn't add any value for the reader that the reader wouldn't get from seeing the number of translations. The big idea behind WP:NOTDIRECTORY is that Wikipedia should provide content and context, not simple lists. The interesting content, as LiPollis states, is the number of languages. The List of translations of works by William Shakespeare is an interesting counter-example. I would note that 1) Shakespeare is the exception that proves the rule, 2) there seem to be very few of these lists in the encyclopedia (Shakespeare, the Quran, the Book of Mormon), 3) many of the translators are notable themselves, and 4) much more context is provided, making that list more useful than what is in this article. Chris vLS (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Summoned by bot. While the list currently is not too long by including the titles in foreign languages, we should avoid adding them to maintain consistency with other related pages. Meatsgains (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it adds little value and is not typically done. If you asked me about bibliography as article, I would oppose that too. We're not trying to build a library catalog. A list of publications by a person has some interest and might be included in the subject's article. Trying to create a comprehensive bibliography about a subject is not encyclopedic.Glendoremus (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikitable sortable
Made the section Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump as Wikitable sortable.

Now researchers can organize books by author, title, or year of publication. Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Pretty good fleshed out examples
Sagecandor (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln
 * Bibliography of George Washington
 * Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson
 * Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant

Uncredited ghostwriters
Many books attributed to Trump are missing the names of the ghostwriters. Has any attempt been made to fix this issue? The real authors should be credited. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done some research on this. More at some of the individual book articles. Sagecandor (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's an interesting article, including opinions about Trump "authoring" other books ("As with his nonfiction books, it appears Trump did not actually “write” this novel and instead hired Robinson as his ghostwriter."):
 * The Incredibly Sexist Book Once Mysteriously Billed As Trump’s ‘Debut Novel’
 * We need to be accurate, and if any RS can clarify this, it would be good. Wikipedia shouldn't promote myths and falsehoods. This myth that he's some sort of "author" of so many books needs to be clarified. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find some research on this and add it to the lede, sound good? Sagecandor (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Added sourced material, see . Look better? Sagecandor (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Converted to wikitable sortable for this section. Added column for ghostwriters. Added in-line citations for sourced info confirming the ghostwriters. . Missing a few entries for ghostwriters, maybe you can see if you can find ghostwriters and sources for those ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent work! -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Changed format of page to sections for Primary sources and Secondary sources per models at Bibliography of Richard Nixon and Bibliography of Ronald Reagan. . Does that look better or should we go back to ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I find the primary/secondary split confusing. What's the difference between "Primary sources: By other authors" and "Secondary sources: Biographies"? If it's not significant, then go back to the previous version (your last diff above). -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done., what do you think of those models used at Bibliography of Richard Nixon and Bibliography of Ronald Reagan ? Sagecandor (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to understand the difference. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Primary source = usually written by those with ties directly to the subject himself, contemporaneously with the times. Secondary source = usually written by those with no ties to the subject himself, reflecting back on events to place them within their larger historical context. Sagecandor (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I find that an uncommon usage. Here we usually use those terms in relation to sourcing, not books. I don't see it as an important enough distinction to be worth making. It just creates more sections which only the fewest might find useful. A librarian might find this more interesting, but I doubt the ordinary person would. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay sounds good. Sagecandor (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Page should only include notable works, major publishers, or received significant coverage in secondary sources
Page should only include notable works, major publishers, or received significant coverage in secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed layout mess
Fixed layout mess caused by these changes.

We should NOT have an empty section "Films with Trump".

Did he write the films?

Did he direct the films?

No?

Then they are not part of a "Bibliography" page.

Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right. And this is a bibliography, not a filmography. Therefore, the section on documentary films about Trump must go. I removed it. — JFG talk 03:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong. See models at Bibliography of Barack Obama and Bibliography of George W. Bush. Sagecandor (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead Sentence Removed
If anyone feels this sentence (or, preferably an easier-to-understand version) should be in the lead, this is the place to discuss it (this challenged material has been removed):


 * Parties and individuals discussed in books by Trump are reduced to a zero-sum game, with a success and failure residing on either side of a given deal.

Thanks, just thinking of the reader. It's better not to try and send the reader off to learn about "zero-sum game" but to make the meaning clear either without awkward use of jargon or with textual demonstration that the jargon is appropriate. SashiRolls (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Quote added directly to citation: Trump’s world is binary, divided into class acts and total losers. He even details how physically unattractive he finds particular reporters, for no reason that I can fathom other than that it crossed his mind. Perhaps one can think of a better way to paraphrase this. Sagecandor (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Added direct quote to article text itself, so there is no confusion. Sagecandor (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As you prefer SC, I'm just looking out for the reader. Congratulations on the 18 book reviews you've added in the last 20 days (430K).  You've generated lots of GA work to be done!  (I think you nominated nearly all of them, right?)  I would suggest that if you want to help Wikipedia that you might consider branching out into other, more vital, areas of Wikipedia. I would also suggest concision.  Cheers, SashiRolls (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please focus on discussions about this particular page, not on individual contributors, thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a personal attack. It's good to be mindful of not being a single-purpose account and instead working with different topics on Wikipedia. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am mindful. I strive to write and create high quality new articles. Also, . Sagecandor (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Films about Trump
Should films about Trump be included in the about section?

Entire section was removed at

These are works about the subject himself, that therefore have written scripts and are part of the larger bibliography of the subject.

thoughts? Sagecandor (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See models at Bibliography of Barack Obama and Bibliography of George W. Bush. First sentence of both. "both books and films". Sagecandor (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * MLA Citation Guide: See: How to cite a film in a bibliography. Sagecandor (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Include films as we did in Bibliography of Barack Obama and Bibliography of George W. Bush. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting but this section on the talk page has been superseded by the Request for Comment, immediately below. Sagecandor (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump
hist

Should the Bibliography of Donald Trump contain a section for films? Sagecandor (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey


 * Support inclusion of section about films, which is encyclopedic. It helps the reader and editors. Films about the subject have written scripts, are creative works about the subject containing research and editing, and have equal merit as books. IFF the subject himself was a credited writer or director of films, we should list those as well. Sagecandor (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Most bibliographies cite only books and articles written about the subject, see for example Lincoln that was cited above, or Hillary. Bush Jr. has only one film, a biopic by Oliver Stone. I very much doubt that's the only film made about Bush, it was probably inserted as a good-faith error. Obama looks like an exception: probably the list of films should be removed from there as well. — JFG talk 04:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)



Comment -- Given the recent creations of categories (Books critical of Donald Trump (history), Films critical of Donald Trump (history), Music critical of Donald Trump (history), Parodies of Donald Trump (history), Works critical of Donald Trump, (history)) I assume pages have been created for more NPOV categories like Films based on Donald Trump books? I think addressing the Gender Gap by writing reviews of books by women (Neither Celinda Lake's books nor Janine Wedel's have pages on en.wiki) might be a better investment of time...  cross-referencing five ways til Tuesday doesn't necessarily strike me as a priority. Also, there is an open call for a page on Minassian Media (WMF PR contractor) for any page creators looking for work... SashiRolls (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Above comment appears to having nothing to do with this particular ongoing RFC, and focuses on contributors of individual editor instead of this particular page itself. Sagecandor (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose content fork of Filmography of Donald Trump. That tile is an outlier in Category:American filmographies and Category:Actor filmographies; the more usual convention would title that Donald Trump filmography. See also Ronald Reagan filmography and Bibliography of Ronald Reagan. Surely there were documentary films produced about Reagan's life and presidency, where is the list of them? Hmm, Category:Documentary films about Presidents of the United States. JFK and Trump seem to be in a league of their own. Still nothing on Reagan. I know they're out there. Found one. Reagan (film) is in Category:Documentary films about American politicians, tag that one with category diffuse. Aha! The Popular culture line in Template:Ronald Reagan: The Day Reagan Was Shot (2001 film) • The Reagans (2003 film) • Reagan (2011 documentary) • The Butler (2013 film) • Killing Reagan (2016 film). Five films, not explicitly listed in either Reagan's bibliography or filmography, other than the navigation template at the bottom. Don't let your obsessions with Trump lead to unbalanced coverage of all the documentary films about American presidents. wbm1058 (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please keep your comments to content and not contributors. NOT a "content fork". Don't know if you misunderstand the usage of that term. Sagecandor (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:OFFTOPIC, the article was made on books by or about him, which matches the normal definition and other articles in wp. Agree with Wbm1058 also that film content here would be a content fork.  Markbassett (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a "content fork". Was here, at this page, first, for a long time, before being added to the other page, after that, second, subsequently, next. Sagecandor (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion of section about films as we did in Bibliography of Barack Obama and Bibliography of George W. Bush, which are anomalous and should have the film sections split out:
 * Bibliography of George H. W. Bush is books only
 * Bibliography of Ronald Reagan and Ronald Reagan filmography are disjoint.
 * Bibliography of Jimmy Carter has books by Carter, should be expanded to include books about Carter.
 * Bibliography of Richard Nixon has books by and about Nixon, but no films.
 * Bibliography of Lyndon B. Johnson has books and articles, but no films. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Since Filmography of Donald Trump exists, we clearly shouldn't also have a filmography in the bibliography. That said, I don't actually have a very strong opinion on whether it's a separate article or merged into this one (that's would be a matter for, say, a merge discussion, though). Perhaps what makes the most sense would be to Rework them into Works about Donald Trump and Works by Donald Trump rather than try to organize by medium. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Unnecessary contentfork. Bibliography has a clear and precise meaning.Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion


 * See models at Bibliography of Barack Obama and Bibliography of George W. Bush. First sentence of both. "both books and films". Sagecandor (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sagecandor - discounting those as trivial film content (7 for Obama and maybe 3 for Bush), compare instead to Bibliography of Ronald Reagan, Bibliography of Richard Nixon in category bibliographies of presidents. Also no film in bibliography generally, but I think the cases are more showing that where there is no separate article or where there is tiny filmography it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY to have a separate article so might get jammed here... But for Trump, there is a separate article; for Nixon there is a Category; for Reagan there is a section in his bio... so should not be duplicated.  Markbassett (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence outside Wikipedia of grouping films under bibliographies? The traditional definition focuses on books. Yale University Library separates bibliography and filmography. Even if it may be convenient to put films under a bibliography, it may be more appropriate to either have a separate filmography (or if too few films, to just list them on the main person's article). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To add on, I see that Filmography of Donald Trump exists. Since this bibliography lists books by Trump and about Trump, why not use the filmography article to do something similar: list films where Trump is credited, and list films about Trump? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your participation. As you can see, Filmography of Donald Trump only lists films where he personally appeared in cameos or brief acting roles, not any films about Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the bibliography lists books by Trump and about Trump. That is how it is done at other bibliography articles too. Different angles, but the media is the same. Why not have that for the filmography? Also, a suggestion since I just found this page: post a neutral notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies for feedback from editors there. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well this seems just seems a dispute over the appropriate title and whether it is better having one or two articles. If bibliography is understood to just contain text rather tan audiovisual material, then easiest solution might be to rename the current article in something like "bibliography and filmography of Donald Trump" or "media on Donald Trump" or similar.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Per suggestion by I added films about Trump to page Filmography of Donald Trump . I doubt it'll stick there and somebody will probably remove it. Sagecandor (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe one of the articles could just link to that section in the other? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice idea, would like some assurance the section would not be removed from one or the other. Sagecandor (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bibliography of Donald Trump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170223112959/http://topics.wsj.com/person/T/Donald-Trump/159 to http://topics.wsj.com/person/T/donald-trump/159

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Factually incorrect line re Trump Tower
The row re Trump Tower is factually incorrect. I tried to simply fix, got reverted, so here discussing per WP:BRD.

The row does not convey the facts in the cites as it gives date as 2011, and states "First edition has Trump as lead."

The cites (HuffPo and two relaying HuffPo) clearly say only "early promotional materials" appeared that way (Vulture);
 * And "publication was cancelled", "ended up being released by Jeffrey Robinson" (HuffPo);
 * And the other way "was never published " (Independent).

Jeffrey Robinson is the sole author on the published book, first edition in July 2012.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, and this is all clearly stated already on the page. Everything stated at present on the page is factual, and backed up to multiple cites. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * had an edit overlap there User:Sagecandor - and no, the line is factually incorrect and not stating the cite content.
 * There was no publication listing Trump as author "publication was cancelled" and "was never published", instead
 * "ended up being released by Jeffrey Robinson".


 * The first edition lists only Jeffrey Robinson. In 2012.   Markbassett (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User ignores the fact that it was marketed as the "debut novel" of author Donald Trump. By the publisher. Sagecandor (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Sagecandor - umm I noted those marketing above at 'only "early promotional materials' ... of the "cancelled", "never published", and "released by Jeffrey Robinson".  The early marketing is stated by cites as not what eventually happened.   Factually incorrect to state "first edition" about just promotional materials, as already covered in talk at Trump tower.
 * The edit was to delete the row as it was not published as being by Trump. Do you agree that the published work is listing solely Jeffrey Robinson ?  Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you agree the work was originally marketed as the "debut novel" of Donald Trump ? Sagecandor (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Sagecandor apparently accepted that the published work is solely Robinson and asks further...  to which I say yes, I said twice that Vulture cite did say "early promotional materials", can certainly add that  HuffPo cite worded it as the "publisher originally marketed the book as 'the debut novel from' ".  (And then HuffPo mentions "Not Yet Published Status" and that "the publication was cancelled", so that one did not actually debut.) So ... what is your edit concern there?    The row does not have any 'initially marketed as Trump', so are you suggesting that as edit ? Markbassett (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, your choice of verbiage is quite confusing to understand. And no, I did NOT say anything of the sort. Please do NOT put words in my mouth and make assumptions into my meaning that is NOT there. The fact that the book was marketed as the "debut novel" of author Donald Trump is the single most notable thing about the entire book. Sagecandor (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Sagecandor going on indented as successive sub thread 'not published, solely Robinson' is by convention a discussion within that --and if not clearly a response or alternate, it is accepting the prior part. The HuffPo cite says both marketed as debut novel and that publication was cancelled (so no, there was no book to have anything notable).  Will you at least agree that my concern  "publication was cancelled" is within the cites? Markbassett (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

This was already discussed here and decided that the first edition was not the promotional images showing Trump as lead author. Instead that it was written by Robinson. PackMecEng (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the book was marketed as the "debut novel" of author Donald Trump is the single most notable thing about the entire book. Sagecandor (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Then it looks like you answered your own question. Since those early reports were clearly wrong perhaps it is not that notable. PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The early reports were NOT "wrong". That is a false statement of assertion. You cannot undo history. Sagecandor (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the disscuion I linked above. here Which clearly states the issues with idea it is something he wrote. PackMecEng (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the multiple sources that all confirm it was marketed as the "debut novel" of Donald Trump. This is not in dispute. This is confirmed by multiple sources. This is the most notable part of the book's existence. Sagecandor (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, as the book was not written by Trump. Also when it actually went on sale, Trumps name was absent from the book. “On this original version of the book, which was supposed to be available in 2011, Trump’s name is listed as the primary author above Robinson’s, although the covers are nearly identical otherwise,” The Huffington Post reports. “Libraries and booksellers who received this advertising copy later got an update that the publication was canceled, only to get a Trump Tower without Trump’s name a year later.” Vanity Fair also Huffinton Post says the same. The Huffington Post source used in this article even states it was billed as his debut novel but was not actually by him. So what is the controversy here? You could put something like "It was billed as his debut novel but later released as Jeffrey Robinson being the sole author.  PackMecEng (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Used wording as suggested directly by, above. DIFF LINK. Sagecandor (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor - edits by 82.116.202.23 added back the other version as a second row. After some confusion by me I think I've gotten it back to how you had it. Please check and correct if I have not reproduced the edit. Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Dividing Books "About Trump" to Pro- and Anti-Trump.
Since Trump announced his run for presidency in 2015, there have been many works written about Donald Trump. Several works (eg. The Case for Impeachment and Insane Clown President) are written to criticize Trump while others (eg. Understanding Trump and The Making of the President 2016) are written in support of Trump. Is it appropriate to divide these books out?  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 17:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ♫🥚 - I think it better not to. While that does not seem to me a WP:CFORK, I don't see a reason to do it and can well see issues -- claims of unequal treatment over who goes first, critiques about labeling a book as partisan, and confusion on which group a neutral or mixed volume should be listed under.  Markbassett (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The Hillary Clinton bibliography uses this approach, and sorts books within category alphabetically by author surname. Vizjim (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Whose Boat Is This Boat?
Should this book be listed under "credited to Trump"? It says so, right on the cover: "By Donald J. Trump" (by accident)". He didn't even use a ghost writer; it's all his own words. I'm half joking, but maybe it does belong there? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am leaning towards no. It is just a collection of his quotes arranged by staff at the late show. PackMecEng (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Standard for inclusion
We really need a standard for inclusion for books about him, as there are I assume hundreds of random trashy books about him. I just removed two random books, one of which was apparently gay porn about him? It had a source covering it..and I've heard of it..but still...doesn't exactly need to be included. This should only have notable books - by our standard - or include biographical books, scholarly works, and such similar to Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln + perhaps notable critical books like Bibliography of Barack Obama. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC) How are you defining notable? The Lincoln bibliography is a v poor example, as it offers no concrete standard beyond editors' expertise.

Two possibilities occur: 1) Books notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia article. 2) Books that have had significant coverage in independent media. Vizjim (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did say either "notability by our standard" or what the lincoln bibliography has. Yeah it doesn't seem to have a great standard. Books with significant coverage should be notable anyhow..but I don't think that's enough - the books should be vaguely about him - biographies and such - not just mentioning or including him (like that gay porn thing..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think books from notable authors should also be included, and perhaps even books from reputable/notable publishers (e.g. scholarly publishing companies may not receive much public attention but be of high research value). Self-published works (including books by CafePress, Xlibris and other self publishing companies) should almost definitely not be included unless they have WP:GNG notability. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think it might be worthwhile to restrict this to adult non-fiction works, as Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There will surely be scores of parodies, junior reader biographies, "unauthorized biographies" from no-name authors, etc. In the future, a well curated list of the most significant works would be most useful for researchers. Thus, satires, erotic fiction, and cartoon anthologies might not merit listing; notable works not meeting inclusion standards might simply be placed in Category:Books about Donald Trump. Also, per my previous comment, Marc Shapiro's Trump This! (2016) by Riverdale Avenue Books might qualify as self-published by a prolific biographer, albeit one whose biography of J. K. Rowling was a bestseller.  --Animalparty! (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess another metric of inclusion could be whether a book about Trump is a primary, secondary or a tertiary source. Textbooks, junior reading books, and most unofficial biographies (of any president) probably fall under tertiary sources, compiled entirely from other sources (and thus largely redundant), while more noteworthy books feature original research, commentary, and/or analysis from people closely involved, making them primary or secondary sources (e.g. the sources that cheap booksellers turn to when cranking out another "Facts on File" book). --Animalparty! (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The list at the moment is however ridiculously under-inclusive. It's missing books which have been national bestsellers for weeks, if I'm not mistaken. I think Slate is a sufficient secondary source to allow us to include all these books: https://slate.com/culture/2020/06/best-trump-books-memoirs-bolton-room-where-it-happened.html Nemo 05:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

About Trump

 * Too Much and Never Enough, by Mary L. Trump Ph.D., July 14, 2020 ( Cengelbart (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC) )


 * Separated: Inside an American Tragedy, by Jacob Soboroff, July 7, 2020, Custom House ( Cengelbart (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC) )


 * Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth, By Brian Stelter, August 25, 2020, Atria Books (Simon & Schuster) (Cengelbart (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC))

Prompted by His Presidency
Consider adding this category of books. For example: ( Cengelbart (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC) )


 * Fascism: A Warning, by Madeleine Albright - April 10, 2018, published by HarperCollins ( Cengelbart (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC) )


 * How Democracies Die, by Harvard University political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, 2018

Bibliography of Donald Trump -- a missing book in the list -- *Everything Trump Touches Dies*
Dear Friends,

I was reading the article   Bibliography of Donald Trump, and I note that there is no entry for the book about Donald Trump, by Rick Wilson *.

Title -- "Everything Trump Touches Dies." The Publisher -- Simon & Schuster Year -- 2018 ISBN -- 9781982103125

I was tempted to edit the article myself, but on several times that I have made edits to Wikipedia myself, They were deleted. They were valid entries, but....   One was not deleted.

Do the best that you can.

Paul Hopson Tomball, Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C3:8980:98B0:61D2:9953:372A:24D9 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Layout mess
The table of books that is about Trump seems to have no organisation whatsoever; it's not sorted alphabetically, nor by date, nor by anything else so far as I can tell. thorpewilliam (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * by Trump is chronological, who wants to re-arrange about Trump ? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bibliography of Donald Trump
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bibliography of Donald Trump's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cnn": From Mitt Romney's 2016 anti-Trump speech:  From Trump–Ukraine scandal:  From Unhinged (book):  From Michael Wolff (journalist):  From Volfefe index:  From List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations: </li> <li>From 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries: </li> <li>From Crippled America: </li> <li>From United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Omarosa Manigault Newman
 * Unhinged
 * Gallery Publishing Group
 * 2018
 * ISBN 978-1982109707
 * Trump reacted by referring to Manigault Newman as a "lowlife" and "that dog".
 * Trump reacted by referring to Manigault Newman as a "lowlife" and "that dog".