Talk:Donald J. Trump Foundation

Additional sources to consider
Given the sheer number of activities reported about this organization, it's going to be hard to ensure that this article gives appropriate weight to different reports. Here are a few items not yet mentioned:


 * Trump used the charity's funds to participate in charity auctions, notably to purchase a signed football helmet and a trip to Paris. He did not make the trip, and it's unclear what became of the helmet. Both articles are fairly speculative.
 * Trump used the charity's funds in connection with the settlement of a lawsuit against him (Martin B. Greenberg Foundation)
 * Trump used the charity's funds in connection with persuading charities to hold fundraisers at his properties (which unquestionably confers brand benefits to the Trump Organization)
 * Trump himself claimed early in his campaign that his (organization's) gift to the Clinton Foundation persuaded Bill and Hillary Clinton to attend his wedding to Melania Knauss.

--Eloquence* 23:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is definitely in need of expansion, and those sources are a good start as long as we adhere to NPOV during this election season. I expect much attention will be drawn to this topic over the next few months, bringing many viewers to this article as well as many sources to draw from. University duty calls, but I'll see if I can help. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about lead picture at Donald Trump
You are invited to participate in an ongoing talk-page discussion about the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Selected grants
I can see some purpose to this list, but perhaps we should make it collapsible? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See MOS:DONTHIDE.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Attorney General's cease-and-desist order
We currently have full explanations of the "failure to register properly in New York" situation in two places: Controversies and Legal actions. We only need it in one place. I would propose that it be removed from "controversies" and any additional relevant information be merged into the Legal section. Pinging PeteWL who has been adding material on this to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since no-one has objected, I am going to go ahead and merge the two redundant sections. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Lede
For the sake of accuracy, I'd like to add the word "unregistered" to the opening sentence, thusly:

"The Donald J. Trump Foundation is a New York-based unregistered charitable foundation founded by Donald Trump, 2016 Republican nominee for President of the United States."

I'm sure this would be controversial; however, doesn't "charitable foundation" have a specific legal meaning which the Trump Foundation fails to meet? DS (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

PeterWL
Thanks to all the comments above and the various corrections. I agree with Lede in that  '"charitable foundation"' could/should clarified. But need to think it through. Neither my nor Lede's solution ( "Unregistered charitable foundation"), works when I take a closer look. Welcome other views, although don't over think it because the status of the foundation is likely to change in the next week given the NYS AG's order.


 * If we call it a "charitable foundation" in New York in the legal sense, then "unlicensed charitable foundation" is an oxymoron, since it can't be a charitable foundation unless it is licensed as one.
 * If we use it in the IRS sense then, by saying it's unregistered, we suggest that federal law requires registration and that the foundation failed in this. Untrue.
 * If we use it in the layman sense, then we're stating that the DJT Foundation is a charity -- a stretch b/c the sources are all saying that DJT is not operating like a charity at all.
 * The complaint by the NYS AG are still just accusations -- probably better to wait. The Foundation was given 15 days, from Sep 30 to register.  So maybe the Foundation has been registered since the release.  All we know is that it was unregistered as of Sep 30.
 * I didn't want "unregistered" up front because it creates a value judgement right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.213.133 (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

just realized I added this without being logged in


 * Yeah, but there's still a value judgement being created by simply describing it as a 'charitable foundation'. What if we simply describe it as an organization founded by Donald Trump with the stated intention of being a charitable foundation, and then specify that it was not licensed to collected funds? DS (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is really still in its infancy, and since the subject is under legal scrutiny, its status as a charitable foundation under New York law is going to be fluid until the legal proceedings are concluded over the next few months. We have to go by what the most recent sources say and try our best to avoid making any value judgments one way or the other. The lede should ostensibly reflect what the body paragraphs say, and currently the body reflects many, many accusations of impropriety against the subject. After the election furor dies down and some of these investigations bear fruit, we will want the lede to reflect the outcomes. So basically... be patient, everyone? The article is already 1,000 times better than it was a month ago. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Need a separate page on Trump's philanthropy
Such a page would link to and contain a summary of this one. And there'd be a link to a main article on DJT's philanthropy on the main Donald Trump page.

In my view there has been a conflation of Trump's personal philanthropy and that of the Trump Foundation. This page is limited to activities by the foundation. Adding in the private stuff would make this article way too long.

I'd like to look into it. Won't get done in next few days, but I may start it in the sandbox.

Is anybody willing to help me on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.213.133 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

''ditto. I wasn't logged in when adding this...'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteWL (talk • contribs) 15:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Serious question here: what philanthropy? Every reputable source that I've seen discussing Trump's philanthropy has included lines about how he never actually made the donations he claimed to be making, with the exception of the political ones. I'm willing to be proven wrong. DS (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. If the OP is able to craft a well-sourced article about The Philanthropy of Donald J. Trump, I think that would be awesome in every sense of the word, and I would encourage them to have at it. I would just mention that there don't seem to be any articles like that at all on Wikipedia, and there would probably be high standards set for the sources backing up such an article. But I certainly look forward to reading it. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Premature past tense
Someone went through and changed many sentences about the Foundation to past tense. That seems premature. As far as I can tell, Trump has merely announced an intention to dissolve the Foundation and has not actually done so yet. Secondly, as cited in the article: "The Attorney General's press secretary stated that Trump could not legally dissolve his foundation until the investigation is finished." Hence the NY AG's investigation would seem to preclude a quick dissolution of the Foundation. I would suggest switching back to present tense (at least for the most part), since the Foundation still exists for now. Dragons flight (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Until the foundation is actually and legally dissolved, it exists. Dissolving it could take years, and until then, present tense is appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Political Bias
Political bias appears to play heavily on this topic. It is quite lengthy given this a relatively small "charity" compared to the Clinton Foundation. Moreover it features a reckless political non sequitur: "Since inception through 2015, Donald Trump has contributed $5.5 million to the Trump Foundation while outside donors have contributed an additional $9.3 million... Several philanthropy experts note that having a family foundation without any family money is unusual." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B011:114E:1C38:623C:581C:517D (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In other words, according to these experts, 5.5 million dollars is nothing. How many people in America actually have this much money? 38.121.92.211 (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Relevant:
 * "In 2016, Charity Navigator began listing the Clinton Foundation as a “low concern” charity, with a four-star rating, its highest rating. The Clinton Foundation currently has a score of 93.91 out of 100 for finances, accountability and transparency. Meanwhile, Charity Navigator in 2016 issued a “high concern” advisory on the Trump Foundation after news reports that the New York attorney general would investigate it and Trump would seek to close it."


 * Zazpot (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that it was a "private foundation". As such it should not have been soliciting or accepting outside contributions; it should be funded by its private founders/managers. As soon as the Attorney General of New York found out what it was doing, in 2016, he ordered the foundation to stop accepting outside funds. The state didn't know what it was doing until the Washington Post reports came out, because, as supposedly a private foundation, it didn't have to file the detailed reports that the state requires for a foundation that solicits outside donors. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Five million over thirty years is hardly a substantial family commitment to a family foundation, even if it sounds like a lot of money to the average taxpayer. For a man who claims net worth of nine billion, it is a drop in the bucket. I suggest to the OP that the article is not biased, but is an accurate compilation of press articles about a badly-run organization. Rhadow (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Misspellings
Allen Weisselberg's name is misspelled as Allen Weissberg in section 3.4. Bud (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Amq~enwiki


 * Corrected... thanks! Famspear (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2018
The amount paid by the Foundation for the Michael Israel Trump painting was 20k. It correctly states that half of the 20K went to the local charity Home Safe. I was the production manager who shipped the item to Melania in Westchester. 2600:1700:7E30:E620:7D0B:468B:7F44:2251 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please note that, even if you were the production manager, you still need to cite an independent source - your own experience cannot be used as a reference. DannyS712 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request
Near the bottom of the overview section is an incorrectly parsed sentence. "Some of alleged that the money was paid as compensation and therefore should have been subject to payroll taxes."

It could be fixed either by removing the 'of', or replacing the 'of' with 'have'. This would result in either 'Some alleged that the money was paid as compensation and therefore should have been subject to payroll taxes.' or 'Some have alleged that the money was paid as compensation and therefore should have been subject to payroll taxes.' Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Aren't you an autoconfirmed user? You should be able to make the change yourself since the protection level is only at "semi". Geolodus (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am autoconfirmed, however it was locked for me. I am under 500 mainspace edits (cause I spend most of my time at AFD and in talk) and I think it's under a higher level of restriction. Or it was when I posted this.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Bahb the Illuminated: No, it's under regular semi-protection. I took a look at your user rights and you are auto-confirmed so you should be able to edit it. Does this happen to you at other semi-protected articles - for example, Presidency of Donald Trump? If it does, ping me and I will look into it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was apparently logged out when trying to make that edit. My bad. I have now decided to click the 'remember me' box so i don't log out between pages anymore.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

"Pp-blp"?
Isn't that the incorrect template to use, since this article isn't a biography of a living person? Or am I missing something here? Geolodus (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be a biography; the tag reflects that the protection was imposed because BLP-violating comments were being made, presumably about the president and/or his children. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

excess detail in lede
you revereted my edit to add detailed content to the lede. Per WP:LEDE is a summary only, and all of the requests and details of the lawsuit are of little importance at this time. Only the settlement matters for the lede at this point in time. Cleanout all of the 'this person requested this, sued for that' from the lede, this can be covered in the article body. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your stated reason for your change was incorrect. soibangla (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * stop jamming POV content into the lede. I'll copy all this minutia below, as I am guessing it is already in the article body. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no POV. Period. Done. soibangla (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

preserve
putting here per WP:PRESERVE She asked the court for an order dissolving the charity and imposing $2.8 million in restitution and penalties. She also made referrals to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). On June 18, New York governor Andrew Cuomo's office announced that the governor would refer the civil case to New York's Department of Taxation and Finance if it is requested to do so by the attorney general's office. Given the violations alleged in the civil case, some experts believe a tax investigation could lead to state criminal charges.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

More reliable sources
in regards to the NYC litigation against trump and his family: the section ends with a few citations about the ruling, all of which are to news papers. I believe one should use more reliable sources, such as https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=JLJih9v_PLUS_EKSuJs36THzexg==&system=prod, although I couldn't confirm that state.ny.us is an official NY state link (and I haven't put much effort into it). However, omething from the NY attorney general: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/ag-james-secures-court-order-against-donald-j-trump-trump-children-and-trump would also be more reliable.

I haven't made the changes myself because my brain isn't functioning properly at the moment and I doubt I could figure out where exactly it is appropriate to put those and how.

Also apologies for the formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.120.126.84 (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)