Talk:The Trump Organization/Archives/2018

In the News....
Recently, Mueller subpoenaed the Trump Organization to turn over documents related to Russia. Should that get a mention? &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would think so.  General Ization Talk  18:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Receiving a subpoena, on its own, isn't worth a mention. All it means is that Mueller thinks the company is in possession of some useful information. If there is reliably sourced information about the company's activities that Mueller is investigating, that might be worth including. Toohool (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure they receive subpoenas like other people get credit card offers in the mail. But the others aren't from a Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate potential Russian interference in the 2016 elections. I still think the subpoena alone is notable under these conditions, and is certainly receiving adequate coverage to establish notability.  General Ization Talk  19:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we could include it, briefly - along with their statement that they are cooperating. And maybe to put it in context, something about "CNN reported in January that the company had voluntarily provided documents on a range of events, conversations and meetings from Trump's real estate business to Mueller and congressional investigators, according to three people familiar with the matter." Where in the article would it go?
 * The subpoena goes beyond what was previously provided. What was a request seems to have become a demand. The transition from one to the other should be noted. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   19:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Receiving a lot of coverage is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. What evidence is there of lasting impact or importance of this subpoena? If something significant comes of this, for example if the subpoena turns up documents that end up playing a major role in an indictment or impeachment, then there is reason to include it. Toohool (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Trump Organization name
Why do you say that the sources don't support my edit? Trump's book says, "We had no formal name for the company when I met Victor, so I began to call it the Trump Organization." (And previous pages say that he met Victor in 1973.) The other source vaguely says that renaming the company was "one of his first acts" after becoming president in the early 1970s, which doesn't contradict Trump's account. Toohool (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing, Toohool. Maybe we could use Trump's book as the source as you suggest. But other sources have said it was Elizabeth Trump & Son or E. Trump & Son. Esquire says the name was E. Trump & Son until Trump renamed it. Our article Fred Trump says the business was incorporated in 1927 as E. Trump & Son., cited to The Trumps: Three Generations That Built an Empire, pages 120-122. The New York Times says (in Fred Trump's obit) "Too young to sign checks, he became partners with his mother, Elizabeth: they called their company E. Trump & Son." In his book, it's possible Trump wanted to de-emphasize the involvement of his father and grandmother as a way of taking ownership for himself. Anyhow maybe we can figure out a way to say all this. For one thing the sources are saying it was incorporated, but I am under the impression that "The Trump Organization" is not a corporation, just a conglomerate of hundreds of LLCs and partnerships. Let's see what we can find out. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * E. Trump & Son was just the first of those hundreds of business entities to be formed. According to the recent Trump bio by Michael D'Antonio, E. Trump & Son went out of business in the Great Depression. The sources that suggest that name was in use until the 1970s are the result of shoddy fact checking, probably just repeating what they read in Wikipedia. Such as the Esquire article: the sources it cites are the 1927 newspaper announcement of the incorporation of E. Trump & Son (the same source cited in our Elizabeth Christ Trump article, and which certainly doesn't prove that the name was used for any length of time), and an Investopedia article, hardly a reliable source. This is corroborated by a search of Newspapers.com - "E. Trump & Son" appears in various ads and real estate listings from 1927 to 1930, and then, never again, until that Fred Trump obituary in 1999. In all the intervening years, through hundreds of stories published about Fred Trump, no mention of E. Trump & Son. Toohool (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping. Also, in addition to the above, I've found some contemporary sources that refer to the company, prior to Donald's arrival, as the Fred C. Trump Organization: newspaper ads similar to this one, and a 1959 New York Times article about Trump bidding to build the Warbasse housing project. But these are in the minority; most stories about Fred Trump's business activities over the years just refer to him by name, not to a company name. Toohool (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's some pretty convincing research. Go ahead and restore your edit. --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving the section on stock and bond holdings
There is a detailed section in the article about Donald Trump's stocks, bonds, and similar financial holdings. It starts out by saying, "The Trump Organization also houses Trump's personal financial market investment portfolio," but the sources cited for this sentence do not even mention the Trump Organization. I couldn't find any sources to suggest that Donald Trump's personal investment portfolio is somehow part of, or managed by, the Trump Organization. Unless someone can find such a source, I would propose to move this whole section to Business career of Donald Trump. Toohool (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump/siblings tax issues
IMO, this edit under "Founding and early history"...

is better than this edit under "Controversies"...

What say you? soibangla (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As the editor who wrote the latter version, I thought it improved on the former by conveying pretty much the same information in a more concise manner (minus the puffery of how the reporters did so much research so their findings must be true/important). It also takes WP:BLP into consideration (an important thing, when we're talking about felony accusations against living people) by mentioning that the family denies the allegations. As for placing it in the Controversies section instead of the History section, the original version simply felt disjointed where it was placed, as it didn't connect to any of the events surrounding it. The History section tells the story of how the company came to be where it is today. There are elements of the New York Times story that could probably be integrated into the History (such as the allusions to how the 1997 transfer of Fred's properties to his children helped to shore up Donald's comeback from his early-1990s crisis, and how the 2004 sale of the properties helped him hold onto his stake in the casino company), but the text that you wrote really didn't attempt that integration (and beyond that, I think it's probably appropriate to wait for some more vetting from other sources before accepting those claims as gospel). Toohool (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Are there any further comments or can the original "Founding and early history" edit be restored? soibangla (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The normal process here is to have a discussion, not just wait for others to chime in, i.e. you say why you think your version is better and/or respond to the points I mentioned and/or suggest ways to compromise. Toohool (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You challenged my edit. I disagree with your challenge. I am soliciting other comments in an effort to resolve the matter. soibangla (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to review Consensus, particularly the "Through discussion" section. Consensus is reached by actually discussing things, not just stating your !vote and stepping aside. Toohool (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am seeking consensus through discussion. Your position has been duly noted. soibangla (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering that this article is actually about the Trump Organization, this is the place in Wikipedia where we should lay out this level of detail. So I think the first/more detailed version is preferable. However, I would remove the last sentence as CRYSTAL - and somewhat threatening from a BLP viewpoint. And of course we should include a denial, possibly a little more detailed than the pro-forma "the family denied the allegations." --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What particular details do you see in the longer version that aren't in the shorter version and are noteworthy? It has more words, but not much more information, except:
 * "Drawing on more than 100,000 pages of tax returns and financial records from Fred Trump's businesses, and interviews with former advisers and employees" — Yes, this is how investigative reporters investigate things, by reviewing documents and interviewing people. That doesn't need to be explained.
 * They paid 5% instead of 55% on $1 billion of transfers — Why give the reader three numbers and make them do the math, when we can give one number, $500 million, that does the same job of conveying the magnitude of the allegations?
 * Fair point about adding more detail about the denial. Maybe something like "The Trump family denied any wrongdoing and responded that the transactions in question had been undertaken on the advice of tax professionals, and that some of the property valuations had already been audited by the Internal Revenue Service." Toohool (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are parts of each edit that improve on the other. Keep the details of the investigation from the first version. Not all investigations are equal and transparency of what was done is important. The phrase, "creating a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts and undervaluing properties in the Trump portfolio on their tax returns" states a more easily understandable version of the process than the second one. Use, "The Trump family denied the allegations. New York tax authorities opened an investigation into the matter." IMO. Ward20 (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The phrase about "creating a sham corporation" may be easier to understand for some, but it is cherry-picking one tiny aspect of what the article describes. The NYT article says they found 295 revenue streams that Fred created to benefit Donald, and that sham corporation (All County Building Supply & Maintenance) is just 1 of those 295. That's why I changed that phrase to "siphoning money from Fred's companies to his children", as a catch-all description of the many schemes described in the article. Toohool (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK that's reasonable. I don't have access to the article behind the paywall, and was not aware of the variation of the transactions. I suggest a tweak to the first sentence so the reader knows that the transactions were not normal tax reduction processes. Instead of, "exposé arguing that the Trump family evaded", use, "exposé arguing that the Trump family used questionable transactions to evade". Ward20 (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the uses of the word "evaded" already implies that the transactions were wrongful, as most people probably have a mental association of "tax evasion = crime". Maybe something like "arguing that the Trump family illegally evaded..." would help? The word "questionable" implies doubt, which makes the claim weaker than what I think the NYT article is arguing. Toohool (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The shorter version is much clearer for readers. People interested in details can refer to the extensive sources. The part about "drawing on 100,000 pages of documents" is just journalistic WP:PEACOCKery, we could just say that the Times gained access to confidential documents from Fred Trump's businesses. Start from that version and incorporate improvements suggested by various editors here, but keep it simple. Also, the appropriate section to insert this material is "Controversies", not "Early history". — JFG talk 11:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the wording is that you can evade taxes legally as well as illegally. That, and the fact that the tactics are being investigated does not make it illegal or improper until a tax court rules it is. It is in question due to the investigation.Ward20 (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is not. soibangla (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I never looked it up, but you're correct. Thanks for the clarification, my interpretation was wrong. Ward20 (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)