Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal

Co-writer
I have the following sources regarding who wrote the words in the book Art of the Deal:

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/264591/donald-trump-didnt-write-art-deal-tony-schwartz/

http://boingboing.net/2016/02/26/450103.html

http://www.showbiz411.com/2011/04/16/donald-trump-forgets-all-his-ghost-writers-and-co-authors

https://twitter.com/tonyschwartz/status/644304700884582400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://books.google.com/books?id=PYbs1THTchMC&pg=PA7

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/donald-trump-uncredited-ghostwriter-new-book-article-1.2424852

Will Green Cardamom accept any of these as sufficient sources of Tony Schwartz' claim that he wrote all of the words of the book?

(Of course, Trump should be credited as an author of the book, this is only a question of whether he in fact wrote any of the words.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.148.66 (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The only source that is reliable is NY Daily News and that one is marginal at best. It says "who did most of the heavy lifting on Trump’s hit book". What does that mean and how did they determine that? The Death and Taxes source says "Death and Taxes reached out to Schwartz to elaborate on his tweet from the night of the GOP debate, but the author declined." ie. that one Tweet from Schwartz is basically it. Everything else is just gossip in mostly unreliable sources. Saying he was co-writer is sufficient until a more reliable source appears known for fact checking. -- Green  C  18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no desire to get into an "edit war", but the Twitter source is explicitly allowed for when a subject is describing themselves. (See Reliable Sources.) In addition, even if we do not accept Schwartz' claim as true, he made the claim and that is the only fact asserted in my edit. I don't understand why you are fighting on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.148.66 (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:WEIGHT. Please don't assume bad faith I am not a Trump supporter, at all. If you really think that the community at large would support a single Tweet as sufficient - even when he has refused to discuss the Tweet when asked about it - then we can start an RfC to bring in additional editors. To me, it just looks like below grade gossip that hasn't made it into the wider world of fact-checked secondary sources. -- Green  C  19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The asserted fact is that Schwartz made the claim. The weight of the evidence is 100% that he did make the claim. There is no evidence that he did not actually make the claim. I take your point that he has refused to elaborate on the Tweet, but that is an absence of additional evidence, not contradictory evidence.  If you have any affirmative evidence that Schwartz did not actually make the claim, please point me to the source and I will stand corrected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.148.66 (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This will come down to personal opinion as arguments can be made either way and it deserves broader participation to find consensus. I started an RfC, I hope you will participate. Thanks for finding the sources also. -- Green  C  01:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)ric2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) Since in the book cover, the "Ghostwriter" (see Wikipedia article on "Ghostwriter") name is credited (ie. Trump with Schwartz,) it implies that the ghostwriter did a lot, if not all, of the physical writing. If Schwartz served only as an editor, his name probably would not had been credited. According to the Wikipedia article on "Ghostwriter," the ghostwriter may be just an editor, or the ghostwriter may have written the whole thing. In the Wikipedia article, for celebrity books, it is common in the book industry for the ghostwriter to physically write the whole book. In such cases, the ghostwriter's name is usually credited. It is sort of standard practice in the book industry, so that it is not unusual, and most readers do not consider this a big deal. Specially, when the ghostwriter's name appears on the title page of the book, readers would assume that the ghostwriter did most, if not all, of the physical writing. For the reader to gauge how much input the ghostwriter got from the subject person of the book, some books actually described the relationship between the subject person and the ghost writer. For example, in Lana Turner's book, it was written in the beginning of the book the nature and length of the interview sessions. In my opinion, if a statement is included "that the ghostwriter did all of the physical writing of Trump's book" than it is necessary to include how much interview of the subject person was done, and the nature and length of the interviews and observations. Otherwise, a false implication may be made that the ghostwriter "invented" the whole thing, in which case, the ghostwriter would seem to be some kind of business theory genius to have came up with all of these business acumen all by himself.

2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)ric2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) Partial facts can be misleading, even though they are facts. It is standard practice in politics to take a short sound bit out of context to disparage opponents.

RfC: Should we include allegations Trump didn't write Art of the Deal?
The proposed edit is here (left side) with the current version on the right. Specifically should this sentence (or some variation) be included:



In the discussion space below please leave a comment or !vote Support for inclusion or Oppose. Per WP:RFC discussions usually remain open for about a month.

Additional sources listed in previous talk section above (note the books.google link is to a vanity press publisher). -- Green  C  01:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
I am adding to my support the following new citation for the assertion that Tony Schwartz claimed to write the book: "Anderson Cooper 360, broadcast March 17, 2016; (at about the 11 minute mark); you can retrieve the video from the following url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVCNXZbvb2c" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.148.66 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:WEIGHT. A single ambiguous tweet by co-author Tony Schwartz who has not followed up or discussed since. A few marginally reliable sources mention it, but none of them are known for fact checking - repeating in essence. There are no solidly reliable secondary sources that discuss it. It is a minority view with little information: what does it mean exactly "I wrote it he read it"? Did Trump do extensive interviews with transcriptions? Did Trump not do any writing at all, or some editing? There is clearly more to the story than conveyed in this cryptic tweet. -- Green  C  01:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:OR and WP:USG (user-generated) (of WP:RS). Why would we use a twitter post as RS? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If the only coverage to verify the claim is a tweet and articles mentioning the tweet, then no, it should not be included. Meatsgains (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I am the person who proposed this edit (am using a different IP address). Per WP:SELFSOURCE twitter and other self-published sources are specifically allowed as sources about themselves. The assertion is that Tony Schwartz made the claim that he wrote all the words (not whether or not he did in fact write all the words).  Thus this is a source talking about itself (the claim), not heresay about who did the writing.  Schwartz made the claim on Twitter at least three times, and clearly. In response the the question "Has anyone ever asked @tonyschwartz if @realdonaldtrump was actually involved in writing "The Art of the Deal"? He responded: "I tweeted this last night: To Donald Trump. I wrote The Art of the Deal. Every word. You read it." https://twitter.com/tonyschwartz/status/644497785488834560 So the opposition above states incorrect facts: 1) It was at least three tweets (not just a single one) 2) At least one of those tweets was a follow-up.  Remember, we are not arguing that the tweet should be evidence whether Schwartz wrote or didn't write all the words, only whether he made such a claim.  That is exactly why there is a self-source exception.  A cite to the claim itself is the best evidence of whether the claim was made.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.181.175 (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I generally don't have a problem with Twitter being used on "just about notable" BLPs but for claims like this and for articles like this there should be much better sources than just that tweet (and so far all sources seem to be mentioning the tweet and that's it) so no it shouldn't be used at all, Unless something comes up then IMHO saying coauthor is the best option. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SELFPUB. (Summoned here by bot.) Such a claim requires multiple sourcing. Self-published tweet won't do. Coretheapple (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A Tweet is not sufficient enough of a source for this kind of claim, especially when it is in regards to a BLP. The claim would have to have more than one reliable source aside from the Tweet.  A Twitter post does not qualify as a reliable source, see WP:RS.  If, in the future, we see articles talking about this and not just mentioning the Tweet, then it could potentially be added.  Cheers  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - violates norms of book credit and also doing this at this time smells of politics. The book and normal references list co-authorship, and that's both the 'official' label it was published as and also a high level of recognition already understood to likely mean the bulk of text preparation upon an authorization and access to sources.   Markbassett (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't have the amount of coverage needed to warrant it being in the article.
 * Oppose Summoned here by Legobot. We need a much better source than a tweet, such as a truly independent reliable source, in order to make such an assertion. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose (Legobot sent me) - Trump's article has been around for a while. If it the proposed addition was really all that important, it would've already been added and properly sourced. I agree with Markbassett in that it smells of politics. Atsme 📞📧 04:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. This would have been a WP:SNOW oppose, but for the fact that at least one secondary source has picked it up, however briefly (and seemingly based on nothing more than the tweet itself).  There is just far too much a WP:WEIGHT on including this info now, but we can keep an eye on the matter. If it gets further play in the press, we can consider adding some (well attributed, neutral) mention that the claim has been made, but we need more than a self-published tweet from the person making the claim and an offhand parroting in a podcast (that lasts all of a few seconds). Might be something comes of this, but find that inevitable now would be clear WP:CRYSTALBALL.  S n o w  let's rap 07:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC


 * Oppose Unless it is reiterated that Donald Trump took no part in writing the book, as Schwartz has claimed. Therefore, a comparison to Mein Kampf or Hitler is more of a reflection of Schwartz since Trump took no part in the writing of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7207:e048:ad82:dba:82cc:5bec (talk • contribs) 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Art of the Deal and Hitler's Mein Kampf
Several users have added and removed inclusion of a statement about Peter Ross Range's conclusion that Trump's Art of the Deal has comparisons with Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. The only ref provided for this is a USA Today piece by Range. As this reads as an extraordinary claim, it should have extraordinary sources for inclusion. At a minimum, a piece by someone other than Range commenting on the similarities should be included. If no such RS ref exists, this seems like an undue claim to include in the article at this time.Dialectric (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure that's true. The purpose of Wikipedia is to include multiple POV with due WP:WEIGHT. It is not to remove POVs because we are uncomfortable with what they are saying. USA Today is a reliable mainstream national source. -- Green  C  19:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not about being uncomfortable. WP:EXCEPTIONAL is policy. The issue, then, is whether this meets the threshold of an exceptional claim. I believe this is an exceptional claim, and thus should have multiple sources.Dialectric (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not really a "claim", it's the authors opinion of the book. We don't have many reviews of the book, if you can find others than that would help balance the section out. -- Green  C  02:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither the author nor the book appear to be notable, so if we are not discussing this as a claim, but instead one author's opinion, the section should be excluded as undue weight given to a non-notable commenter.Dialectric (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Most book reviewers in the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today. etc.. are not notable. Nevertheless we use their reviews on Wikipedia, even if we personally don't like what they say. -- Green  C  19:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Remove it unless corroborating reliable sources can be added. Textbook example of WP:UNDUE. Toohool (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel that if it is included, it should be done so along with other reception. The article's current state implies that the book was met with very little critical reception except for this one guy who thought it was Hitlery. WP:UNDUE issues could be avoided by citing other reviews of the book. Brustopher (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I mentioned above, add more reviews. We have book reviews from all sorts of authors who say all sorts of things, you don't need corroborating sources for book reviews (unless you are personally not happy with the reviewers opinion of the book..) In fact book reviews, like this one, are how book articles establish notability per WP:NBOOK. -- Green  C  01:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read the cited article? It's not a book review. It's about Trump's current presidential campaign. The book is only mentioned in two paragraphs, which quote about five sentences, with little elaboration or commentary. Toohool (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a mischaracterization. The article is titled "There's a little 'Mein Kampf' in Trump's 'Art of The Deal'" in which he makes a comparison between 'Mein Kampf' and Trump's 'Art of The Deal'. --  Green  C  03:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? The title is not a summary of the article. Toohool (talk)
 * As I said, your mischaracterizing the article's scope and intent. -- Green  C  14:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How so? It doesn't even matter. The point is, this is Wikipedia. We don't compare an article subject to HITLER without more than one skimpy source. I can't believe this is even a discussion. Toohool (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you are seeking to delete a POV because you don't like what it says. This is Wikipedia. -- Green  C  21:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are policy-based arguments both for and against inclusion. If there is disagreement about including the source that can't be resolved between the editors here, a WP:RFC would be the next logical step.Dialectric (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with whether I "like" it, it has to do with including a fringe, borderline defamatory POV based on a single thin source. Toohool (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the POV of the author, not Wikipedia or its editors. The author is a published expert on Germany, writes in a national reliable source USA Today and makes a good faith case for his position - it's not slanderous. -- Green  C  23:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a point of view, but a strange partisan attack published the day before April Fools... I freely speculate that this may have been intended for April 1st given the subject at hand. In any case; the comparison is based upon a vague truism which ultimately boils down to a Reductio Ad Hitlerum, and which more importantly, does not exist in Trump's Book. For example, the article states:


 * I have read his book; at no point does he ever disparage or even hint at the idea that "America is on the brink of ruin." There is no messianic fervour, which the article also states, particularly given that Trump writes in this book in a very detached manner, commenting on what strategies he took and emotions he appealed to in order to make a deal or accomplish a business feat. A messianic fervour is far more self-credulous and dogmatic.


 * I could go on, but given that quote I provided from the article has no grounding or relationship to anything written in the book, unless someone wants to show me otherwise, I think it is appropriate for removal.


 * Akiva.avraham (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are personal disagreements with the author's POV, and some unsupported ideas that it is an April Fools joke. Note it wasn't even published on April 1. Again, this boils down to a personal disagreement with the POV as a rationale for removal which is not how Wikipedia operates. -- Green  C  14:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Somebody doesn't like Trump obviously, just another hit piece against Trump, leave it out.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

These political biases are what makes this entry so murky. It seems as if those who are wanting to compare the Art of the Deal to Mein Kampf and associate Trump with Hitler are also the ones suggesting that Trump had nothing to do with the writing of the book at all, which would mean any comparison to Hitler actually fall on the co-author, Tony Schwartz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7207:E048:AD82:DBA:82CC:5BEC (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should the source comparing Mein Kampf to Art of the Deal be included?
Should the following be included in the "Reception" sub-section?


 * In March of 2016, Peter Ross Range, a German specialist and author, made comparisons between Art of the Deal and Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. (Source: Peter Ross Range (March 31, 2016). "There's a little 'Mein Kampf' in Trump's 'Art of The Deal': Column". USA Today.)

n the discussion space below please leave a comment or !vote Support for inclusion or Oppose. Per WP:RFC discussions usually remain open for about a month. -- Green  C  14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Mein Kampf comparision RfC

 * Support The source is USA Today, it is national in scope. The author is an established author and German-expert who has written a good-faith supported article that isn't slanderous. The arguments for removal boil down to disagreement with the author's POV, or for no other reason than it's Hitler and according to certain immutable laws (Godwin etc) it is verboten to make comparisons to Hitler. Wikipedia allows for POV's published in reliable sources even those we are uncomfortable with, do not like or agree with. -- Green  C  14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This is a reviewer drawing parallels, clearly expressed in his voice. Having read the review, I think there are more usable quotes drawing more precise analogies. Even the title 'The Donald is no genocidal warmonger, but like Hitler, he's capitalizing on public craving for national self-respect'. I see no reason not to use but care is obviously necessary. Pincrete (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking, upon reflection, the 'review' isn't so much a comparison between the two books, as a comparison between the two men and their appeal to their supporters - therefore is this validly a comment on the book? I don't have any BLP objection, but am uneasy about presenting a (perfectly valid) criticism of Trump's political style as a book review. Pincrete (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Bad cite source, fails RSS since it is not USA Today writing but rather an outsider opinion piece their reputation and editorial oversight are not involved. Bad notability as relative to many other aspects of Trumpism or even the book this is not widespread or significant impact.  Seriously, this is just someone's straining to drag Nazis into the internet discussion ... a tired not very reputable internet phenomenon. See Godwin's law.  Frankly, just smells of politics to try and add it at this point, seems a WP:SOAPBOX insert from desire to jab at a candidate.  Markbassett (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually the connection between Trump and Hitler has been made by numerous writers over the past two years, it's not strained at all. What's straining is getting past people's perceptions of Godwin's Law - In fact the meme is so common Mike Godwin said of it in 2015: "If you’re thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician." The source for this quote is in our article Godwin's_law. -- Green  C  01:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The USA Today article is a legitimate, thought-provoking, reasoned comparison, which he is at pains to say is NOT implying that 'Donald' is a homicidal maniac, simply comparing the populist rhetoric and scapegoating which is appealing to a disenchanted electorate. I just DON"T think it's a response to the book, therefore I am not sure it belongs here. Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with that, we continue to write about and re-evaluate books for 100s of years based on current events. It's a conversation that never ends, books have long lives they are not dead letters. Not to say it's a great work or anything, more so than Mein Kamp, but continues to influence the conversation. -- Green  C  00:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pincrete Not an article - this is just one opinion letter, not a USA Today production of their view or their editorial board and so lacks their reputation, editorial control, and fact-checking for WP:RS so is not RS.  That they show online some outside opinions, like "Law makes clear DOJ should prosecute Clinton for mishandling 'national defense information,' classified or not", and "Some anti-establishment revolution this is, we can vote for Hillary or one of her donors." is interesting but not usable as a cite.  Markbassett (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I understood that it was not a 'hard news' article, rather a review/opinion piece, which intrinsically are not 'fact-checkable' in their main assertions. Such facts as there are (the circumstances under which Mein K were written and historical parallels?), rely on the reputation of the author as an historian. The piece is usable as the opinion of the writer, though I am dubious about using it for other reasons given above. Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - What's to discuss? The author is a student of Hitler, his rise to power, his disastrous downfall, taking millions with him and fuelling America's rise to dominate the Fifties, Sixties and beyond. He sees a clear parallel with Trump and Hitler, and uses their own published works to point out the similarities, not just in their "bibles", but in the men, the times, the mood of the citizenry. If Wikipedia is so timid as to shy away, shielding politicians from informed commentary, then maybe it's time for an orange-haired messiah to bring on the American Apocalypse and the Chinese Millenium. Hitler's turgid treatise is a way to understand the author, both to make his rise to infamy comprehensible, and to expose the human failings of the man behind the words. Why should Trump's masterpiece be seen any differently? Trump has not denounced his book, he seems to be supporting it and asking a new generation to (buy and) read it. We have a reliable source, a genuine scholar, a clear case of relevence and notability. --Pete (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He's not a scholar so much nor is this opinion piece a scholarly work -- and it's 28 years after the book was printed so by timing and content seems more a fad of the political campaign (see at Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016) than a book review. The label versus republicans and Godwin's law is not new or specific to Trump even, see [Politico], and you can Google for Jewish objections to it as offensive, e.g. Jerusalem Post. Markbassett (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be a book review in a narrow sense. Just something about the book. -- Green  C  18:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Markbassett, Shakespeare died four hundred years ago, but our articles on his plays draw on contemporary commentary. Surely you are not saying that Trump's text is somehow exempt from discussion and examination in a way that Hamlet is not? And, as you know, Mein Kampf was published many years before Hitler became the national head of state. We cannot somehow withdraw from examining or commenting on a text because of subsequent events. Indeed, it seems to me that the reverse is not only possible, but desirable. --Pete (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Pete - For the purpose of this RFC I'm saying Bad cite, not RS USA today writing, and not notable item. Commenting back further to comments that incorrectly label this non-scholar non-article and redirect them to it's just a minor opinion jab for political reasons.   The timing of it being just now he writes, and coincidence that there is a fad about this in presidential campaign makes it beyond reasonable doubt that this is really not about the book.  Markbassett (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's an obvious case of WP:UNDUE. Some of the commenters in the original discussion seem to think there's a "book review" exception to undue weight, but there is not. The reception section should try to give a representative sample of reviews, not extreme opinions supported by only one source. Also, I wonder if some of these supporters have read the linked article beyond the clickbait headline, because it actually only contains about 3 sentences about Art of the Deal. Toohool (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the UNDUE arguments were made when the reception section only contained the Hitler piece and nothing else. That was a fair criticism. The reception section now contains a wide variety of views, so it's difficult to see where an WEIGHT argument comes in. Calling it "Extreme" is your POV and opinion, as mentioned earlier a Google search of "Hitler" and Trump brings up so many hits from so many reliable sources we could probably create an entire article on this topic alone. Even Godwin himself is quoted on this phenomena of Trump and Hitler - it's a meme with mainstream cultural support. What we are seeing here is knee-jerk reactions about making any comparisons to Hitler as extreme or invalid out of hand, which is unfortunate and something Godwin himself actively disagrees with. --  Green  C  18:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If this comparison is so mainstream, then you should be able to find lots more reliable sources to justify its inclusion in this article. Otherwise, as Jimbo is quoted on WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Toohool (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was mainstream, I said comparisons between Hitler and Trump (the meme) are in many mainstream sources. Furthermore every single article in the reception section contains a unique POV - those POVs don't exist elsewhere except in those sources. That's how reception of books works, people make opinions. Apparently that doesn't bother you, it only bothers you because, well, HITLER. Also he is not making an extreme comparison (such as calling Trump a mass murderer, the epitome of all evil etc..) it is a very narrow specific argument based on history, not at all extreme. But because it's HITLER well, that's different now. --  Green  C  18:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose- it's much more than a case of WP:UNDUE, there is actually no content in the source that validates a legitimate comparison between the two books. It is not a book review of Mein Kampf or of Art of the Deal. And if merely having a "craving for national self-respect" through writing a book is the new standard for a Hitler comparison, we will have a whole library full of indifferent autobiographies to make Mein Kampf comparisons with. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Logo confusion
The Trump Series template may confuse some readers insofar as it blurs the distinctions between the logos used by Donald J. Trump for President Inc. and Trump personally.

The text font in the campaign logo used by Donald J. Trump for President Inc. is Franklin Gothic, whereas the text font in the logo Trump uses on his airplane is Arial Black. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The case is basically closed: Trump didn't write a word in this book
The New Yorker (obviously a reliable source) just published a complete mea culpa by Schwartz regarding this book. In it, he comes clean about writing the entire book, sanitizing Trump's narcissism, and his word is confirmed by people at the publishing house and others. Here is the link to the story. Without objection, I think the article should be updated to reflect this. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So, this means that any comparison to Mein Kampf and Hitler is actually a reflection of Schwartz since Trump was not involved in the writing of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7207:e048:ad82:dba:82cc:5bec (talk • contribs) 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The NYr piece has lots of material to work with not only about who wrote the book. --  Green  C  14:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It certainly does. I only bring it up in that particular context because there was an RFC above where editors !voted down acknowledging that Trump didn't write a word of the book. (It probably should have been prima facie given that he barely reads any books, more or less writes them. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and I've included this information in my reorg of the article. I used words and phrases that avoid identifying Trump (or Schwartz) as the author of the book, except in the section where the authorship is discussed. I would argue that the infobox identifying Trump and Schwartz as co-authors remain as it is, however, because that's how the book is credited. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah this is somewhat tricky situation but that is a good idea and solution. One thing to consider is Trump now claims to be the sole writer, that Schwartz didn't write it it at all. Balance might suggest including the counter POV. However the claim is not supported by anyone except Trump. In the RfC we kept out Schwartz's claim as sole authorship because he was the only one making the claim. It was only included after it was confirmed by the publisher. So it seems fair to exclude Trump's claim, at least until there is more reliable evidence. -- Green  C  16:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Trump's counterclaim (with cite) should be included. Now that the question of authorship is addressed in the article, all claims should be presented. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree for reasons stated. We kept out Schwartz's claim for the same reason. There is also a BLP problem here, slander. -- Green  C  17:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If Trump goes on record disputing Schwartz's claim (I'm not seeing anything online saying he has, by the way), refusing to report that would seem prejudicial against Trump. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not about "refusing to report", WP is not a reporting news organization. We have editorial control over what is included in an encyclopedia article. The question is WP:WEIGHT and giving any weight to such a claim by Trump is farcical. Sometimes showing both sides is not neutral, and not an improvement. Trump's claim is recent and has the appearance of a rhetorical response to Schwartz, an artificial controversy. If Trump had been saying this for a long time it would be different. Should the issue be forced a great deal more weight would need to be added to Schwartz than a sentence or two. -- Green  C  17:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The article cited clearly states that Schwartz wrote every word of the book. This needs to be reflected in the lede. Additionally, the word "magnate" is, by its very definition, inherently non-neutra. The correct description is "businessman." Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as there are conflicting claims, what WP needs is to refrain from presenting one of them as Fact. The facts are that DT and TS were both credited as authors, that TS says otherwise, that his publisher now says otherwise, and that the New Yorker finds this credible enough to report. That's what we should state, and let the reader make up their own mind. Maybe the lede "needs" to include a mention of this dispute, but declaring TS the sole author like that is overstepping our authority. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a controversial claim at all. As noted below, Trump's claim is nonsense on its face, and giving it any weight when measured against the word of the publisher and the actual author is treating it with false equivalence. You should really stop reverting out such a straightforward change. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP apply heavily here, especially in regards to your opinion. Your claim that a single article (published today no less) is of greater weight than the supposed author without any verification beyond publication is WP:UNDUE, and, as mentioned, borders on WP:SOAP Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Hallward said it should be in the lede, not stated as unambiguous fact. The publisher said Trump didn't write Art of the Deal. The publisher is an extremely weighty claim as publisher's are known for defending their authors. Trump's claim has problems. It is a recent counter-claim made in response to Schwartz and the publisher. It is a self-serving claim. The claim doesn't make sense Trump is known for being anti-reading in general much less writing. The historical record for 30 years has said Trump had a ghostwriter and multiple source support that. Trump himself said he brought in Schwartz to write the book so his claims are inconsistent. No one else made the counter-claim but Trump. All these things add up to a picture of Trump's claim having little weight for inclusion. -- Green  C  18:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This falls under WP:SOAP. "publisher's are known for defending their authors" is anecdotal, and with only 1 article to verify any of this information which is directly contested by the author it falls under WP:UNDUE. WP:CONSENSUS should be noted and considered above all else. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I am aware that wikipedia does not often strive to present an objective view of events and rather aims to cobble together what others say, (WP:FORUM) however, especially in this circumstance there is little actual evidence given within the said article in question. I think that much of the rush for inclusion falls under WP:SOAP. Inclusion of this amount of material in the article is WP:UNDUE.Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You must be kidding. The publish stated unambiguously Trump didn't write it, and it's the New Yorker so its a reliable source. --  Green  C  02:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Lift, you reverted a substantial amount of good-faith work on the article, much of which was unrelated to the question of authorship. That was not constructive. In my revisions, I used language in most parts of the article that should be acceptable (even if it isn't preferable) to any point of view: avoiding the question of who wrote the book by instead stating the objective facts of who it was credited to and what the book itself says, instead of statements that "X wrote Y" which are disputed. That's what we're supposed to do here: state the facts that everyone can agree on. Whether TS's claim is credible or DT's claim is credible is NOT up to us to decide. It really is not. When there's a disagreement about the facts, we step back and state who claims what, and leave the assessment of credibility to the reader. I realize that this places me in disagreement with everyone participating in this discussion so far, but since it's WP policy, I'm going to go out on a limb and assert it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:UNDUE. One article does not meet the standard. I believe that the stance presented in the New Yorker should be within the article, but not presented as a fact. Unless some argument can be made otherwise, I will revert the edits made. I am also seeing a lot of WP:SOAP in regards to the article. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been editing WP for a decade, and have a pretty good grasp of verifiability standards. If we say "X claims Y" and we can point to a reliable sources that says "Y is claimed by X", we've done our job. (I also have a good grasp of what edit-warring is, and continuing to undo constructive edits like that is an example of it.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No you are wrong. The article does not "present as a fact" that, (what words? What sentence? NAME THEM) and you need to stop reverting multiple editors work that made significant changes that have nothing to with what you are reverting. -- Green  C  12:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is saying, "Kaminsky noted that Trump did not write any portion of the book". It's a really strange way of putting it, suggesting that it's an established fact and he was just pointing it out, when it's really just an assertion on his part. (I believe him, but it is conceivable that he's lying, exaggerating, or mistaken.) The lede doesn't need to say any of that; it would be enough to say there that the book is credited to DT and TS, but the authorship is disputed. The article can go into the detail (as it does). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that I agree it's a bit too strongly worded, it could be phrased as "According to". I've removed it while it is being discussed. Hopefully this will stop Lift's massive revert campaign. --  Green  C  13:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The only issue I see with the removed text is the use of the word 'noted'. Per WP:SAID, synonyms for said or wrote can skew the meaning and should be avoided when possible.Dialectric (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Even with a different verb I think it gives undue weight to the matter, and also has a bit of recent-ism to it. The question of authorship is important, but it isn't beginning-of-the-lede important; the book was notable for a long time (for its sales and influence) before that issue came up. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? In what world is the question of authorship "not beginning-of-the-lede important" to an article ON A BOOK? That seems like a prima facie ludicrous claim. If who wrote a book isn't "beginning-of-the-lede important" in that book's article, then what is?!? This is truly surreal. The only reason not to put it there is to maintain the facade that Trump wrote any portion of the book. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am serious, and I suggest you stop with the insulting comments, because I've made it very obvious that I have no such goal. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this and I believe the 21:20, 19 July 2016 rev. of the article is within WP:CONSENSUS. Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I pared down a new info dump into the lede. I removed duplicate info and material which was previously !voted to remove (the Hitler comparison), and moved new info (DT demanding royalties back) to the Development section. The authorship question is now addressed in the lede: in a second paragraph, rather than the opening sentence. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:49, 21 July 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) 06:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The part of the book we do know Donald Trump Wrote
The Title. The books title is a statement about his philosophy and even the fact that the book has no deal making art references in it is explained by the title indicating the book you should read to learn Trumps Philosophy was written by Sun Tzu over 2,000 years ago.Scottprovost (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

'making of'
this article (politico.com 1 June 2018) begins:
 * ''In 1985, Tony Schwartz, a writer for New York magazine, was sitting in Donald Trump’s office in Trump Tower interviewing him for a story. Trump told him he had agreed to write a book for Random House. “Well, if you’re going to write a book,” Schwartz said, recalling this interaction in a speech he gave last fall at the University of Michigan, “you ought to call it The Art of the Deal.”


 * ''“I like that,” Trump said. “Do you want to write it?”


 * These sorts of arrangements typically are not that generous for the writer. “Most writers for hire receive a flat fee, or a relatively modest percentage of any money the book earns,” Schwartz said in the speech. Schwartz, by contrast, got from Trump an almost unheard-of half of the $500,000 advance from Random House and also half of the royalties. And it didn’t even take a lot of haggling.

section development of the article says
 * Trump was persuaded to produce the book by Condé Nast owner Si Newhouse after the May 1984 issue of Newhouse's magazine GQ'' – with Trump appearing on the cover – sold well. Schwartz was hired to work on the book, and began working with Trump in late 1985.

=> imo more accurate: Trump hired Schwartz to write the book (and imo one might mention the good payment Schwartz got). --Neun-x (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It's unclear from the quote Trump hired Schwartz which has financial meaning. It would mean he had a contract with Trump, not the publisher, which is unusual. Normally publishers get the income and redistribute it to the authors as royalty. When it says "he got from Trump" it means the two negotiated ("haggling") how to split the publisher proceeds and Schwartz got a good deal, but it doesn't contradict Schwartz was hired by the publisher. Trump clearly chose Schwartz (w/ Schwartz's leading suggestion), though the publisher would have a say since it's their money at risk if the book flops. Since it's normal for publishers to have contracts with authors, and there's no evidence to contradict it, it's probably safe to say he was hired by the publisher; and the co-authors negotiated how to split the proceeds to Schwartz's favor. --  Green  C  16:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

book describes Trump's Soviet Union trip in 1987 and his interesting in doing business there, include in See also or elsewhere in article
This book describes Trump's Soviet Union trip in 1987 and his interesting in doing business there, per example The Art of the Deal text and other in other refs. Add to See also; Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. X1\ (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree this is relevant to the book and should be included. -- Green  C  02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Political Motivation
I think that dates are incredibly important to include when quoting co-authors and critics of the book. Though the book was written in the 1980s, many of those criticizing the book, as well as comments made by the co-authors, did not happen until Donald Trump began his presidential campaign. This leads many to believe that their "change of heart" is based more upon their own political beliefs, or from pressure to distance themselves and their affiliation with Donald Trump. Additionally, many comments inserted into this page have nothing to do with the book at all, or are using loose or obscure quotes in order to present an inauthentic depiction of the facts.

When a restaurant or business suddenly becomes the target of a scandal, Yelp and Google Reviews actively engages in filtering out those leaving inauthentic or politically motivated reviews versus reviews from actual customers so that the business does not garner a skewed score. This page should not be used as a sounding board for individuals who wish to taint the facts based upon their personal political viewpoints.


 * It's original research see WP:OR. If you can find sources that say the sources are not sincere, but rather politically motivated, we can look at that. The way you had it worded was to dilute the criticism as being mere politics and not a sincere criticism. "Taint the facts" is also OR, you personally disagree with the critics. --  Green  C  02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly I have my political biases as we all do. That is why I encourage moderators to be more scrupulous to not allow these pages to become sounding boards (which it appears it has). That is why I recommend including dates in all criticisms. This book was released over three decades ago yet many of the criticisms have only been made since Trump began his presidential campaign. Including dates will allow readers to make their own judgement. Not including dates can create the false impression that the critic has maintained this same opinion since the book's release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7207:E048:AD82:DBA:82CC:5BEC (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If there was different critical opinion prior to his presidency it can be easily documented. But a lack of former critical opinion is not evidence that the new opinions are politically motivated. Trump was a news topic magnet, all the time for better and worse, part of that included evaluation of his most famous book. Anyway all the sources are dated, nothing is hidden, but we don't need to go out of the way and emphasis it for the purpose of suggesting the criticism is politically motivated ie. not legitimate, based on 1 wiki user's theory of a conspiracy. -- Green  C  21:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please explain your remark "theory of a conspiracy"? This is a surprising comment.

Michele Singer
Rob Reiner recently claimed that his wife, Michele Singer, took the photo of Trump on the cover of the book. However, I notice that there are several different editions with different photos, but I assume Reiner is talking about the first edition. However, looking in the book, I don't see any credit for Singer. Does anyone know more about this? Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)