Talk:Trump University

Trump University Spam

I've moved this from the article - the newspaper source doesn't support most of the claims made (and google groups & google search are not suitable sources). However, if it can be properly sourced it should be put back in the article. --Singkong2005 · talk 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Trump University has been controversial as a confirmed source of spam. Trump University routinely denies the allegation. The spam, which originates from servers in Provo, Utah, include offers for pet medications, diet pills, software, loans, photo contests, and mortgage applications. [1] [2] [3]

Some spammers have been reported to have yearly earnings in the tens of millions of dollars.

I have to disagree - the newspaper source does confirm them as a source of spam.

It defines them as spam in a loose and inaccurate or irregular sense (it seems the author is on their list and gets excessive promo email - not offers for body part enlargement etc); most of the allegations are not supported in the newspaper article. I've also responded on your talk page. --Singkong2005 · talk 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And instead of deleting the section, rules state ythat you should ask for additional cites, correct? --Corwin8 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, allegations without appropriate sources should be removed... Wikipedia:Citing sources says:

If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense.

I see you've added a citation - I'm still not happy about the section, and would like to see it more carefully written... partly because I actually would like to see it done well enough to stay in the article and bring attention to their (apparently) bad behavior. But with that citation, I won't remove it or edit it just now. Please add other sources if you're able and consider moderating some of the language. --Singkong2005 · talk 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Keep NPOV in mind. The spamming "rumors" shouldn't be highlighted as the only thing in the article with it's own subsection! --ElectricEye (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep correct usage of apostrophes in mind. Not it's but its.137.205.183.70 (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

vandalism

is anyone willing to talk about why my edits are labeled vandalism? please? i don't understand. Whatali (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:VANDAL -- you've been deleting stuff you don't like, despite the fact that it is properly sourced re WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

which ref thing contains the information about stanford and columbia? i didn't delete it because i don't like it. and the thing about similarities with the university of waterloo has nothing to do with trump university. Whatali (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence that did not have any sources. Why do I have the feeling that this might not address your real concerns... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

i'm trying to understand what you're talking about when you said i was deleting stuff i don't like. what exactly did i remove that was vandalism? that's my concern. i'd like to get my vandal tag removed if possible since i'm only trying to help. Whatali (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't see how you were deleting links at the bottom of the page? Powerful strange. In any event, just relax and if you have stuff to add that comes with reliable sources, go ahead and try again tomorrow, after a 24-hour period has elapsed (so that you are out from under WP:3RR). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

they were incorporated into the article with the exception of the waterloo thing... did you even bother to look at what i did? Whatali (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

2016 Primaries

Should there be a new section created related to the issue as it relates to the 2016 GOP primaries? Mk17b (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I sure think so and added a reference to Hinckley Institute of Politics where Romney inserted as a worthy issue on the electability of Trump. The further devaluing recipients of degrees may expose Romney to defamation charges. Ted Cruz tweeted image of Deception Diploma.

Trump University Money Grab

--Wikipietime (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

My contribution seems totally valid and I contest removal of " Mitt Romney made mention of the University and worthlessness of a degree at a March 3. 2016 speech at the Hinckley Institute of Politics as he reinserted himself as a critic of Trump in the 2016 GOP primary race for President." This talk page may not be the proper place to express this; if so, my apology. --Wikipietime (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the right place to discuss disputes over content inclusion on the article. I see your edit was removed by an Anon IP. Hopefully they will expand upon their reasoning here. If you want to have the content included, I suggest finding 2 reliable sources (WP:RS) that mention Romney's comments. There could be an issue of undue weight if you add a lot of content on Romney, or any other individual's perspective, but 1 referenced sentence should be fine.Dialectric (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the bare fact that the subject of this article was "mentioned" is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion, even with reliable sourcing. See WP:NOT, WP:RECENTISM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Considerable content has been removed that was the effort of several individuals. At what point is this not vandalism? Dr.Fleischman, could you explain those actions? --Wikipietime (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the specific content. I try to include informative edit summaries with all of my changes. If you're referring to the Makaeff lawsuit information, that content did not appear encyclopedic or helpful to the reader. In addition, it included personal details about private individuals (specifically Ms. Makaeff and Ms. Jensen) that were not germane or relevant to the subject of the article, and therefore violated our policy on biographies of living people. We need to be especially careful in this case because Trump U. has already retaliated against Ms. Makaeff. I intend to enforce BLP and will revert. Please obtain a consensus on the talk page before restoring this content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I quit. You got me. Not really interested in a back and forth. I will say though, that presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses this issue in a rally of thousands and this event is not a part of wikipedia?; Oh, well. For clarity and future reference as this unfolds, this is what you removed; The lawsuit filed in California, Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC et al., the plaintiff Tarla Makaeff, a yoga instructor, alleged of being “scammed” out of $60,000 over the course of her time in Trump University. On March 3, 2016, plaintiff's attorney, Rachel L Jensen, submitted a transcription of video clip, as an exhibit, from Donald J. Trump’s February 26, 2016 Rally in Arkansas. Trump addresses the suit at 18:25-23:45 of the video.--Wikipietime (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of things are said at major rallies. If we listed every time every subject was mentioned at every rally, this encyclopedia would be a total mess. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVE to Trump University, consensus is that WP:COMMONNAME justifies a move to that name.(non-admin closure) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative → Trump University – It strikes me that this article should be moved to Trump University. The organization went by that name officially for at least half of its active existence, and more importantly per the relevant policy, reliable sources overwhelmingly still refer to it that way. For example, Google News gives 471 search results for "trump extrepreneur initiative" (with quotes) versus 419,000 results for "trump university" (with quotes). Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse - I would agree. But I'm not quite familiar with the wiki rules that would govern that. Mk17b (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  I believe the policy you are looking for is WP:COMMONNAME. ~Awilley (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse - Per WP:UCRN (policy): [article title] generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. No one ever calls this "The Trump Entrepreneur Iniative". Move to Trump University, and change this page to redirect to that. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse - I was looking for 'Trump University' before being redirected, as I suspect most other people do. Google 385.000 results for 'Trump Entrepreneur Initiative', +25,000,000 for 'Trump University'. QED. Little grape (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse - as others have noted above, the Common Name policy supports a move to 'Trump University'.Dialectric (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• I moved the page to just "Trump Entrepreneur Initiative" per WP:THE without being aware of this discussion. Sorry about that! --BDD (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support move to Trump University; but the redirect should be very helpful in any case. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support move per WP:COMMONNAME. StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131110084203/http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/trump-calls-ny-attorney-general-political-hack-20068641 to http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/trump-calls-ny-attorney-general-political-hack-20068641

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Check failed with the following error: 8:42:03 Nov 10, 2013 Got an HTTP 302 response at crawl time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Parking removed quote

I inserted the following and it was soon reverted. It seems to me that this is exactly why we need an article on Trump University - because it is a big political issue. Comments welcome

Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney highlighted his criticisms of Trump by referring to Trump University.

Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat.

References

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We do have an article on Trump University, and it's what this talk page is about. And Trump University's role in Donald Trump's presidential campaign is certainly noteworthy and relevant. However, this particular quote is non-neutral and is really about Donald Trump, not about Trump University. All it says about Trump University is that Romney thinks its degrees are worthless. The rest of it seems rather coatrack-y, like it's included to take a jab at Trump himself--even if that's not the intention. In addition, if we're going to quote this kind of non-RS viewpoint (in the lead, no less) then it must be balanced against other equally noteworthy viewpoints. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this does not belong in the lede, and that the quote is mostly off-topic. A sentence saying something to the effect of Romney has criticized Trump University (with reference), not in the lede, would be reasonable. Dialectric (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Expand scope of topic to lawsuit(s) and the art of spectacle creation.

This article/topic is going to grow immensely over the next several months and the ramifications are widespread. I have alway been interested in the art of creating spectacle which is pretty much what Donald Trump is about, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with these creations because that add enrichment and value to lives. The alleged father of spectacle, Bolossy Kiralfy, pioneered the art to a science. Students of the University garnered stature as to being an alumni regardless of the merits. The question remaining is whether they were esteemed or shunned by their peers, which is a totally subjective assessment. Either way, this article has got some healthy legs to run on and I, for one, am fascinated by the art of spectacle as displayed by many.--Wikipietime (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Others associated with creation of Trump University

There are two other names who are associated with the creation of Trump Universty. Jonathan Spitalny was given a lot of praise by Trump for the university creation, yet has received little mention. The New York Post covered his connection;

Extended content

"When Donald Trump unveiled his plans for Trump University,he did something that The Donald seldom does – he showered praise for the venture on a little-known advisor,Jonathan Spitalny. The low-key Spitalny,a senior managing director at Bear Stearns,counts two billionaires among his client list – Trump and the 85-year-old liquor baron Sidney Frank. If you ask The Donald or Frank about Spitalny,the talk turns not to hedge funds or investments but first and foremost to golf.”He ‘s a great athlete and a good golfer,he ‘s almost as good a golfer as me,” said Trump. Michael Sexton,the president of Trump U.,is a little more specific:”He ‘s a relationship builder and very, very good at it,” said Sexton.And he says that Spitalny “was really instrumental in engineering the deal and creating Trump University.” Frank is the man who created a liquor empire and recently sold Grey Goose to Bacardi for $2.4 billion.Spitalny was a family friend who at first took advice from Frank on everything from golf to his career. “I knew his parents,and I ‘ve been advising him on golf since he was 7 years old,” said Frank.Today,it ‘s payback time. When pressed,Frank concedes that Spitalny is personally handling $20 million in investments and advising on many other deals.”I think he ‘s good at picking stocks,” said Frank. “Bear Stearns brings me a lot of ideas,and most of them come through Jon,” he said. While Frank doesn ‘t take all of his suggestions – he rejected one of Spitalny ‘s ideas to buy a beer company – he has followed up on some high-profile investment concepts,such as getting into the publishing business. While reading the Robb Report recently,Frank wondered whether there was a way to do something in upscale travel magazines,using lists and shorter articles.And early this year,with Spitalny as a trusted adviser,Frank began starting a mini-magazine empire by buying two travel magazines: Travel Savvy,purchased for $800,000,and Business Traveler,purchased for $500,000. Steve Schragis,now the publishing director at Frank Media, recalled when he was running programming for The Learning Annex and Trump was speaking to a sellout crowd.When the limo pulled up outside,one of the people who jumped out of the back was Spitalny. While Trump spoke,Spitalny outlined Frank ‘s magazine plans to Schragis,a one-time owner of Spy magazine in the 80s and mid-90s who had recently tried to buy New York magazine. Within weeks,Schragis was on board at Frank Media.Of course,Spitalny himself,in keeping with the low-key image mandated by Bear Stearns,declined to be inter-viewed on his secret for success.But,in addition to his financial savvy – and relationship building on the links – he alsotakes time to enjoy the riches of his success. Last Thursday,he celebrated his 40th birthday at L ‘Escale, the posh dining establishment on Long Island Sound in Greenwich,Conn.Among the revelers was Ahmad Rashad, the sportscaster and Michael Jordan pal who was once a star wide receiver for the Minnesota Vikings. References

Trump set the record straight, with youtube video at critical time in 2016 election cycle.

On March 7, 2016 Donald Trump posted a video on youtube, titled "Trump University Truth" addressing the Trump University directly. Perhaps a mere mention of this in the article, by a more experienced editor, would be relevant and useful. In the video, Trump highlights some of the parties of the lawsuit. http://www.98percentapproval.com/uploads/Bob_Guillo_Survey.pdf

Extended content
File:Trump University Truth.png Trump University Truth

--Wikipietime (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Non-partisan factcheck.org already addressed that for us here - http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-defense-of-his-university/ - saying that "That’s misleading. A class-action lawsuit against Trump alleges that the surveys were not anonymous and were filled out during or immediately after sessions when participants were still expecting to receive future benefits from the program." Mk17b (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Highlighting this speech by Donald Trump is blatantly non-neutral original research. Of course, Mr. Trump is an involved party and his views should not be emphasized any more than, say, the plaintiffs'. Moreover, we have a strong preference, especially for heated disputes, for reliable, independent secondary sources over unreliable, non-independent primary sources like this one. The only purpose for including Mr. Trump's claims would be to explain that they have been rejected by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is unabashedly POV, I don't think this was an attempt to have a discussion whether it warrants inclusion or not. The conversation should just be collapsed before the talk section turns into a open discussion forum. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

LLC

In the opening paragraph, one user is insisting on removing the "LLC" after "Trump University" (insisting that to include it would be "legalistic") although in fact the official name of the corporation was "Trump University LLC."

There is of course no basis in policy for not including the full name on first reference (I of course don't object to dropping it on subsequent references).

If you look at other articles (and there are perhaps hundreds of these), the "LLC" is always included on first reference, for example:

• Coffeyville Resources (article begins "Coffeyville Resources LLC, formerly known as the COOP Refinery, is a company...")
• Colt Defense (article begins "Colt Defense LLC, together with its subsidiaries, is a designer...")
• Chartres Lodging Group (article begins "The Chartres Lodging Group, LLC, is an advisory and investment firm...").

I don't care to fight such a minor point (since the article subsequently makes clear that the form of the company was an LLC), but I do want to make clear that it is improper to not give the full name on first reference. Neutrality^talk 23:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the basis for this. The first reference is generally supposed to reflect the article title. The article title is "Trump University," per WP:COMMONNAME and the closed move proposal above. If you can find a guideline that supports your position then I'll come around. WP:FULLNAME doesn't cut it--this isn't a biography. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Found it at WP:NCCORP#First sentence. Self-reverting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Kind regards --Neutrality^talk 00:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent article in Fortune and other sources that may not be citable, yet

Here is a recent article in Fortune: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe someone will include it into the article. I find it astonishing that the article is as shallow and brief as it is.Personally, I am just watching to see what is going on here. Seems suppressive --Wikipietime (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)--Wikipietime (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)--Wikipietime (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Pam Bondi a rising star in the Trump University lawsuit. I am waiting for more citable sources to include in article.--Wikipietime (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

References

NPOV issues

Now I am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds - your addition of content here, here, here, and here are unreferenced and contain neutral point of view violations. While your latest edit somewhat better, I think that there are still problems (especially with the use of the word "fake school") - I don't think that this description belongs in the article, as it definitely can be interpreted as non-neutral. Other editors have also reverted your edits for the same reason. Please do not make further reversions to the article without discussing and reaching consensus first; you are in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule and causing an edit war, which is not allowed and can result in being blocked. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

But it was a fake school, a total spam. There's neutrality and then there's the plain facts of the matter.137.205.183.31 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

About Trump's criticisms of the judge

I just now removed the actual wording of Trump's attacks on Curiel, per a similar removal of them from the Gonzalo P. Curiel article, see Talk:Gonzalo P. Curiel. The main concern there was that mud-slinging should not be part of a biographical article. I'd rather not see the actual name calling here, either, just a report that Trump "criticized" Curiel; let people click on the links to see what he said. But I am open to discussion/consensus on this issue. --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with this removal. Trump's choice of words has been heavily covered by reliable sources and is highly significant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree as well; there has been a great deal of attention to what Trump actually said, and I'm not sure why we would avoid this here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have restored it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Neutrality^talk 18:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Online education?

Why does the lead sentence describe this as as "online education" company? I think the "education" was mainly through seminars and personal teaching/coaching, wasn't it? --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. It's been there since the very first version, not sure why. I'm cleaning it up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll tell you why. When it began, Trump University offered online classes, but it quickly switched its focus to live classes and seminars, the first of which was free to attend. One of the company’s ads said of Trump, “He’s the most celebrated entrepreneur on earth. . . . And now he’s ready to share—with Americans like you—the Trump process for investing in today’s once-in-a-lifetime real estate market.” The ad said that Trump had “hand-picked” Trump University’s instructors, and it ended with a quote from him: “I can turn anyone into a successful real estate investor, including you.”137.205.183.31 (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuits confusing

It seems like there are 3 separate suits being discussed in that section, but they run together. I think they should be broken out into sub-sections for clarity. WDYT? Toddst1 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately they tend to get run together in the reporting, and in people's comments about them. Sometimes you can't even tell which case people are talking about, or if they are lumping them all together. If you are able to straighten them out, with a paragraph for each or maybe a sub-section as you suggest, more power to you. I see that you have started a separate article, Art Cohen vs. Donald J. Trump, but I don't think a separate article is justified at this time. What would you think about making that title into a redirect, at least until there is a lot more coverage specifically about that case? --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example of how the cases have gotten mixed up; your suggestion here would allow us to straighten them out. Our article says "In October 2014, a New York judge found Trump personally liable for operating the company without the required business license. [18] In February 2016, Trump suggested the lawsuit had benefited from the Hispanic ethnicity of the presiding judge.[21]" But that can't be right. The New York case, People v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, New York state Supreme Court, New York County, No. 451463/2013 [5], was heard by Judge Cynthia S. Kern. Trump's February complaints must have been about Judge Curiel, not Judge Kern.

We also need space to discuss "the cases" without identifying separate cases, because that kind of thing happens - for example in the primary debates. And I believe Curiel is the presiding judge for two of the three cases, which may mean we can't assign Trump's comments about Curiel to one case or the other.--MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Judge Curiel is the presiding judge for the two federal class-action cases: Cohen v. Donald J. Trump, Case No. 3:13-cv-02519 ("the Nationwide Action") and Makaeff, et al. vs. Trump University, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00940 ("the California/Florida/New York Action"). See this official website set up by the Trump University Litigation Administrator). The site says that "These cases are proceeding simultaneously" (they don't appear to have been formally consolidated).

Justice Kern is presiding over the New York state case, People v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC (or more formally, In the Matter of The People of the State of New York, by Eric T. Schneiderman, as Attorney General of the State of New York v. The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC, Formerly Known as Trump University LLC, et al.). Confusingly, judges of the New York Supreme Court—which is the trial court in New York—are referred to as justices. Neutrality^talk 15:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll interpret that as support for separating the suits in the section by creating sub-sections. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do. Can't happen too soon. Could do it by lawsuit and then separately a "Political football" section. There's other bad stuff. Here:

In October 2014, a New York judge found Trump personally liable for operating the company without the required business license.[18] In February 2016, Trump suggested the lawsuit had benefited from the Hispanic ethnicity of the presiding judge.[21] Shortly thereafter Schneiderman described Trump's remarks as “racial demagoguery.”[22]

You would think that Trump's comment in the 2nd sentence had something to do with the lawsuit in the previous sentence. But that lawsuit is NYS and Trump's comment is about Curiel in CA in federal court. And the AG is just denouncing Trump because he feels like it, even though his case isn't at issue. The last two sentences would be better removed. We deal with Trump v Curiel further below.Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily support (or oppose) a separate subsection for each case. We need to keep in mind that the cases have a common nucleus of fact. I do think there should be some sort of list, table, or subsection that contains the key details on each case - date filed, judge, court, case name, class action vs. non-class action, etc. Neutrality^talk 01:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of making a separate subsection for each case. I'm more in favor of listing out the cases in some sort of table or bullet point list and then discussing the cases collectively, as the reliable sources have done for the most part. Thank you to Melanie and Neutrality for the research and analysis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

About the new document dump

I think we can include a sentence or two, toward the end of the article in the paragraph about the released material, provided it is a neutral summary of what is included in the recent document dump. I have reverted (and someone before me also reverted) the extended, all-negative section someone wants to add, quoting only the testimony and allegations of ex-employees. This is a non-neutral, cherry-picked selection of information. And while the New York Times can be used as a source, the testimony itself cannot; it is a primary source. --MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

They immediately re-added it. I will try to work something out on their user talk page to avoid an edit war. --MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You can take out the primary sources if you want, but, personally, I fail to see how that will help the article. Mistakenly, I omitted the secondary source originally. All of the quotes and paraphrases are from the secondary material. i've not read the primaries, but simply added them, for the benefit of industrious readers. I've moved all the new material, and replaced my original paraphrase with pure direct quotations from secondary sources for the negative claims. I hope there is no problem with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:5130:930:9F25:C4E2 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because documents are posted at nytimes.com does not make them secondary sources. These are primary sources, and as such Wikipedia policy requires us not to go beyond what they say. Moreover, secondary sources such as news articles are definitely preferable, and this subject matter has been heavily covered by the secondary sources. Finally, I agree with Melanie that the content you are pushing is highly non-neutral. Please review our policies and guidelines on neutrality and original research before proceeding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please take a closer look. There is a secondary source there, as in a Newspaper article about the testimony. i understand the distinction between secondary amd primary sources; merely because I posted some primary sources does not mean I posted no secondary sources. I repeat, there is a secondary source which all of the quotations are drawn from. Please look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:5130:930:9F25:C4E2 (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

How can direct quotes from a reliable, neutral secondary source like the newspaper article from the Times be non-neutral? further, this is newly unsealed testimony. Please add ADD"L secondary sources if you have them, but there is no reason to delete thequotes from the secondary article I linked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:5130:930:9F25:C4E2 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we all at least agree that this is a secondary source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=Multimedia&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click

I am not conducting original research; everything is direct quotes fro, the Times secondary source today(Headline: "Former Trump University Workers Call the School a ‘Lie’ and a ‘Scheme’ in Testimony.") Since this is new information, I doubt you will find many independent secondaries yet, but please do search for them. Still, the Times is reputable, and worth our notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:5130:930:9F25:C4E2 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The citations you added are a mess. I'm not going to dig through so many lengthy citations to figure out which content is supported by which citations. If the content isn't supported by the main NYT article then that's an indication that it isn't sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. Also, at a minimum, this content isn't neutral unless it includes the fact that some employees and students thought the program was legit. And I agree with Melanie that this subject matter doesn't belong in the lead section. Finally, please don't edit war. Seeing as how Melanie and I both disagree with this content as written, please remove it and discuss it here before re-including. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

'"I'm not going to dig through lengthy citations..." Are you serious? It is supported by the Main Times article. There is no mention in that article of employees "who thought it was legit" you are injecting your own bias. I'm so sorry it was too difficult for you to click on the link I have repeatedly provided for you to see the statements are direct quotations.

One more time, no digging necessary! Here is the SECONDARY SOURCE ALL OF THE MATERIAL IS DRAWN FROM; http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=Multimedia&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:5130:930:9F25:C4E2 (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've now added 4 fresh secondary sources, to appease our good doctor. Are we happy now? All the sources say the exact same thing; in fact, the Times article is the least negative by far.

In fact, I now daresay that that is the single most impeccably and scrupulously sourced sentence in the entire article. Very glad I could be of service. Good day,

Two editors have voiced good faith objections to the content you added. Please remove it and we can discuss it here. I will not engage in further discussion on the merits until then. If you don't remove it then I'll seek administrator intervention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

On second thought I removed the content myself. If you re-add it then you're in violation of WP:3RR and I'll seek administrator intervention. I suggest you take some time to cool off. I'm happy to discuss this civilly tomorrow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually think there should be some information about what the document dump showed. However, it should not be in the lead, but in the paragraph about that lawsuit. And it should be more general, without all the negative quotes based on cherry-picked testimony from ex-employees. I'll try to come up with a wording and I'll propose it here to see if we can agree on it. --MelanieN (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Melanie agrees with you Flieshman, you are wrong. You may be in good faith, but you are absolutely unequivocally wrong that the information alleged in the testimony does not belong in this article. You are repeatedly bringing up spurious arguments to try to white wash this article; so, no I do not think your edits are in good faith. You have repeatedly argued im bad faith "dont have time to look at citations" to remove a straightforward portrayal of the primary item of interest for 99 percent of readers interested in the article. Going and crying to administrator doesnt make you right when you cannot win with rational arguments. In no way do I accept the premise that you are editing in good faith by deleting material because it offends you when it is a neutral description taken straight from the Times, amd backed by 4 other independent sources. 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Off Wikipedia, I argue quite forcefully in my personal life that Trump is a con man and a megalomaniac. That is my personal opinion. As a Wikipedia editor, though, I am 100% committed to the neutral point of view. Accordingly, I agree with DrFleischman and MelanieN. We need to summarize the full range of sources, pro and con. This is a core content policy, which applies to all articles, even the Donald Trump suite of articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The IP has demonstrated (through several changes of IP) that they are unwilling to accept Wikipedia's core policies of neutrality and consensus. We will get this straightened out, but it may be necessary to semiprotect the article first. I would do it myself, but I am WP:INVOLVED. --MelanieN (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. We have two weeks semi-protection. Now we can get the article in shape. --MelanieN (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Disgusting. The two of you should be ashamed of the way you have conducted yourselves here.

neither of you could even deign to read a single source I gave you or produce any evidence for your absurd claims, 'there are two sides here"--where is the source that fepresents the testimonh positively fir Trump? You appeal to imaginary possible sources while I appeal to real, actual sources. and yet you steamrolled this article into erasing a wealth of new information to support your rather pathetic little delusions that your Fuhrer Donald Trump is an honest businessman. I gave you a huge consensus of news articles characterizing new events that readers of this article will want to know, and you deleted it to replace it with your unsupported, unsourced fantasies. No wonder this encylopedia is newrly always out of date and factually wrong when it is so replete with editors eager to delete impeccably sourced information to preserve "neutrality." If a consensus of NY Times, NBC, and a dozen other secondary and peimary sources is not neutral and well sourced, what is? I'm truly embarassed for this encylopedia's committment to being a poor source of information in order to avoid damaging feelings. Truly, a sad commentary on thus declining, crumbling boondoggle, filled with false facts to preserve a false sense of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Have any of you read the sources? Here are the headlines, and you tell me if I've misrepresented the news community's consensus: Ny Times:" Former Trump University Workers Call the School a ‘Lie’ and a ‘Scheme’ in Testimony" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=Multimedia&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click Nbc :"Trump University Staffers Describe 'Fraudulent Scheme' In New Court Documents" http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-university-staffers-describe-fraudulent-scheme-new-court-documents-n584071 Consumerist: "Former Trump University Managers Call Out “Dishonest” Program In Unsealed Testimony " https://consumerist.com/2016/06/01/former-trump-university-managers-call-out-dishonest-program-in-unsealed-testimony/

The coverage has been universally negative. I could have found worse quotes if I wanted. This is a witchhunt here. I am the only one who has presented sources to back up my views. All you have presented are claims, unverified, that there are 2sides here. Then show me them! I'm all ears to see your secondary sources that describe the testimony in dramatically different terms than I gave. I doubt you'll find any, but please show me some sources if I am wrong instead of attacking me. 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Vox: “It was a façade, a total lie”: new documents reveal how Trump University’s scam worked" http://www.vox.com/2016/6/1/11827596/trump-university-scam

You're misunderstanding us. No one is saying your choice of sources was poor. I love the New York Times. (And yes, I did read that article before you brought it up -- in fact, I cited it before you did.) The problem is that you're quoting the most negative, inflammatory viewpoints quoted from the Times source without quoting the corresponding positive viewpoints in the same source. Further, you are misrepresenting the source, which does not say, for instance, that "several" employees called Trump University a "lie." Only one did. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Fleishman, it's you who misunderstands and is scarcely capable of reading, i perfectly understand "no one is saying the choice of sources is poor." Pay attention. The point is this: look at those headlines. If you can read those articles , and tell me I "cherry-picked" "the most negative, inflammatory viewpoints" you are an outright liar and a fraud. I am done with your bad-faith, paid editing. You are a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well that's a new one. This is the first time I've been accused of working for Donald Trump. It's a badge of honor, I guess. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Me too - an honor I could have done without. --MelanieN (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• To the IP, I am no longer interested in interacting with you. You have shown that you do not accept Wikipedia's policies of consensus or neutrality, and I have nothing more to say to you. --MelanieN (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• • To Melanie: and you, in turn, have indicated you do not accept Wikipedia's policies of "Making true claims", "having sources for one's claims", "reading the sources before commenting on them" "representing things accurately, as they are depicted in a wide variety of our sources". What is laughable is that I gave you a dozen different news outlets with the identical, well-sourced assessment, and you, in reply produced nothing, and abised your administrator privileges to get your way in an argument you plainly lost on the merits and had 0 sources for. A sad state of affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4DFE:B91B:87C0:6E1D (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, please calm down and stop your personal attacks and POV pushing. If you are unable to do so, please go write anti-Trump blog posts elsewhere. Thank you. Wikipedia is not a tool for political advocacy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you go write a blog about all the goose-stepping you'll be doing once Trump is elected Fuhrer, my snide friend? I did not engage in "PoV pushing" please note the HEADLINES OF EVERY ARTICLE ABOUT THE NEW TESTIMONY:

"Former Trump University Workers Call the School a ‘Lie’ and a ‘Scheme’ in Testimony'/

"It was a façade, a total lie”: new documents reveal how Trump University’s scam worked"/" Former Trump University Managers Call Out “Dishonest” Program In Unsealed Testimony"/ "Trump University Staffers Describe 'Fraudulent Scheme' In New Court Documents"

Could those opposed please deign to point my way to even one source or quotation from an article supporting your views? Many thanks.2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4DFE:B91B:87C0:6E1D (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I deign, oh wise one. From the New York Times source: "Lawyers for Mr. Trump on Tuesday challenged those characterizations, saying that the testimony of the former Trump University employees 'was completely discredited' in depositions taken for the California lawsuit." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So tthen add that sentence characterizing Trump's attorney's position (even though Trump has essentially already lost the suit), instead of absurdly hiding the revelatioms when you and I both know that you just admitted on your talk page that I a probably right, and we are "very close to the point that the damaging revelations" (namely, the newly unsealed testimony)should be in the lead, it is an embarassment to the encylopedia that this article buries the entire point of the article in offhand, barely sourced comments seemingly meant to shield our readers from having any clue what Trump has even been accused of here. Read this article start to finish and you would have zero idea what this case is even about. At lesst jn my version the reader got to know something. In yours the reader leaves knowing less about the topic ″than when they began reading. Cheers. 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4C86:3B76:19E8:4843 (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that we complied with Godwin's law. Congratulations all around. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And let's not forget the corollary: "there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress." --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Erm, no. When the parallels with the rise of the 3r Reich are apt, your claim is null and void.137.205.183.31 (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Curiel ethnicity and Schneiderman quote in lead section

Re this revert: Can someone please explain why a comment about Curiel's ethnicity is so central to an encyclopedia article about Trump University that they belong in a 3-paragraph introductory summary? Further, can someone explain why Schneiderman, representing the plaintiffs, is entitled to a scathing 3-line quote in the lead section while Trump University gets no balancing material? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been moved, per your suggestion. Thanks for the help.2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been removed. --MelanieN (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If you remove even more sources there can be even fewer sourced claims in this article; maybe you can remove everything negative by morning if you keep at it! Keep up the good work of removing reliable sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4DFE:B91B:87C0:6E1D (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4C86:3B76:19E8:4843 (talk)

Trump comments

Neutrality, doesn't the reference you added to legal experts' concerns "should Trump become president" strike you as a bit coatrack-y? Don't forget that this article is about Trump University, not about Donald Trump or his presidential campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's directly related to the legal case (and related to, but surely independent of, the campaign). As the sources reflect, it is exceptionally unusual for any prominent litigant to directly attack a judge in such a manner. That bears mention. Neutrality^talk 18:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's one thing for us to include Trumps comments, which I already noted elsewhere on this talk page are noteworthy. It's quite another to include commentary speculating on what Trump will be like as president. If the commentary said that Trump's comments reflected poorly on TU or hurt its chances at trial then that would be a different story, in my mind at least. There's also a WP:CBALL problem, but I think that's secondary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The linked policy states explicitly: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included..." Given that this is the Washington Post broadly reporting on the widely held views of some legal experts, I'd say that this criterion is firmly met. Neutrality^talk 18:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What about "concerns?" More importantly, what about the coatrack/neutrality problem? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how it's either of those two. As to the first, it accurately reflects an important and significant perspective directly related to the case; it is this kind of expert and historical perspective that an encyclopedia should mention. As to the second, the statement is neutral and properly attributed; it tracks the source quite closely. The mention is also brief (a single sentence), so it is proportional to the rest of the article. Neutrality^talk 19:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Would other editors care to weigh in? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It certainly is unusual for a litigant to personally attack the judge like this (I frankly can't remember a case), and it probably deserves mention. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, you might have misunderstood. I have no problem with including Trump's personal attacks. What I have a problem with is the implications of the attacks on a potential Trump presidency, which is definitely not the subject of this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The implications explain the significance of the attacks. Otherwise, the reader is left without context. Neutrality^talk 17:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If the significance is its potential impact on a potential Trump presidency, then that's a sign that it doesn't belong in this article. But I'm curious to get Melanie's view on this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should leave out the last phrase, with its predictions and speculation - so that we just say "Trump's "highly personal, racially tinged attacks" on Curiel, as well as Trump's comments that "someone ought to look into" the judge, have alarmed legal experts, who expressed concern about the effects of the comments on judicial independence". (Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been offline.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

TU is becoming an explicit issue in the campaign. Should we add to the campaign section: "Hillary Clinton has cited the Trump University allegations to claim that Trump himself is a "fraud" trying to "scam America." [6]" ? --MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. "allegations" or "lawsuits"? If you can, add a date for the first time she did so. I believe it was this past week in her first speech devoted entirely to a Trump, but we'll need a source. I'm working on a proper treatment of the GOP as well, Romney etc., and hope to have that tomorrow. Takes to time to be succinct and not just dump a lot more detail than needed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9, thanks for all your work on that addition, but IMO what you came up with is not "succinct" - and actually does include "a lot more detail than needed." I had started a section below to discuss this before I saw your comment here. Let's discuss it down there for clarity. (We have a lot of discussions about different things going on here at once, let's keep them separate as much as possible.) BTW I'm glad we are all working on improving this article, because I notice it has been getting tens of thousands of page views a day, so I think it is incumbent on us to get the article in as good shape as we can (by which I mean informative, accurate, neutral, and readable). --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Further thoughts on organization

In response to Bmclaughlin9's edit summary saying he/she doesn't know where to put the sentence about TU pressuring students... I think we should slightly re-frame the article to distinguish what TU actually did while it was operating from 2005-2010 (including the accusations and testimony of what it did), versus the procedural aspects of the lawsuits. So, I'd take all of the allegations by students and employees, which are currently scattered and disjointed among the litigation subsections, and put them in a new "Business practices" section. Then litigation section can focus on the procedure, the release of the documents, Trump's criticism of Judge Curiel, etc. etc.

I believe this framework would allow us to put more meat on the bones of the article while making it less disjointed overall. After all, I'm guessing most readers really just want to know what TU did right or wrong, and they don't care so much about the legal history and how the revelations came out. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. That's the sort of approach I think we need. I'm trying to rework the defamation suit business, and it's all about counterclaims and moving from district court to court of appeals and back to district court, and none of this "substance", i.e. how Trump U operated, plays any role at all. At this point we don't even describe the basic offering: the free 90-miunute real estate seminar, and then the step up to the two other more expensive programs. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice work, the article is much improved. (I had planned to fix the mention of an appeals court responding in 2013 to a 2015 ruling, but I see you caught it already.) I do think moving the various allegations to a centralized section would be good. Half the time you can't even tell which lawsuit is being discussed. --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What would you think about moving the "Trump has repeatedly attacked Curiel" paragraph to a different section? Maybe combine it with the "impact on election" section under a different name? It really doesn't belong in the section about one of the lawsuits, because Curiel is involved in two lawsuits. --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. The attacks on Curiel are made in the context of the campaign. I also think "impact on election" is anticipatory. The election is distant and the impact is being assessed/predicted by the usual bloviating pundits. The subject is more "as an issue in the 2016 election campaign". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"Issue in the 2016 presidential election campaign," I like that. Or maybe something even more generic like "Public discussion of the case"? In any case I think it should be pulled out of the "Cohen v. Trump" section. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I made the move but kep my wording for now. "Public discussion" is awfully generic. Like "commentary". But I don't think we're looking for the general discussion of how TU fits into the larger pattern of for-profit education that promises more than it delivers. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I moved the whole Trump-Curiel paragraph to the "campaign" section. Trump's attacks are taking place in campaign speeches, and they are not tied to any one case. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that it's been moved back to the lawsuit subsection. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Name change

I would have moved the forced name change (dropping "University") into the company history, rather than into the NYS lawsuit section. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I had originally moved it to a separate section inside "Allegations of impropriety and lawsuits" as it is not connected to the lawsuit, but was an allegation of wrongdoing. I think it should either go back that way or be moved to the history section because it is not part of the lawsuit, rather a separate action by the state of NY. Toddst1 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I've BOLDly broken it out as a separate sub-section in the "Allegations of impropriety and lawsuits" section and briefly mentioned it in the history. I think it is appropriate to mention in both sections, but I realize this may seem redundant. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I still much prefer putting it the history section. Then we can rename "Allegations of impropriety and lawsuits" to just plain old straightforward "Lawsuits". BTW, Trump tweeted yesterday (June 2): "After the litigation is disposed of and the case won, I have instructed my execs to open Trump U(?), so much interest in it! I will be pres." So he hasn't given up on that "U" entirely. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, take that statement with a grain of salt, since Trump U's lawyers used the possibility of re-opening the school as an argument that releasing the sealed documents would be harmful its future interests. In other words, it could be pure legal bluster. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

NY Dept of Ed letters

Toddst1, I don't understand why you're moving the 2010 letter from NY Dept of Ed deputy commissioner Frey into its own section, apart from the 2005 letter from the same agency and the Schneiderman civil action. It seems to me it's all part of the same issue, an ongoing dispute between New York and TU over false claims, which initially included the "University" moniker. Separating that part out seems rigid and confusing to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. It wasn't clear to me that they were related. Thanks for pointing it out. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong material under NY

Under the NY case we say that "Michael Sexton stated in a 2012 deposition that Trump signed off on the school's advertisements.[23]" But according to the citation we learn that in a document released by Curiel, so not it's really a NY detail. And the source for the preceding sentence ("In an infomercial, Trump claimed to have "handpicked" Trump University's instructors. He testified in a 2012 deposition, however, that he never selected the instructors for the program.") seems to be citing class action materials as well.

I'm moving these to "History", though I realize they need to be properly integrated there. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I added some context but there is still room for improvement in that section. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Detailed quotes from Republicans and press

I think the recent addition of detailed quotes, from various Republicans as well as Megyn Kelly, are way too much detail. People's criticisms are quoted at length, both in the article and in the notes. I think all the detailed quotes from Romney, Rubio, Kelly, etc. should be done away with and reduced to a summary sentence, per WP:UNDUE (just as I deliberately did not quote HIllary in detail but simply said she has used the information). Other thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we can cut the quotes in the footnotes; those seem excessive. The sentences in the article text seem proportionate to me. Neutrality^talk 14:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I made some changes and will reply when I'm not limited to my iPhone. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think what we're doing here has much to do with the undue weight guideline to which you refer: "...articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." At some point later in this process, WP editors will provide assessments of TU and the lawsuits etc. and we'll do so based on the opinions of significant legal and business authorities, not Donald Trump or Marco Rubio. That will require careful balancing and management of whose views and how much detail to provide.

But that comes at the end of the play. At this point we're in Act II of a Punch and Judy show. We are providing a narrative of events to give the reader a sense of how TU has figured in the political debate, NOT to provide an assessment of TU and the lawsuits. We're explaining who is on stage and what/why are they shouting at one another. Giving the volume and notoriety, a few names and their actual language makes sense, I think. I've cited the former GOP candidate, Trump's biggest rivals, and a prominent journalist. And I've included Trump's response with a quote as well. If Trump's views haven't been given enough weight, we can add more, but there are few other voices, certainly few public figures, being raised in his defense. I've not included detail that I think is getting in the weeds, like Better Business Bureau said A, no it said D later, etc. I've tried to communicate to the reader something of the tenor of the discussion.

A summary sentence would leave the reader in the dark. Certainly anyone reading this -- "Hillary Clinton has used the Trump University allegations against Trump in speeches and campaign ads" -- would be entitled to ask what that means. Used? What did she underscore? Did she use a phrase that would help the reader understand how heated this debate has become? did she aim at his business reputation or personal character? didn't Trump respond dismissively? As it stands, it's like we're trying not to tell the reader too much.

It's still hard to keep this material from getting overlong, but that's why we'll be rewriting, adding and subtracting as teh drama unfolds. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, per the removal of the additional quotes in notes, this seems to be OK. I have a slightly longer version of the Hillary quote in another article, and I'll use it to expand this one. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Curiel

I see that attacks on Curiel are now covered under just one lawsuit rather than the politics section. I'm uncertain whether this material belongs under the lawsuits or the politics headings, but if under the lawsuits it probably deserves its own heading. The attacks on Curiel are as much about Low as Cohen, no? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. One thing we could do is make one level titled for "Federal class actions" and then underneath it put Low, Cohen, and Trump's attack on the judge as individual sub-sections. Neutrality^talk 15:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I like this idea. As noted above, I had moved the material on the Curiel attacks to the "campaign" section, but it was moved back to one of the lawsuits. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned from an NPV perspective that there's no explanation of why Trump attacked Curiel. These comments didn't come out of the blue. Wasn't he reacting to Curiel's decision to unseal the documents? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Trump has been criticizing Curiel in campaign speeches since at least February. reference cited in article --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see, thanks. Here's an article in The Atlantic that sheds useful light on the legal backstory and the key differences between Low and Cohen. I don't know if anyone wants to take a crack at including it. Also, FWIW, it cites a CBS article saying that Trump was already complaining about Curiel back in October 2014. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So I think we agree the Curiel material goes under its own heading under a new heading that groups the two federal lawsuits. But I really can't come up with the title. There hasn't been an actual request for recusal, so I'd avoid that word. The word attacks is tendentious per se, even if totally accurate. I'm stumped. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Expand history section tag

I noticed the tag that somebody should expand the history section, but I don't notice any discussion of the tag here. I think the history section is not overly long, and that anybody who wants to expand it should feel free to do so. But in general, I disagree with this type of tag - it just uglifies the page. See WP:Sofixit. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If had looked more closely you would have seen that we've been adding to that section since that notice was posted. There are bits scattered on this Talk page that mention moving material into that section as well. Removing a tag because you don't like the way it looks? whatever. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

General Bias

I was completely wowed over the level of bias in this article. I agree with the writer who said that whether it is intended to be a campaign to pick on Trump or not, this is what it turns out to be. The repeated use of "quotes" to "emphasise" points and the utterlack of neutrality is one of the reasons Wikipedia is not considered a stable reference source. Evilpassion (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)evilpassion 6/9/2016

I agree about the bias. It looks like Trump's legal team sent a couple of paralegals over here to fill this article with their spurious legal arguments, even though Trump has already lost the case and his legal arguments are laughable. This is as open-and-shut a case of fraud as one will ever find. Trump has lost and will certainly not overturn on appeal. The evidence against Trump is stronger than it was against Madoff.Eminent Jurist (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh My Goodness! The Lead! What a horror!

Hello, friends. I couldn't help but notice what a sorry state the lead of this article is in; I trust then that no one will object if I put my considerable juridical experience to work in penning you a new one. You're quite welcome. I propose the new lead go as follows:

draft collapsed

Trump University was a fake school, run by the Republican Nominee for President, Donald J. Trump. It is now defunct; it is widely believed to have been "essentially fraudulent in nature," according to the top lawmakers in New York, the state out of which the fraud was said to have been run, and where Trump himself resides. While Trump was originally supposed to have "hand-picked" the "instructors" of the "university", and to have designed the curriculum with his own, allegedly tiny little little hands, Trump is now known to have had no more involvement in the putatively educational operations of Trump University than he has in butchering the cows that make up Trump Steaks. Trump now faces numerous lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars over what top New York State lawmakers have described as a "fraudulent scheme;" according to rather plausible and greatly discussed rumors, he may be running for president in order to end the veritable blizzard of lawsuits filed against him, and to remove the Judge whom, because of his Mexican ancestry, Trump claim to be disqualified to hear any case involving him.Eminent Jurist (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: It appears you're only here to push your POV. Toddst1 (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)