Talk:Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia

Requested move 17 February 2017

 * 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: not moved. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia → Donald Trump's affiliations with Russia – This title better matches the current content of the page and is well covered as well as historic Casprings (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Note The original move request referred to this edit. I think it makes sense to make one page that details the relationship between trump and Russia. That said, if users disagree on that, I can just make a new page and link here for the business relationships.Casprings (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The purposed title implies Russian government, while the article is mostly about private dealings. PackMecEng (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Scope of article was clear until today's WP:COATRACK additions of alleged Russian election interference, dubious Trump–Russia dossier and the latest WP:ATTACK strategy from the New York Times rehashing last August's innuendo about Trump's campaign staff. Oh right, and Flynn. All this political stuff is well-covered elsewhere, and we should only include here events that are:
 * directly related to Trump's business dealings in Russia (e.g. not his campaign consultant's prior job advising a pro-Russian Ukraine government);
 * proven, per WP:BLP standards.
 * Finally, even if we decide to expand the article scope, the proposed word "affiliations" violates WP:POVTITLE. Talking to Russian people, traveling to Moscow or even doing business with Russian entities, doesn't make you affiliated to them. — JFG talk 21:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is nothing in this article that supports such a rename-move. Also, I'm sorry to say, the last sentence in the intro is outside the scope of this article, and I am inclined to remove it, per WP:Synthesis. And please see my comments in the above section. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the sentence - as being outside the scope of this article . And as someone stated above, this is covered elsewhere in other articles. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Perhaps a better name for a different article. The current title fits the scope of this subject much better.LM2000 (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Business projects in a country and affiliations with a country are two different things. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Affiliations with Russia implies that Donald Trump is affiliated with the government of Russia, which is not what is solely covered in this article. Morphdog (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2017 (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.

Politically motivated bias
The introduction of the article is written in a misleading, confusing and seemingly biased way, because the information in the introduction is contradictory to the statements in the article, which I do not challenge.

Currently, the first sentence is, quote, 'Donald Trump has (sic) multiple ties to Russian citizens, businesses and its government.'

This sentence is vague at best, and a deliberate attempt to mislead readers at worst. 'Ties to Russian citizens' is incredibly vague, general, and misleading; if this passes as a standard it would be fair to claim that Barack Obama has 'ties to Kenyan citizens.' 'Ties to businesses' is misleading because Trump has ceased to be an entrepeneur, and for the same reason the 'ties to the government' seem vague, too. The biggest issue is that the article itself mostly refers to the past and often to failed (!) attempts to get a deal, so it would be more appropriate to write something like 'during his life, Trump had repeatedly...' etc.

Here are a few quotes: 'the 1996 residential development did not happen', 'his terms were not agreeable to Russians', 'with the intent of doing real estate development deals', 'a potential deal', 'Trump did not successfully culminate a development deal', 'repeated attempts', 'was successful only until sometime in 2009', 'Trump attempted', 'this was not successful'. Given that the author thinks a series of failures constitute close ties, I have to wonder when Nazi Germany will be called the winner of the Second World War on this site. Anyway, this is a viewpoint expressed as a fact. The multiple failures also suggests that Trump has no private reason to have a favorable view on Russia, and that the Russian government did not treat him in a favorable way. At this point I also have to mention that whoever started this article by stating that Trump has ties to the Russian government apparently thinks that Gorbachev is the President of Russia.

The bias is also transparent in the attempt to psychologically put Trump close to the Kremlin by bringing up irrelevant details ('showed Trump plans for a very large shopping mall to be located underground in the vicinity of the Kremlin', 'stayed in the Hotel National, Moscow for several days, across from the Kremlin'). I assume that soon everbody who spend a day on the National Mall or a night at the Trump Hotel in DC will have 'ties to the Trump administration'. In this case, they way that the article is written attempts to convince the reader that the initial statement is true, despite the article largely fails to provide hard facts.

There is an utter lack of statements by Trump, his advisors, or Russian officials adressing or denying these issues.

That said, the article also features confusing spelling mistakes ('one of Trumps main sources of income' - 'Trump's' or 'the Trumps'?), and outdated information (Flynn an 'incoming national security adviser').

I do not bother to fix them because there's no point in editing propaganda pieces - and that's what it currently is. There should not even be a seperate article on this issue; it could easily be merged into the article about Trump. Especially if the worthless details were removed ('The mayor complimented Trump's suggestion that this mall should be connected to the Moscow Metro, a rapid transit system serving Moscow. Hence, Okhotny Ryad shopping center visitors now have access to the Metro (underground).' - thanks for explaining to us that the 'Moscow Metro' actually serves Moscow and is, stunningly, 'a rapid transit system' running 'underground').

This is a lousy blog post looking like a conspiracy theory, it doesn't meet the quality standards or a properly run online ecyclopedia. Which is bad because the issue is important. Equality 7-2522 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, it is laughable biased writing and a shame on wikipedia and a violation of all policies and guidelines. What you have here in this article is a report of all the false press reports, you can come along and say I have wp:rs but a blind person can read this and see it's nonsense totally. It is a good job the only people that read wikipedia articles like this are wikipedia editors. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is wide agreement that everything in this uncomplicated article is supported by reliable sources. There is no bias in this article. Discussions are already underway in the above sections about "multiple ties" and "business ties", which requires precision, but is not biased. Equality 7-2522's opinion does not supersede content policies by which this uncomplicated article abides. Also, Equality 7-2522's opinion does not supersede discussions and agreements on this talk page. Please gain consensus for this view, before making any more edits that agree with this view. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "There is wide agreement that everything in this uncomplicated article is supported by reliable sources. There is no bias in this article." You are confused about how disagreements workJawz101 (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"... in Russia" is inaccurate and too specific for topic
The title "Business projects IN Russia" is too specific as it indicates a geographic area. A considerable amount of coverage has been about Russian money invested in Trump's projects, especially real estate, golf, etc. Trump's son said in 2008 that the majority of their money was coming from Russia, plus all the info about Bayrock, is all outside of Russia. Would appreciate suggestions for a more accurate title. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

ALL CAPS in lede
ALL CAPS In lede is shouting at me and it hurts my ears.

Necessary ? Sagecandor (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In the first place, all those tweets and quotes do not belong in the lede. There should be a brief reference to them in the lede, and they should be moved to the article text. In the second place, I don't really think every single tweet on the subject needs to be included, even in the article text. I'll work on these changes and see what I can do. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The good news: I cleaned up the lede and made it into a proper lede, moving the details and references into the text. The bad news: the ALLCAPS tweet is still there, in the text. Do as you wish with it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Business connections with Russians, outside Russia
I added a section about his business connections with Russia in this country. It was reverted. Is this proper content for this article, or does the title "in Russia" mean literally "only in Russia", with no mention of anything to do with Russian companies or connections anywhere else in the world? --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see the same question was raised a few weeks ago, above, and never answered. --MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously this needs to be included, and perhaps the page should be renamed to something like Business ties of Donald Trump with Russia per sources like ,,. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

See Also section
There are four things in the "See also" section. All four of them strike me as not even peripherally related to the subject "Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia. They are:
 * Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies
 * The Case for Impeachment
 * TrumpiLeaks
 * The Plot to Hack America

I seem to notice a pattern here, that every time User:Sagecandor writes a new Trump-related article, he spams it into the "See also" section of dozens of Trump-related articles, whether or not the subject of the book actually relates to the subject of the article. Am I wrong about this? Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe the links between Trump associates, since that covers links with officials while he was doing building projects in Russia. The others are a bit of a stretch, seems if it has the words Russia and Trump it got linked. PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * P.S. To illustrate what I am talking about, re: spamming dozens of questionably related articles, here is the "what links here" page for The Case for Impeachment: --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh my, I see your point now. Sorry I missed it. PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm removing all except the links between associates. The best place to discuss this is in relation to other articles probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump. FallingGravity 03:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I've got no problem with the discussion and consideration. Feel free to remove whatever you wish. Merely suggested further elaborations on the subject. Sagecandor (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Senate Judiciary Committee
Tagged some missing details. It would be helpful to add:
 * 1) the name of the law firm
 * 2) when the property was sold
 * 3) when the payments for 2008 miss Russia cams through
 * 4) the exact number of other undefined deals alluded to

Anyone know if this is explained in a source? ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Merging a duplicate article
The article Trump Tower Moscow covers most of the same material as this one. They should be merged. — JFG talk 20:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trump Tower Moscow is at the heart of the Trump-Russia issue. It's notable on its own beyond the scope of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The "Tower" is a legitimate sub-article, logically and in terms of space (right now this page is sufficiently big). My very best wishes (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per the two above Opposes. Clearly not "duplicate articles" as section title implies. X1\ (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Brainstorm about title
This is NOT a move discussion, but a place to brainstorm a bit. It might result in a move, but much further down the road, and only if this produces a better title.

"Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia" is misleading as it implies some success, when in fact, in spite of all his attempts, he has never closed a real estate deal in Russia, nor any other serious business venture. He has made contacts, gotten loans, and individual Russians have invested (money laundering) in his existing properties in the United States, not in Russia.

Donald Trump's financial connections to Russians seems to cover this much better, because this is really about Russian investments in his American real estate affairs, not actual successful projects in Russia. Thoughts and other, more accurate, suggestions appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I wonder where is the source for money laundering besides usual bigotry 93.187.185.84 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's common knowledge written about in many sources. Do a Google search.
 * Here are a few:
 * Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)