Talk:Collusion/Archives/2017

Examples not being in context with the article
Donald Trump Jr. and Russia: "On 9 July came news of what was thought to be the first confirmed private meeting between a Russian national and members of President Trump's inner circle" in an attempt to collude against Hillary Clinton's election and against the democracy of the United States of America. "The president's son, Donald Trump Jr, admitted meeting Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya on 9 June 2016 after being told that she had damaging material on Hillary Clinton."[4]

My interpretation of the definition of collusion by this very article doesn't match the written information nor the definition in the sourced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.48.116 (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The BBC article does actually talk about collusion, once: President Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion with Russia, calling the allegations a "witch hunt", it states. So this is paraphrasing and interpreting Trump's actions as collusion, which means that this part of the article does have a leg to stand on. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 18:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This example is still out of context with the rest of the page. The entirety of this page, except the example of Trump Jr., is discussing economic and financial collusion only. Campaign malfeasance and things of that nature have separate pages where this example would clearly fit better. A news site like BBC simply labeling it collusion does not automatically make it true, or relevant to the page. BBC is free to label Trump Jr. whatever they like, that does not make it legally correct without an indictment, at the very least. For example, they're free to print an article that states Trump is a horse, but clearly he would not be mentioned in page about horses just because of it. Including Trump Jr. in this page is out of place and comes off as too partisan for Wikipedia. If the entirety of the article was re-written and the scope was broadened to include political collusion, then a case could be made to include this example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.14.62 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017
Streak986 (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The reference to Donald Trump Jr's meeting with the Russian lawyer, et. al, should be deleted in its entirety. The circumstances surrounding the meeting do not match the attributes of collusion assigned in the article. As noted by others, there is no specific evidence of collusion, just evidence of a meeting. It would be difficult to consider the example as collusion when it was a single meeting of apparently a number of people with no known follow up between participants and no know outcomes from the items discussed. The entire example about the meeting should be removed from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdhegge (talk • contribs) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing unclear about the edit request, I've made the requested edit to remove reference to political speech misusing the word. Burt Harris (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)