Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 52

When should the WP:Weight of the subject of Russian involvement in the election and possible collusion with Trump or Trump associates be expanded in the article?
I wanted to start a discussion based on this RFC (which was FUBAR). Basically, I would like to get consensus when the WP:Weight of the subject of Russian involvement in the election and possiable collusion with Trump or Trump associates. The current text in the article is as follows:

I think the major means of expanding and providing more WP:weight are:

1. When should this section become a larger percentage of the article?

2. When should it become a major subheading?

3. When should this be in the opening in the article?

Next, I think there are several things we currently know as fact and several directions this could go that would at least force a debate on adding more weight. What I believe are generally accepted facts are below. I will not use cites unless there is debate concerning these statements, but I believe each fact I list can be well sourced.

1. The US Intelligence agencies and most WP:RS accept that the Russian government interfered in the Election.

2. The Trump Administration and some of his advisors and associates have fought for policies (e.g. the GOP platform) or made statements that are friendly to Russia.

3. There was an investigation before the election on conclusion between Trump associates and the Russian government; Multiple sources report that the investigation is ongoing.

4. There were several contacts by Trump associates with Russian officials during the election and transition that the Administration denied and only confirmed after news reports.

I put out those basic facts as someway to frame the debate. I believe all of that is currently well established, but if there is debate, I think that is fine. My basic question is when to get consensus on when to expand the subject's WP:Weight. As I see it, there are the possible options for when to expand the WP:WEIGHT in the article.

1. Expand the WP:WEIGHT now. There is currently enough that Trump's relationship with Russia should be expanded now. This is the option I believe we should take.

2. At some subjective point when RS's continue to report undisclosed meetings, a deeper investigation, etc. This doesn't provide a hard event. Basically, if we continue to have reporting on the subject, at some point there should be a judgment that the subject should be expanded.

3. A special prosecutor or a congressional select committee is appointed to investigate conclusion between Russia and Trump or his associates.

4. Trump's associates are arrested and charged or impeached.

5. Trump's associates are found guilty or removed from office.

6. Impeachment proceedings are started on Trump.

6a. Trump is impeached.

6b. Trump is removed from office.

7. Trump is charged with a crime.

8 Trump is found guilty.

If there are any other major options, please comment. However, big picture those are the things that could happen. So back to the original question but with the other to frame the question, when should the WP:WEIGHT of Russia's election interference and possible conclusion with Trump expand in the article? My own view is that in 50 years to 100 years, this is the thing of historical importance that is most likely to be remembered. However, I don't want to expand the subject without consensus so I wanted to get some editors thoughts. Given the direction this plausible way this may go, it would be good to get consensus now.Casprings (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Having watched Maddow tonight, I'd guess a time will come when its inclusion will become obvious. But, that's my speculative POV. As of now, I agree with the snow ending of the RfC and dislike speculation. Objective3000 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The RFC closure suggested opening this conversation. Plus I think that even if not added in the opening, there is a good argument for greater weight. Plus some general consensus now would help guide article development. Just my thoughts. Casprings (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with this discussion in a BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The RFC closure suggested opening this conversation. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I did not mean to support this kind of discussion at this time; I merely opined that it didn't belong in that RfC. I actually feel it's sound practice to cross bridges if and when we come to them, not before. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:BLP that would forbid it. What hasn't happened is clearly marked. The facts, as I understand them, are backed up in other articles and could be easily added. If WP:WLP forbids this, I am not sure where.Casprings (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure such framing of discussion would be very helpful. Current version is OK for the moment. Certainly, "every version is wrong version", and it can be gradually improved using new publications, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Such a conversation may be interesting but is doomed to veer into WP:FORUM territory. Come back with concrete proposals when something substantial happens (and even then, not too quick because we are supposed to be WP:NOTNEWS ) — JFG talk 06:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is productive to discuss how this section should be expanded depending on what future events occur. The section on Russia is already half the size as the section on Bill Clinton's impeachment.  At present, no evidence has been presented that the Russians tried to interfere in the election and intelligence has provided no allegations that the leaking of DNC and Podesta emails had any effect on the election or that anyone in the Trump campaign was aware of it.  The six degrees of separation to Vladimir Putin is starting to look like a Glenn Beck chalkboard.  TFD (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Now: We're at the point where the only person denying Russian involvement is Donald himself. p  b  p  15:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not even Trump. Trump: 'I Think' Hacking Was Russian --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Why would you want to add any of this stuff in the opening? That would smack of WP:RECENTISM. Besides, Bill Clinton's impeachment isn't mentioned until that article's fourth paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's what's being advocated. It's certainly not the only way there can be more WEIGHT granted to the topic.  p  b  p  17:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Though the Russian stuff is growing by the day, I think right now it still may be too soon to include in the top of his biography. In my opinion it'd have to have a tangible effect on the Trump's administration, if it is a catalyst for say a significant number of resignations, impeachment, or a mid-term surge of Congressional Democrats in 2018. TheValeyard (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a need for this discussion. The section will expand organically and gradually, as new important information comes to light. The material will make it into the lede only when and if it becomes a much bigger story - maybe not until it seriously threatens his presidency. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to deny Russian involvement when there is no evidence whatsoever that they did or did not interfere in the election. It's a bit like saying no one has ever denied that aliens have ever visited Earth in support of the theory that they did.  The only argument presented has been the argument from authority, that the intelligence services who were wrong about NSA eavesdropping are right in this case.  TFD (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Not now -- probably never - no new actual content edits proposed seems like a rerun of prior RFC without any actual or sufficient events for re-consideration, or is this a discussion of hypotheticals ?  I'll suggest just look to the guidelines for answers on what gets put in then after anything does happen just follow the cites and come back only if it is something bigger than all preceeding items turns up, that can come with actual content proposal that seems to pass WP guidelines of WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:LEAD, and give something that suits the WP:LEAD neutrality requirement so it's not risking just being a partisan trolling.
 * Realistic guesstimate? I suspect this will probably never be able to reach the guideline levels.  First, for this  Biographical article context, material about other topics would be WP:OFFTOPIC, especially when there are layers of articles specifically for the  2016 election and within the election the topic of  Russian interference. So this is asking about the fraction of a fraction that it matters to his life.   Second, to rise to the level of being enough of the article to suit the WP:LEAD criteria seems a yet greater level so further unlikely.  Some enthusiasts here may not even want it much if it is held to also complying with the neutrality guide of WP:LEAD by also mentioning the alternative views/counter-arguments.  Third, I just speculate or suspect that it is unlikely for much more to turn up and even if it did it could just wind up being like the Abudin's emails flap and be a big nothing much.    Markbassett (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, I agree. James Clapper said today on Meet the Press that he has no evidence of collusion with Russia on the part of the Trump campaign (separate and apart from evidence he does have of Russia involving itself in the election). -SusanLesch (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Politician" in the opening line
Hi, apologies for errors - I haven't attempted this before.

The opening line of the page is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States."

"Politician" seems superfluous and inaccurate. Trump is a politician by virtue of being POTUS but has famously held no other political office (for which it seems he is admired and denigrated in equal measure). I feel the addition of the word makes the sentence more inaccurate than if it were omitted. Garnett F (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for your suggestion. This issue was debated extensively and the current exact phrasing is approved by consensus. See top of page, item 11, in particular this archived debate which established the current wording. Of course consensus can change and you are free to make a reasoned suggestion explaining why the text should be amended and calling for other editors' opinions. — JFG talk 13:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with the preceding but I think any new argument should be a new argument; i.e., not raised in the prior discussions that form the consensus. Otherwise we're just re-hashing. Maybe things need to be revisited eventually with the same arguments, in case people's views have changed, but not within just a few months. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree it is redundant. If we say in the first sentence that he is the U.S. president, then there is no need to say he is also a politician, if he is a politician only because he is the U.S, president.  TFD (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Four Deuces. No need to mention the typo of politician and then explain that he is a politician, when that is the only type of politician he has been. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)
 * We've already had this discussion at length. "Politician" must remain, particularly because he was "politicking" long before he became a president. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not an official concensus but I support Scjessey's reasoning. IVORK  Discuss 23:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what "we" discussed at length if the "our" conclusions were wrong. No one else who never won office (except Jill Stein) are referred to as politicians.  The only reason it was added to those articles was to help Clinton overcome their status as non-politicians running for president.  We're supposed to be writing informative articles not pushing DNC talking points.  TFD (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what "we" discussed at length if the "our" conclusions were wrong. That's very tangled logic, and not very Wikipedian. Consensus conclusions are "right" by virtue of being consensus conclusions. And we don't spend a large amount of editor time and sweat to form a clear consensus, only to resurrect the issue a couple of months later, starting over from zero, because some editors disagree with the consensus, one even outright declaring it "wrong". Arguments very similar to yours were raised and rejected by the consensus, and your claim about DNC talking points is baseless AGF failure, which is the antithesis of Wikipedian. I wouldn't personally oppose revisiting this in an RfC after more time has passed, as I suggested above; maybe around September. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * After some painstaking research, Scjessey and I did come to the conclusion that Trump was indeed a "politician". To wit, he had been "active in party politics" off-and-on since February 2011.
 * It's true that the article first identified him as a "politician" on March 2, 2016, during the heat of the campaign. But by that time, he had become far more active. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Webster's provides two definitions, neither of which applied to Trump: "1 a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially :  one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government; 2 a:  a person engaged in party politics as a profession."  I suppose by some definitions you could describe him as a politician, although it would be more common to have called him an aspiring politician.  But we should never use obscure definitions when they mislead readers. TFD (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

He's been active in politics for years, there are plenty of sources describing him as a politician (even before he was elected), and in that long, rambling press conference he gave recently, he said this: "I can't believe I'm saying I'm a politician, but I guess that's what I am now." - Trump refers to himself as a politician, and so it's case closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an extremely flawed argument. After implying repeatedly that Trump's statements are unreliable, you now cite him as a reliable source.  What makes sources reliable is not whether or not they express what we want to put into articles.  While I don't question that some people may use the term politician to refer to aspiring or unsuccessful politicians, it is not what most readers would understand and the Manual of Style says, "Avoid ambiguity."  TFD (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a flawed argument. It's an argument we've already had, and one where we decided "politician" should stay in. The reason for this is that he is a politician, and there are plenty of reliable sources that state this obvious fact. He's arguably the most famous politician in the world at the moment, so it would be ludicrous to pretend he isn't one. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is not merely whether he is or is not a politician, but whether we should have the redundant word included in the lengthy lead when his only role as a politician (i.e. 45th President of the United States) is mentioned already. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is standard on articles about presidents to include the word politician. "Politician" refers to the occupation, whereas "President" refers to the specific job title. They are different things. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

(Not an) emergency: Dividing the "Donald Trump" article
The Trump presidency is only a month old, and we are 3 times over the limit of human readability and are causing WP:CHOKING access and possibly display problems. "intitle:Donald Trump" yielded "311 KB (28,385 words)" at 12:19, 25 February 2017". WP:TOOBIG guidelines say an article > 100 kB should be divided.

Several prominent articles will serve as destinations for bits removed: Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Business career of Donald Trump, The Trump Organization, Donald Trump in popular culture, Political positions of Donald Trump, Miss USA, Miss Universe, Miss Teen USA, Trump Model Management, Trump University, List of things named after Donald Trump, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016, United States presidential election, 2016, United States presidential debates, 2016, Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, Protests against Donald Trump, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020, Presidential transition of Donald Trump, Formation of Donald Trump's cabinet, Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump, Presidency of Donald Trump, First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, Executive Order 13769, Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration, Social policy of the Donald Trump administration, Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration, Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration and Public image of Donald Trump.

Kudos to User:epicgenius for Talk:Donald_Trump and to User:Scjessey and User:MelanieN who replied. Deferring to the experienced editors of this article, I propose the following:
 * We start work on a copy in the Talk space. Because MediaWiki software can handle it, I propose simple one-colored yellow markup for every bit that can be moved. HTML comments can explain their destination.
 * The article be < 100 kB by March 15.
 * "Awards, honors, and distinctions" could be a new article (citations add to article size).

-SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Note for interested editors: Prose size (text only): 78 kB (12729 words) "readable prose size" (which is what WP:TOOBIG refers to) --Neil N  talk to me 15:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't use Javascript. But when someone gives me the argument that I can't quote President Trump because of no room, that is a problem that needs to be fixed. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that you're using the wrong benchmark number for WP:TOOBIG. I have no opinion on whether or not if content should be split off. --Neil N  talk to me 15:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Long pages ---Moxy (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Long pages not counting lists or timelines:
 * 1. Ingrid van Houten-Groeneveld [690,974 bytes]
 * 2. India–European Union relations [506,076 bytes]
 * 3. East Turkestan independence movement [435,341 bytes]
 * 14. Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 [355,782 bytes]
 * 38. Donald Trump [308,028 bytes]
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 38. Donald Trump [308,028 bytes]
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. My point is the article is bloated. Susan's well-made point is that Trump is only a month into his presidency and look at the size of the article. It is unreadable. Keeping up with all the bits being added, even stuffing comments into footnotes that have no consensus, requires attention. I support Susan's suggestion to reduce the size of this article. I don't see anyone talking about an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 's proposal. The article is unreadable and filled with nonsense that's nothing to do directly with this man. Who cares what his father did? Who cares that someone in his class harassed someone else? What is that doing in this article anyway? Normally, the bit about the harasser would go into the harasser's article. But he doesn't have a Wiki page because he doesn't meet GNG. See my point? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with SusanLesch's proposal, if I am understanding it correctly - to make a copy of the article and mark bits that can be removed and discuss them there - way too cumbersome. I think we should just WP:BOLDly trim stuff that is already covered in other articles, or that is too trivial to need inclusion in a biography - being sure to do so in a neutral manner rather than removing all the "good stuff" or all the "bad stuff". If someone objects to a particular deletion, they can restore it and start a discussion here. This article is bloated with way too much information about his businesses, his campaign, etc; there is lots of room for paring it down. But IMO this is not an emergency requiring drastic action. (P.S. This isn't a formal RfC, is it? Please say it isn't!) --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a formal RFC. Besides the incorrect assertion in the lead statement, such a RFC would be far too broad in scope to be useful. Plus, editors should first follow the usual WP:BRD cycle and see if progress can be made that way. --Neil N  talk to me 17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

An RfC could be crafted, I see no problem with formulating a NPOV question(s). But asking editors here first to select topics that can go off first, would reduce the bloat and then if problems persist, an RfC could be posted on the most pressing concern. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Emergency" RFC? Just a reminder: There is no deadline. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Muboshgu. You are right of course. I editsd the topic line. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, an RFC could be crafted. But this section is not a "formal" RFC (which is what was asking). --Neil N  talk to me 17:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, I removed the letters RFC from the topic. I don't think being bold is going to work here. Just today a whole section was boldly removed and I object. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please watch for invalidated refnames when removing content. This is easily done by finding (Ctrl) "cite error" on the page. There are currently two invalid refnames, Barbaro8Sept and MiamiH3Mar2016. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The readable prose size is 77 kB. According to WP:TOOBIG the article should probably be divided. "Readable prose size: > 60 kB | What to do: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)".  Also, we can unquestionably reduce the prose size by adhering to WP:BLPSOURCES and removing material attributed to sources not widely known to be reliable mainstream sources ... like the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame, World Wrestling Entertainment, the Christian Post, Liberty University News Service, Blacktie Arizona, the Weekly Standard, the Tax Foundation, and such. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support trimming I feel this article has been a dumping / duping ground for non-biographical material so WP:OFFTOPIC ... The general feel seems folks want to trim, especially when there is an article elsewhere specific to the topic, yes? Suggest just check if there is consensus on the approach of short mention and pointer here when the rest is elsewhere.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment about PRESERVE. In keeping with our purpose to build, rather than break down, the encyclopedia, we have an editing policy to follow. It's called PRESERVE. Basically it means that content and sources should be moved or tweaked, rather than deleted. Don't trash the work of editors who have, in good faith, worked hard to build Wikipedia. Find a way to use that content and the sources somewhere at Wikipedia. At the very least, park them on the talk page where other editors might find a good way to use them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

"Other businesses" header and other headers
I think we ought to change the header "Other businesses" to "Business career beyond real estate". That matches up better with other headers like "Real estate career" and "Media career" and "Political career". It is also a better standalone header (i.e. "Other businesses" raises the question "other than what?").Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally there's a lot of overlap between two separate subsections of this BLP, titled respectively "Branding and licensing" and "Name licensing". That needs to be fixed somehow.  Probably the best way would be to merge the two subsections into one subsection under "Business career beyond real estate".  Some of the licensing is for real estate properties but those properties are owned by other people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need to consider whether all his businesses are notable though. His world famous real estate career is obviously notable, but this article should not just be a listing of everything he has licensed his name to. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to removing that listing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made these changes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making those changes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to merge the brief subsections on bankruptcy and legal affairs to "Bankruptcies and other legal affairs", and move the merged subsection so it's next to the subsection on casinos. That's because the bankruptcies and other legal affairs were mostly casino-related. Also, the subheader "Further developments" is ambiguous, and so I suggest "More buildings in New York and worldwide". Additionally, the last paragraph of the "General election campaign" section is about taxes, and I suggest changing that into a subsubsection ("Requests to release tax returns"), and merging into it the pertinent info from the subsection "Income and taxes" (the remaining info in that last subsection is mainly about the 1990s and so can easily fit into the subsection "Bankuptcies and other legal affairs" which could be broadened to "Bankruptcies, taxes, and other legal affairs"). Finally, I suggest moving the "Net worth" subsection to the end of the "Personal life" section, so it's not floating around as a separate section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Section header about Russia
The section header "Ties to Russia" seems like it could be improved. The section says "no direct ties were found between Trump or his businesses and the Russian government.[394]" So I changed it to "Indirect ties to Russia" but MelanieN reverted because some investors in some of Trump's businesses are Russian. But isn't the main controversy about alleged ties to the government of Russia rather than private businessmen? Maybe we could say "Indirect ties to the Russian government"? That seems a lot more accurate than what we've got now, which suggests it's been established that Trump and Putin are joined at the hip.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment - for a country like Russia, a distinction between "the government" and "private businessmen" can be pretty irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Reminiscent of the title wars at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Can we assume that most readers read beyond the section heading? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think titles and headers are very important because they give a top-level summary. I don't recall being involved with titling Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations but that title seems fine. This header does not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That title seems fine to me, too. On the other side were editors who felt strongly that "sexual misconduct" was not the best descriptor of some of the alleged acts, and so the title should read "sexual misconduct and assault allegations". My response was to point to the grammatical ambiguity that would result, since he was not accused of physically striking anybody, requiring "sexual misconduct and sexual assault allegations". The lesson was that, if we assume that readers will read the title and leave before reading even the lead, there is often no end to the qualification required (or, at least, not before the title becomes unacceptably long). Similarly, I think we can allow readers to read the prose and discover exactly what we mean by "Ties to Russia". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Lots of people will read the Table of Contents to find stuff of particular interest, and if Russia is not of particular interest then they'll merely absorb that Russia and Trump are tied together, and go to read another section. If we can easily make this header more accurate and informative then I don't see why we shouldn't do that.  Saying "ties to Russia" suggests the Russian government which is not what User:MelanieN said she means.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In Russia, "the government" and individual wealthy Russians are heavily entangled with each other; to some extent this is a distinction without a difference. But I challenge the claim that "most of the main controversy" is about ties to the government of Russia or to Putin. That association ("joined at the hip"? really?) comes from you, not from the wording of the article. Most of our section is about business ties, which are with individuals or companies rather than the government. As long as it says "ties to Russia" rather than "ties to the Russian government", it is accurate and does not need an "alleged" or an "indirect". This is not confusing. I mean, aren't there millions of people around the world who have "ties to America" without having direct ties to the American government? --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is currently a huge media controversy about whether Trump has ties to the Russian government. Our header seems to say "yes".  You really think we should do that?  Do the sources really say that there's no difference between having investors from Russia and being aligned with Putin?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) I was replying to the earlier version of your reply, and I will repeat (since you may not have heard me the first time: The header does NOT seem to say he is aligned with Putin. The section does NOT seem to say that either; in fact I don't think Putin is mentioned anywhere. That's your straw man; it's not there in the article. To answer your question, yes, I "really think we should" have a section header pointing out the well established fact that he has ties to Russia. Period. --MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * He has ties to people in Russia, which is very different from saying that he has ties to the country as a whole.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are editing too fast for me; I can't keep up. I was going to modify my comment above: the article does in fact mention his repeated praise for Putin. That's the only mention of Putin. That a far cry from claiming they are "joined at the hip" or even know each other. I am done here; you are just repeating yourself (proof by assertion?) and now so am I. Let's give other people a chance to comment. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Two of the most ballyhooed Russians Trump is tied to are the former owners of Trump International Hotel and Tower (Toronto). They left Russia around the age of 4, so saying that they are in Russia is misleading. TFD (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are either of them mentioned in our section? --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, yes, but not by name. The section says, "Some of his real estate developments outside Russia have received a large part of their financing from private Russian investors, sometimes referred to as "oligarchs"."  The sources identify these "private Russian investors" as the former owners of Trump Tower in Toronto.  TFD (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

And now, Anything, you went and changed it again, to "Ties to people in Russia," even though we were discussing it here and you didn't discuss your change before implementing it. I object to that as inaccurate; it is not actually what the section is about. In fact the section mentions only one "person in Russia", namely, his partner in hosting a beauty pageant. Most of that paragraph is about his attempts to set up business dealings there ("there" = in the country, Russia, or the city, Moscow), in addition to hosting the beauty pageant there. The section absolutely is about business dealings and financial connections. It is absolutely not about his links to "people in Russia" - because he really doesn't have any such links that we know of. I am not going to revert it, because I (unlike you, apparently) respect the 1RR rule. Maybe tomorrow, if somebody doesn't revert it first. --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:MelanieN, I did not break 1RR as far as I know. I wrote above, "He has ties to people in Russia, which is very different from saying that he has ties to the country as a whole".  You did not object so I inserted new material ("people in") which I thought would address your concern about inserting "indirect" while also addressing my concern about saying in wikivoice that Trump has ties to the country as a whole (including its leaders).  I think you're wrong about 1RR, wrong to not make any attempt that address my concern, and wrong to interpret the word "people" as somehow excluding businesspeople.  I don't think it's necessary, but please feel free to change the header to "Ties to people and business deals in Russia".  In fact, I'll do it for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have changed the header to "Business, financial, and other ties to people in Russia". I hope you find that more appropriate.  Does anyone object to this subheader?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Too long. Just call it "Business ties to Russia" (finance is part of business, and "people" is just too vague and obvious). The main article about this subject, Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia, has kept the "business only" title by consensus after a requested move to Donald Trump's affiliations with Russia by was unanimously opposed.  correctly noted that Trump has no political ties to Russia, and that is the main allegation we should be careful not to make in the encyclopedia's voice. — JFG talk 07:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Its been widely reported that numerous members of his campaign had Russian communications while the campaign continued. It isn't just business ties.Casprings (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, many people have alluded to such links, and it's been many many months without any solid proof emerging. Even James Clapper just said that the FBI, NSA and CIA investigations showed no evidence whatsoever of a collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. Time to drop the proverbial stick… — JFG talk 13:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, the White House has Jeff Sessions, Michael Fynn, etc. James Clapper said there was no evidence of collusion at the time he was directer. Investigations move and the pattern of denial and later conformation of contacts between Trump associates and Russians is significant because WP:RS comment on it. I imagine this stick won't be dropped for awhile.Casprings (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh. Just call it "Ties to Russia." There is no need to modify it or qualify it. This insistence that the heading "ties to Russia" somehow implies he is in Putin's pocket exists only in your mind. Look: If I say someone in another country has "ties to America," people don't think I am saying he is part of the government, or a golfing partner of Trump's. They know it might mean he has relatives in the United States, or maybe went to school here, or has investments here. "Ties" is a neutral word, and it well describes the situation laid out in the section: one paragraph about why this issue comes up at all, and about a couple of associates of his that have connections to Russia; and one paragraph about his attempts (so far unsuccessful) to establish business relationships there and his investments from Russian sources. Leave it as "ties" and let it go. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone in another country has links or ties or connections to America, it would probably help to say what kind. Vladimir Putin technically has ties to America (just like every other head of state who has received an American ambassador and every other person who has visited the USA), and a whole lot of other scattered people do too, for many scattered reasons.  Direct political ties between Trump and Russia are highly disputed at this point, so if we refer to such ties in a header then we ought to make clear that they are disputed.  Something like "Business ties and allegations of further ties to Russia".  For now, "Business ties to Russia" is a big improvement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait, I just read the source and am I missing something or is the source being totally misrepresented? There appears to be nothing in the source which says " no direct ties were found between Trump or his businesses and the Russian government." Indeed, the whole freakin' thing is about his ties to Russia, both direct and indirect (though some of them old). Removing this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "Ties to Russia" is the best section header. It's open enough for ANY type of ties. Being more specific would then require creation of at least two sections ("Business ties to Russia", "Political ties to Russia", "Presidential campaign ties to Russia", "Financial ties (other than business, but pay-for-play described on page 30 of dossier related to politics) to Russia", etc.). You get the picture. Keep it short and simple. There are many types of ties to Russia mentioned in RS, and the header should be all inclusive. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Trump's ties to Russia" is a common phrase in the mainstream media (which equals RS support). Also, it is clear that some of those campaigning for Trump had contacts with Russian officials. I am pretty sure, Trump himself has talked to Russian officials with the aim of conducting real estate deals (over three decades). One example comes to mind, he had conversations with the mayor of Moscow that was notable enough to be mentioned in the mainstream reports (a paragraph's worth?). There is no need to change the section title, it seems to be as common as table salt per the main stream media. I can look for other contacts with Russian officials if people are interested (let me know).---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * <S>Politico</S> Politifact  properly deals with this. There are actual ties and there are possible ties.  Just saying "ties" makes it sound like they are all confirmed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone went ahead and changed the section title again, anyway, before completion of this discussion . I understand at the time, it may have seemed as if there was consensus to do this. But, I think it would have been OK to wait two or three days to do this, if there was agreement to do so. Also, the article entitled "Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia" is obviously topic specific, as it should be. I think this article, as a whole, has broader scope. And perhaps a good reason for maintaining "Ties to Russia" as a section title - it is broader in scope - and because it agrees with what sources say. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we want this subsection to include not just the actual, confirmed ties, but also the alleged possible ties? If so, the header should reflect both.  The current header is fairly new I think.  Was there previous discussion about it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Ties to Russia" is in agreement with RS. This is not an appellate court. Parsing words is not content policy and behavior guideline recommended editing. Also, there is no emergency here, although some editors act as though this is the case. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is <S>Politico</S> Politifact  a reliable source?. And, to repeat my previous question, do we want this subsection to include not just the actual confirmed ties, but also the alleged possible ties?  If so, the header should reflect that, no?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is from that Politifact source: "Claim 3: Members of Trump’s inner circle were in contact with Russian intelligence officials throughout the campaign. Evidence: The main source for the latest news on this topic is the New York Times, which based its Feb. 14, 2017, report on four unnamed American officials. The officials told New York Times reporters that phone records show Trump associates communicated with senior Russian officials — including Trump’s one-time campaign chair Paul Manafort — but they have not found these calls to be evidence of collusion to disrupt the election."
 * This is from the WP: "The New York Times and CNN are both reporting that members of Donald Trump's campaign spoke with Russia frequently during the campaign."
 * This is from the NYT:  <BLOCKQUOTE> Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials. American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.</BLOCKQUOTE>
 * And so on... Steve Quinn (talk)
 * You linked to Politifact, not Politico. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Corrected, thanks. Obviously, the Politifact headline is "The possible ties between Trump and Russia, explained".  Notice that they qualify the word "ties".   Steve, you appear to be avoiding every single question I ask you.  Is Politifact a reliable source?  Do we want this subsection to include not just the actual confirmed ties, but also the alleged possible ties? If so, the header should reflect that, no?  Do we want to broadly cover all communications between Russia and his campaign or his administration?  What is the scope?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think, yes, Politifact is a reliable source, The short header "Ties to Russia" reflects all possible relationships to Russia pertaining to Trump and any Trump associates that are newsworthy.
 * I think User: has summed it up really well (see above). This is right on point. ""Ties to Russia" is the best section header. It's open enough for ANY type of ties. Being more specific would then require creation of at least two sections ("Business ties to Russia", "Political ties to Russia", "Presidential campaign ties to Russia", "Financial ties (other than business, but pay-for-play described on page 30 of dossier related to politics) to Russia", etc.). You get the picture. Keep it short and simple. There are many types of ties to Russia mentioned in RS, and the header should be all inclusive." Steve Quinn (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A possible tie is not necessarily a tie. Just like a possible elephant in your back yard is not necessarily an elephant in your back yard.  That is why the Politifact headline hedges.  We do not hedge because we are POV-pushing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, you ask "Is Politifact a reliable source?" Yes, it's an extremely RS. Fact checking websites are generally the highest tier level of reliability here and elsewhere, except in the White House. There they are considered fake news. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, you ask "Is Politifact a reliable source?" Yes, it's an extremely RS. Fact checking websites are generally the highest tier level of reliability here and elsewhere, except in the White House. There they are considered fake news. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Ties to Russia" You have multiple types of ties. 1. Campaign ties: Russia intervened in the election to support Trump. Multiple people connected with Trump were in contact with Russian connected groups, including Roger Stone,Manfafort, and others. 2. Trump has multiple business ties. 3. His administration and campaign had policy ties, including removing language from the GOP platform, etc. Casprings (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If Trump did not request and did not even know that Russia hacked Podesta, then that is hardly a "tie". Manafort was fired, and anyway a tie between Manafort and Russia is not necessarily a tie between Trump and Russia.  Trump's business ties to Russians seem to all pre-date 2016 and so should be in past tense.  I don't know about removal of platform language.  I do know there's a strong effort here to tie Trump to Russia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support "Ties to Russia" for the section heading. Fully supported by reliable sources, and there are obviously more ties than simply business ties. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm responding to Anythingyouwant's question, which is now so much higher in the thread that it is likely to be overlooked - and they asked it twice so it deserves an answer. Do we want this subsection to include not just the actual, confirmed ties, but also the alleged possible ties? If so, the header should reflect both. Answer: the section now includes only "the actual, confirmed ties". Nobody has tried to add "alleged possible ties" at this point, and we certainly will not be adding any "allegations" without strong RS support, per BLP. So the concern about "alleged possible ties" seems irrelevant at this point unless and until strong evidence comes along. But having raised that possibility, all the more reason why the title should be an unqualified "ties" rather than having to keep modifying it constantly ("this kind of ties, oh, and now that kind of ties"). The article now says "Business ties to Russia", a change which was made in the middle of this discussion (there has been way too much of that here). Let's leave it alone until we get consensus here. Shall we choose between "Business ties to Russia" and "Ties to Russia", are those the main candidates now? I'll set up an informal poll below. Discussion can continue here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want the section to stick to actual verified ties, then all of the following should be deleted because it is pure unverified insinuation or speculation (my comments in brackets): "Several of Trump's top advisers, including Paul Manafort and Michael T. Flynn who had official positions before Trump replaced them, have strong ties to Russia [That two fired aides had ties to Russia does not mean Trump did or does]. American intelligence sources have stated with 'high confidence' that the Russian government attempted to intervene in the 2016 presidential election to favor the election of Trump [which does not indicate that Trump was tied to it], and that members of Trump's campaign were in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election [and they were also in touch with many other countries which we do not say Trump is tied to because mere communication does not imply 'ties']."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That material (all of which is well sourced) is included for the reason stated in that paragraph: to explain why this has become an issue. "For these reasons, there has been intensive media scrutiny of Trump's relationship to Russia." It is not intended to, and does not, allege anything about Trump's own personal ties to Russia; it is explaining why anyone is even looking into it. That is followed by a paragraph which explains exactly what is on the record about Trump's own involvement. There is no "insinuation" and no "speculation". --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a broad, non-accusatory header then "Relationship to Russia" would be fine. But I don't think that's what people here are looking for.  The goal here seems to be a header that implies Trump is tied to the country of Russia including its leaders and/or that he is linked to all of the things discussed in the first paragraph of the section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't impute motives to other people, particularly when they are based on your reading things into the article that are not there. The goal here is to accurately reflect what Reliable Sources say and what readers are trying to find out, while complying with Wikipedia policies such as BLP. It is YOUR inference that the word "ties" somehow means connected to the Russian government. There is absolutely nothing in the article that supports that inference. (And wouldn't "relationship with Russia" be worse?) --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Worse? You yourself said at 20:08, regarding the unsubstantiated suspicions about Trump that are described at the start of this section: "For these reasons, there has been intensive media scrutiny of Trump's relationship to Russia" (emphasis added).  And then when I suggest we use that exact language in the header (which you misquote as "relationship with Russia") it's suddenly worse than the current header?  I don't buy it.  "Relationship to Russia" is vastly more NPOV because it does not suggest that he is tied to that country, or was tied to that country during the 2016 campaign (which is a very serious accusation to make in wikivoice, and I've already pointed to a Politifact article that more cautiously refers in its headline to "possible" ties).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you seriously think "Relationship" would be a better title or somehow more neutral than "Ties" I will add it to the choices. Still harping on "unsubstantiated suspicions about Trump that are described at the start of the section"? This will be the last time I point out that they don't exist except in your mind. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit late for that, unless you re-start the poll. Maybe I'll do an RFC later. You said above that the stuff in the first paragraph "is not intended to, and does not, allege anything about Trump's own personal ties to Russia" and in that sense it does not substantiate anything about his alleged ties to Russia.  That's what I meant by unsubstantiated, and it certainly is not all in my head.  I think you're also missing that this subheader is in the 2016 election section, and will therefore be taken as a statement that Trump had ties to Russia during the 2016 campaign, which is also unsubstantiated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Informal poll
Informal poll: "Ties to Russia" or "Business ties to Russia" ? Or (newly added third choice) "Relationship to Russia"?
 * "Ties to Russia". --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends what material is in the section. If the section contains insinuation and speculation beyond business ties (as it does now), then "Business ties to Russia" is inadequate, but so is "Ties to Russia".  Otherwise "Business Ties to Russia" is adequate.  My preference is a broad, non-accusatory header such as Relationship to Russia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ties to Russia regardless of what material is in the section. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ties to Russia - and can someone explain to me how that "no direct ties to Russia" part managed to sneak in there, misrepresenting the source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a good edit on your part. I don't know how it got there.  I just started looking at this section yesterday.  The statement may be supported by other sources, however.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ties to Russia - as stated before, this is non- neutral and well supported in hundreds of reliable sources. There are more ties to Russia than just business. --- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, non-neutral is to be avoided. Maybe you meant neutral? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite right. Brain fail. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ties to Russia this suffices for covering all possible relationships between Trump, his associates, his underlings and Russia. In contrast, Business ties to Russia is too narrow in scope for this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ties to Russia seems most appropriate at this point. CBS 527 Talk 22:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ties to Russia - Ties is a good general term inclusive of a multitude of sins connections. It is a neutral term. Objective3000 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment as I mentioned above, the section also discusses ties to "Russians," which includes people who left Russia when they were around 4 years old. TFD (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ties to Russia works best. It is neutral and leaves the section open for covering the many types of real and alleged ties mentioned in RS. (The suggestion to not include alleged ties, even when discussed in RS, is totally against multiple policies, including BLP. We include what RS say, and if they touch on BLP issues we use the proper language and attribution, but we do NOT....EVER...leave them out. That would be one of the most serious types of NPOV violations one can make. Editorial censorship is not allowed.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, "ties to Russia" implies actual ties. If the section covers alleged ones, the heading ought to say so, or the heading should be broad enough to include alleged ones.  Truth in advertising and all that....Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ties to Russia - seems neutral and won't be constantly challenged, at least not effectively. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ties to Russia is fine, but check placement per question below. — JFG talk 17:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly "Ties to Russia" has consensus. There are definite problems with the placement. --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2017
Change "perminent" to "permanent" to fix typo. This is subsection "Immigration order" of section "7.2 First 100 days". Hddqsb (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2017
plz 24.211.226.39 (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain what changes that you feel should be added to the article, in an 'x to y' format. Be sure to include your reasoning, as well as any citations or references to support your request. Thank you. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2017
Donald J. Trump was in the movie the Little Rascals (original one) MikiLeg477 (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * We know: Filmography of Donald Trump. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox for Chairman of the Trump Organization
I feel that there should be an infobox stating the time Trump was Chairman, his successor, and his predecessor. --Figfires (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That has already been discussed at great length (see the talk page archive). For clarity, the information you seek can be found after the "external links" section in the "offices and distinctions" template. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Legal affairs section
The Legal affairs section here has a summary paragraph about his various legal affairs. It also has a link to the main article, Legal affairs of Donald Trump. As the main article details by year the same material here, I removed it here. HaeB reverted my removal here. I reverted him because he's reinstating duplicate material covered elsewhere. MrX, then came along and reverted me here. This is his BLP and every bit cannot be included here especially when the material is already duplicated in a main article elsewwhere. It's not the purpose of a BLP to mention every bit. I support leaving this off the article. If a better summary paragraph is needed, I support a new one, but I think its best to leave off this wall of text when it is well addressed in another article on the identical subject. Thoughts? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support removal of the bulky contents, per WP:SUMMARY. We should be mindful of preserving cited sources and salvaging parts of the contents which may not have been fully duplicated between here and the Legal affairs article. — JFG talk 22:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A summary paragraph does not need to cover every bit. It is meant to be a generalization. It does not have to cover details, that's the job of the main article. I've been through the main article, the material here simply duplicates what is there. The link provided in this article is sufficient. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. My remarks were about making sure that whatever is removed from here is actually covered in the main article, with appropriate sources and in a neutral way. — JFG talk 23:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , yes, that's what I meant also, thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal - That so-called "wall of text" is a summary of his legal affairs and more than 4000 lawsuits, much of which is the basis for his pre-political career notability. I don't think the legal affairs material should be removed from this article, but I have no objection to trimming trivia about Trump's uncle, The Apprentice, and Wrestling as well as excessive material about the primaries, protests, cabinet nominations, and so on. That said, it's probably a good idea to establish some level of consensus before removing anything more than a couple of sentences.- MrX 23:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support removal. Material is duplicated, word-for-word in main article, Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Also, violates WP:Plagiarism to maintain identical content from another article. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not plagiarism. Even if it were, it would be an argument for revising the text, not removing it entirely.- MrX 23:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, as now there is both a sub article and the same wall of text in this article. TheValeyard (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support removal. This is exactly the kind of thing we are talking about doing here: providing a link to the main article where all the details are, and keeping only a bare-bones summary here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Partial support - Trump's legal affairs are a defining characteristic of the man. They have received an enormous amount of coverage in reliable sources, even before he announced his run for the presidency, because many of the cases have been high profile. So while I agree the summary should be trimmed, I will not support a "bare-bones" level of coverage because that would not confer enough weight on the matter. What's needed is a little pruning, but not the kind of removal being proposed here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose removal — this is notable and Trump has a long history of notable legal cases. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 22:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support removal It's covered in its own article, no need to repeat here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - a separate summary style article that is not properly summarized in the parent article is a POV fork, and as such it is inappropriate. A proper summary must be retained. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the revision, the summery here was kept. Though it really should not be word for word of the lead in Legal affairs of Donald Trump. PackMecEng (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - There is a sub article and it details his legal affairs well enough for this to not be necessary. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that User:Anythingyouwant removed the section today. I think that is probably supported by consensus based on the discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I left the intro paragraph..   Still needs work though, for example, I do not know who the last five wikilinked people are. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support trimming and thank you. Markbassett (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Where to put 'Ties to Russia'
MOS advises that we name and order the sections based on the precedent of an article that seems similar.

Here's how we've ordered Hillary Clinton:
 * 1	Early life and education
 * 2	Marriage, family, law career . ..
 * 6	U.S. Secretary of State . ..
 * 6.6	Email controversy . ..
 * 8	2016 presidential campaign . ..

and Barack Obama:
 * 1	Early life and career
 * 1.1	Education
 * 1.2	Family and personal life
 * 1.3	Law career . ..
 * 2	Presidential campaigns . ..

It looks like the "Ties to Russia" section would analogically go under "Real estate career". Clinton's "Email controversy" section goes under Secretarial career, not under "2016 presidential campaign".

The campaign is over. The email controversy may not yet be over. And the ties to Russia are famously not over. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Bad comparison. Our approach to the Clinton article has been to remove all negative information.  TFD (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It should be its own major subsection, as the ties extend from before he started his presidential run, during the campaign, and to his policy during his administration.Casprings (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that the only proven ties of Trump himself to Russia are related to his attempts to do business there and having a bunch of Russian clients or financiers for real estate projects, I would submit that the appropriate place would be in the "Financial and legal issues" section, with a hatnote to the Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia article. Connections of his former campaign people should remain mentioned in the "2016 Presidential campaign" section, along with a brief mention of the alleged Russian interference, although we should be careful not to veer into "Putin's puppet" territory, which could be construed as a BLPVIO. — JFG talk 17:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, make it it's own subsection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that would be undue weight vs Trump's entire life and career. — JFG talk 17:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? It seems like the common sense ordering.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The subsection titled "Ties to Russia" should be located in a section that covers a time period during which it is known that he had "ties to Russia". That would not be the 2016 campaign section.  In the 2016 campaign section, we can either mention Russia without a dedicated subsection, or else have a subsection like "Russian hacking" or "Foreign interference" that discusses investigations about whether Trump was in cahoots with foreigners.  As I mentioned, there is also reliable sourcing about Ukrainian interference.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In this edit, by reverting, Volunteer Marek misrepresents a source that talks about Trump's business activities in Russia by making out it is talking about Trumps "relationship to Russia", and uses piping to misrepresent the title of the Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia article. He also deletes sourced content that supports Trump's assertion that he hasn't any business interests in Russia. Volunteer Marek also weasely calls Aras Agalarov a "Russian billionare" when the cited source actually describes him as a real estate developer. As to why Volunteer Marek thinks it correct to insert the 2013 Miss Universe pageant content out of chronological order, who knows? VM has got things the wrong way around if he thinks discussion and consensus is required about whether content should be based on what a source actually talks about, or that a wikilink should use the wording of the article title it links to, or whether an individual is called something that the cited source calls him, or if content generally should follow the chronological order of events. It would be required if any of those things were not to be done! The same point applies to Emir of Wikipedia Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * One more time. Please stop WP:STALKing my edits. You've been blocked twice before for exactly this behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk page consensus is required for any disputed edit, full stop. That's made crystal clear in the template message at the top of the page. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I just finished reorganizing this stuff a bit, see what you think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know where it is located now, but I think having its own subsection is best. It is incorrect to say the only provable ties are business ties.
 * As I have shown above, Trump and associates have other kinds of relations with Russia as well. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Check out the article. Material about Russian ties is where it's been for days, and there's a hatnote to more Russian ties earlier in the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to re-phrase it. Trump has ties to many countries. For example, his mother was born in Scotland and he owns a golf course and hotel there. That's bigger than the Russia tie. Trump has been invited to a state visit to the UK, where he will be the guest of the Queen. He has never said anything against her. But the Russia tie attracts attention because of the theory that Trump favors the interests of Russia over those of the United States. The title should mention that, perhaps by including "controversy" in the title. TFD (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Rephrase the subsection now titled "Russia ties" or the subsection now titled "Foreign interference"? I think we are stuck with the former header ("Russia ties") at least for now, given the results of the "informal poll" above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * By "Russia ties" I presume you mean "ties to Russia" which is its current title. I was AFC (away from computer) for a few days and I strongly protest what has been done with this section. It used to be under "2016 presidential election" which is the right place for it (unless we want to move it to Presidency since the controversy is ongoing). Just now when I went to look for the section I couldn't even find it at first. Someone (not going to search the history) has converted it to a level four heading, so that it isn't even listed in the table of contents, and has inexplicably placed it as a sub-subheading under "More buildings in New York and worldwide". I don't see any consensus for doing that and I am going to move it back to 2016 presidential campaign until consensus is reached here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, it's worse than I thought. Somebody not only hid it under "More buildings in New York and worldwide", they stripped out all the introductory material about WHY "ties to Russia" has become an issue, leaving only a stripped down listing of business connections. I see I am going to have to research this, come up with a restoration, and start a new section about what was done. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, now I see what happened. User:Anythingyouwant moved the business material to the Real Estate section, and retained the political material in a newly titled section " Foreign Russian interference in election" under the 2016 Campaign section. That seems reasonable to me; although it was done without any consensus, I for one don't object to it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do object to it. It ("Russian interference in election") is a weasely-worded and deliberately deceptive section. What does its weasel content actually say? It misrepresents a reference that talks about Trump's business interests (or lack of) in Russia, deceptively claiming it is actually about Trump's "relationship to Russia". It fakes a wikilink, piping the "Trump's relationship to Russia" phrase to the Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia article. All this is done to imply that that there was collusion with Russia to help Trump's business interests. The rest of the section's content is (on the surface) bizarre - all about saying that Trump has no business interests with Russia, and there was no collusion with Russia. Since when do articles have content about what a thing is not? This content is there to imply something that is unsupported by sources. It is there just to allow mention of the words "business interests" and "collusion" in a section titled "Russian interference in election". This is textbook "and when did you last beat your wife?" stuff: since Trump = Hitler, everything he says is a lie and we can assume that he is lying about the business interests thing and he is up to his neck in collusion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It would help if would propose such controversial changes here first, rather than making changes without seeking consensus. When particular content is under discussion, there should be no changes taking place to the article until agreement exists. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See section below. Also comment above at 17:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't get a consensus for your actions. You just went ahead and did it, and then explained yourself, and then basically ignored the objections to it. And we only need one thread to discuss this, not two. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to be more specific. Otherwise, I have tried my best to read the consensus here, and note that if I propose stuff and no one objects then that seems like one way of getting at least enough consensus to be bold.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I object to removing a longstanding paragraph. There is no doubt that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I too object to the removal of the paragraph, but my objection is based on the fact failed to seek comment from other editors before acting unilaterally. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored the section. This was not "new material" as claimed in the edit summary; it was longstanding material with a new title, and should not be removed without consensus. The reasoning given by Tiptoe above is based entirely on their own assumptions and interpretation of the material. Their argument is full of claims that the section "implies" collusion or "is just there to allow mention of the word collusion" (a word which in fact is NOT mentioned in the section). Also unhelpful: multiple accusations that the material is somehow "deceptive". (And of course, the claim that this material amounts to "Trump = Hitler", an out-of-left-field reference which is completely unsupported by the actual content, invalidates the whole argument per Godwin's law.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The section is new, and the paragraph within it was arbitrarily moved without discussion from a section with a completely different title dealing with Trumps business interests. What does content related to Trumps business interests to do with "Russian interference in election" claims? Thanks for not addressing even a single point in my objections to that section's content. I suppose the privilege to ignore is part of the privilege that comes with ownership of the article. You claim collusion "in fact is NOT mentioned in the section". Did you even bother to read the content you have just reinserted? The content states " he knew of no evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the election"! Faking the existence of a Wikipedia article though inaccurate piping doesn't in the least concern you? Faking the subject and wording of a cited source doesn't in the least concern you? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The section is not new and it was not moved. It has been there in the "2016 campaign" section, under the title "ties to Russia". What was changed yesterday is that a few sentences about his business connections to Russia were removed and moved to the business section of the article, and the remaining material was kept in the 2016 campaign section and was retitled "foreign interference in the election" - which was promptly changed to "Russian interference in the election" which is now its title. (Check it out for yourself: this is what the article looked like on March 8 before those changes were made; this is what it looked like on March 1; the material has been there, in that exact location, for some time.) "Colluded" is mentioned only in connection with a DENIAL that there was any collusion, so your claim that this article exists to hint at the EXISTENCE of collusion is incorrect. I have removed the wikilink which you feel is inappropriate piping. Please explain what cited source you think has been "faked". --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We have article content detailing the denial of something, but no content making the claim that is being denied. You think that is normal? Do we usually include content saying what something is not? The "collusion" denial content is weasel, inserted to imply the possibility of collusion while getting around the fact that there are no RS sources available that actually claim collusion. The faking of the source should be easy to see. The NYT article "For Trump, Three Decades of Chasing Deals in Russia", an article about Trump's business dealings in Russia and not about allegations of Russian political interference, is being cited in a section titled "Russian interference in election", and cited to support the wording "Trump's relationship to Russia", a phrase not used in the source (but a phrase worded to again imply collusion). At least you have accepted that I was right in saying that the piping of "Trump's relationship to Russia" to Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia was a mistake, though the absence of an edit summary looks like an ungracious way of avoiding actually mentioning I was right. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please try not to be so confrontational. Wikipedia works by consensus. When I modify something to meet someone else's objections, it does not necessarily mean that I agree with them, simply that I am trying to achieve a version that everyone (or almost everyone) can support. I do agree the NYT article about business relationships is not the most appropriate reference for that sentence, and I have replaced it with two other sources that support the sentence more directly. Are you saying that we should remove Clapper's comment that he knew of no evidence of collusion? IMO it is there to provide balance and I would hate to see it removed. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your editing methodology appears to be: first write the content you want, according to your pov - then afterwards find sources to support that content. If the sources you initially find are later shown to not support that content, don't remove the content or reword it to actually match the sources, just search for some more sources that do appear to support it. That methodology is almost a blueprint for making a badly-written pov-ridden article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

valuable picture of trump's childhood
I just found a valuable picture of trump's childhood (here: ) that is cool to upload for the article. Can anybody do this? Alborzagros (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is no indication in the article about whether or not the image you refer to is in the public domain, so we cannot use it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And in fact there was debate, earlier, when two very different houses were both described as being his "childhood home". The claims of a real estate agent trying to sell the house do not qualify as a reliable source. --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2017
Remove redundant. 219.79.127.36 (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC) ✅ Thanks, IVORK  Discuss 02:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that was left there intentionally, so it wouldn't have to be re-typed when the ECP was reduced to normal semiprotection. It wasn't doing any harm as far as I can see. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This article could use a new image
Maybe one with him smiling, such a this one? It sets a better light for the article, rather than a picture of a guy who looks like he just rolled off the wrong side of the bed. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Boomer Vial, you've searched the archives for past image-related discussions? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. Is my contribution in general a perennial suggestion, or has the photo already been suggested for use? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussions tend to be... contentious. Here are past discussions and one recent one. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Donald Trump, item 1. No searching was required in this case. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to explain, Boomer Vial: There was constant debate during the campaign about what image to use for him. But there was consensus that once he had an official White House photo, that would be the image we use - as it has been for past presidents and other officeholders. This image (which many of us perceive as scowling ) is what Trump's White House has chosen as his official presidential portrait, so that is what we use. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Boomer Vial - photos are more for MOS:IMAGES what's the most pertinent to a section, and for the lead image the precedent is to use what's the most recent federal position official image regardless of how recent or long ago. So the image taken of him as President-elect that was put up on whitehouse.gov is the one for lead as the most important aspect of his life story.   Other images are welcome if they fit a section -- but the lead image is going to follow as close as we can to what the official portrait is.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine and Russia
This edit was as follows:

Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election officials provided evidence of Russian influence which helped to force Manafort's resignation.

First of all, as the title of the cited article indicates, Ukraine was indeed interfering in the 2016 election, and the cited article says so repeatedly. With regard to Manafort in particular, the article says Ukraine "disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election." So, I object to erasing all mention of the fact that Ukraine interfered in the election, and all mention that the so-called Ukrainian "evidence" was part of that interference.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A more recent article in Politico appears to undermine your narrative somewhat. Politico has been known to put out stories that are then corrected or retracted, incidentally. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see that the article I referred to has been corrected or retracted or contradicted by Politico. It's disheartening to see Wikipedia characterizing the "ledger" material as helpful evidence, notwithstanding the cited source.  By the way, if Politico does decide to correct or retract or contradict itself, I couldn't care less because I have not put forth any narrative of my own.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The usage of the word "narrative" implies the user is trying to twist the story for his own purposes. Highly untrue and inaccurate, Ukraine, like Russia, interfered in the election in one way or another and that's a fact. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. A well-sourced fact. Also, the second Politico article is about an "operative" named "Konstantin Kilimnik", who's mentioned neither in the first Politico article nor in the FT article.
 * If Vogel and Stern had had some reason to correct or clarify their first story, they could have conveniently done so here. Instead, they let that story stand. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who made that change, but I am open to changing or reverting it per discussion. I thought the thrust of the source article was more about the Russian stuff (despite the title) and I made note of the fact that the section title is "Russian interference in the election". If consensus is to refocus the sentence back to Ukraine, we should probably change the title back to "Foreign interference..." --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I, for one, feel it should be reverted along with the title of the section.70.44.154.16 (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to go further than that, and entirely remove the first of these two paragraphs. There's no evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians, so it's something of a nothingburger.  Even if Flynn and/or Manafort are charged with crimes (which at this point is very very speculative), lots of presidents have had a shady character or two that got in trouble.  Bill Clinton had Webster Hubbell, Gerald Ford had Earl Butz, et cetera, but you won't find those controversies mentioned in our BLPs, because it's guilt by association.  Either the section should be greatly cut back, or it ought to be eliminated.  Does any reliable source suggest that Russian hacking changed the election outcome?  Anyway, I would remove the stuff about Flynn and Manafort, especially given that he fired them both.  As for Trump praising Putin, didn't he do so before the U.S. officially accused Putin of hacking our election, and did so on the explicit assumption that Putin had not engaged in hacking?  We should not be slanting and withholding information in order to build some kind of case against Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree there is no evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians; that's a straw man, because nothing here claims he did. None of the sources have said definitely that the Russian intervention influenced the outcome of the election, and nothing here claims that it did; that's also a straw man. That doesn't make this issue into a "nothingburger". The Russian connection is a huge story, persisting for months, and heavily impacting the initial months of his administration. Flynn and Manafort were enormous stories - both were fired because their contacts with Russians. The Russian attempt to influence the election is an enormous story, attested to by 17 intelligence agencies. These are not anything like Webster Hubbell or (for heavens sake) Earl Butz. And yes, Trump has been praising Putin for more than a year, and that has caused a lot of commentary - especially because he didn't change his tone even after it was suggested that Putin was trying to influence the election. Quite the contrary, he invited Putin to go ahead and do it! One question: what information are we slanting, and what information are we "withholding"? --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As best I can tell, the U.S. officially accused Putin of hacking in October. And we source Trump's praise of Putin to before that without saying so.  If we have a source for Trump praising Putin after the U.S. officially charged Putin with hacking then bring it on.  Otherwise, we would need to point out that Trump's praise preceded the official U.S. accusation against Putin.  Moreover, Trump made clear even before the official U.S. accusation that he was saying Putin was a stronger leader than Obama, as distinguished from a better leader than Obama, and yet we give the impression of the latter.  The Russian hacking was indeed a big story, and rightfully so, and I think our second paragraph covers it plenty.  The first paragraph is a bunch of smoke and mirrors to explain why media scrutiny began; how about we focus on the result of the scrutiny rather than innuendo or speculation that got the scrutiny started?  Flynn was fired for giving incomplete info to the VP, and it's not clear to me that he committed any other offense.  Manafort seems to be in trouble for stuff he did before he ever met Trump.  So, I'm not seeing why they belong in this BLP any more than Web Hubbell belongs in Bill Clinton's.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me,, Google search had no trouble finding Trump's praise of Putin after Russia had been accused. I didn't even try hard to find that. Perhaps we are reading only from inside our bubbles.
 * Also, we cannot remove Flynn and Manafort for the reasons you give. Flynn sidestepped two felonies (by registering as a foreign agent after the fact, and by lying about talks with Russia to the FBI). Manafort consulted with Kilimnik, of Russian intelligence, while he was Trump's campaign manager. So both belong here. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Susan, thanks for looking into Trump’s alleged "praise" of Putin following the U.S. government’s official accusation that he had hacked the U.S. election. When Obama expelled Russian diplomats, Putin decided not to retaliate in kind, and that’s when Trump said Putin was smart to not retaliate.  Telling a foreign leader that he’s smart to not mess with the United States is hardly a general compliment (though it may be within your bubble).  I suggest we make clear that this was the type of "praise" that Trump heaped on Putin.  Do you agree?  That would make our BLP more neutral, or alternatively we could simply remove that Trump has "praised" Putin. Moreover, no reliable source (AFAIK) says that Putin hacked the actual ballot-counting, but rather he hacked to get info that evidently went to Wikileaks.  Our section on Russian interference does not mention this distinction, and doesn’t say whether reliable sources say the Wikileaks stuff shifted the election outcome, which seems like a big omission on our part.  As to Manafort and Flynn, is there evidence that they were involved in the Russian interference with our 2016 election?  If not (and Clapper says there is no such evidence), then they belong elsewhere in this BLP (if at all), unless it is our goal to smear and slant and insinuate, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * He praised Putin repeatedly during the campaign; that fact has been noted by multiple reliable sources. I'm not aware of any reliable source that has added "But he only praised Putin once after the U.S. officially charged the Russians with interfering." Does that make this original research on your part? Would it make his earlier praise less relevant? BTW if Trump (almost) stopped praising Putin because of the interference allegations, he certainly didn't say so. In fact, his only reaction to the interference allegations was to dismiss them as "fake news". As for Manafort, no, he was in trouble for stuff he did during the election; as for Flynn, the Trump administration chose to focus merely on his misleading Pence, but there remains an investigation as to what he said to the Russian ambassador about sanctions; the issue is what they did while they were part of Team Trump. And as has been pointed out many times before, our article does not even mention hacking and does not claim that the actual voting was hacked (as far as we know it wasn't); it mentions Russian interference but does not claim the interference influenced the outcome of the election (there's no way to tell); so I don't know why you keep bringing up those irrelevant issues. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

While Anythingyouwant continues to argue against the entire paragraph, can we get back to the subject of this thread: how to deal with Ukraine? Should we revert to the original wording saying that Ukraine intervened in the election, and should we change the section title to "Foreign interference in the election"? --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I went through four pages of Google search results trying to find another source for Ukranian interference in the U.S. election. I could not find one other than Politico (reference #1 above) and other sites who cite Politico. I also read the Politico piece twice and think it's mainly about Russia. So I do not support renaming the section. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support reverting. The Politico piece is mainly about Ukraine, not Russia. Headline: "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." Subheadline: "Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton." Lead photo caption: "Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S. Valeriy Chaly publically criticized Donald Trump during the 2016 elections." And here's a second source:
 * I believe FT is considered one of the most reputable newspapers in the Anglosphere. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah,, Politico's story has that title and caption. But the article seems to be straining to make any connection to the Ukraine. I would be happy to change my !vote if there is a source. FT has a paywall and I am not a subscriber. It is possible that Politico based its story on FT (they mention it once), but I can't easily find any other reliable sources other than blogs that even mentions FT reporting. Why? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Helpfully, here is a partial reprint of a different story from FT. Again, it is about Russian hacking with the connection being to Ukranian military and Russian military physically inside the Ukraine. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keyword counts for the Politico story: Ukrain– + Kiev + Poroshenko = 95 + 8 + 27 = 130; Russi– + Soviet + Moscow + Putin = 50 + 1 + 1 + 8 = 60. The Politico story is more about Ukrainian matters than about Russian matters, by a ratio of 2:1 or so. Keyword counts for the Financial Times story: Ukrain– + Kiev + Poroshenko = 19 + 8 + 0 = 27; Russi– + Soviet + Moscow + Putin = 6 + 0 + 0 + 2 = 8. The FT story is much more about Ukrainian matters than about Russian matters, by a ratio of 3:1 or so. (The December 2016 reprint you're citing is, as you note, much more about Russian matters.)
 * The FT story doesn't use the words "hack", "military", or "cyber". (The story actually has little to do with the subject of the reprint.) Here are a few passages relevant to our article:
 * The prospect of Mr Trump ... becoming leader of the country’s biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election...
 * If the Republican candidate loses in November, some observers suggest Kiev’s actions may have played at least a small role...
 * Kiev moved beyond verbal criticism when Ukraine’s national anti-corruption bureau and Mr Leshchenko ... published the ledger showing alleged payments to Mr Manafort last week.
 * Why haven't other publications picked up the Financial Times story? Perhaps because comparatively few of their readers invest in Ukrainian government bonds, so what they don't know about the Ukrainian government's intervention (and Trump's foreseeable retaliation) won't hurt them. ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the keyword analysis, . I don't see these articles in the same way. Politico got a former DNC employee to talk to them and they talked to Ukranian officials who want to make-up with Trump. Otherwise they reported no new material. Also thank you for the quotations from FT. They don't add a drop to what our article already says. Here's how I see it:
 * New York Times August 14, 2016
 * Financial Times August 28, 2016
 * Politico January 11, 2017
 * I support upgrading our source from Politico to one of the others. But producing the ledger was the only action that the Ukranian Anti-Corruption Bureau made. That action may have resulted in Manafort's resignation but it doesn't equate to the Russian actions of theft and perhaps publication of email documents. Sorry. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What was their relative significance to the section topic? The only noncontentious numerical data I know of are the casualty counts. Resignations proceeding from the Ukrainian action: 1 (Manafort); from the Russian action: 1 (Wasserman). Each action accomplished its immediate goal. The Ukrainian action was, of course, less significant; yet it was still somewhat significant. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Google cannot find any story except Politico that mentions "ukraine interference in us election 2016". (Blogs from Herman Caine and the Canadian Free Press both quote Politico.) Evidently we can find Politico because of their headline. WP:DUE says, "If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof." Wikipedia has a long article titled Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Ukraine is not indicated there to be an influence. Therefore I have to ask why are you guys trying to insert it here, top-down? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The ledgers were disclosed by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, not Russia. They showed payments by the Ukrainian government, not the Russian government. So the material could reasonably be added to an article titled "Foreign interference...", but not "Russian interference..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Instead of an article titled "Foreign interference..." you want to add this to a biography of "Donald Trump" which already summarizes the topic and cites 1 of your 2 sources. I have other things to do now, but I object to the side-effect of obliterating the word "Russian" from the Table of Contents. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support reverting the header. There is strong sourcing that Ukraine interfered.  If the actual objective truth of the matter is that they didn't interfere, then we're still okay because the header "Foreign interference in the election" does not imply that anyone other than Russia interfered.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the "Foreign intervention" header and a brief mention of both events. — JFG talk 07:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support edit by MelanieN. That was good clarification. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Praising Putin
I object to this revert. Contrary to the edit summary, none of these sources, and none of the proposed text, was previously discussed. What was previously discussed was trump's comment praising putin for not retaliating for expulsion of diplomats (which happened much later). Apparently, it's always going to be unacceptable if we say anything about Trump not loving Putin, or Pence agreeing with Trump that Putin is a strong leader but a bully. And why insist on putting this so-called praise toward the end of the paragraph, after the U.S. formally accused Putin of hacking? The sources are in reverse of that order.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support the revert. Well done, MelanieN. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And is there any reason for that support? Do you think it's a good idea to omit that Trump rebuffed the charges?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a good idea, when the sources used to explain away his gushing praise are fringe. TheValeyard (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Associated Press sure is a wingnut fringe pro-Trump crappy source. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither AP nor RealClearPolitics are fringe. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Calm down, peeps, I misspoke and got my point across badly. Was trying to get the point across that the sources were being misused to advance a fringe point-of-view, namely that Trump just actually, swimmingly condemns Putin and Russia, when 99% of his words say the exact opposite. TheValeyard (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You apparently are now saying that the following language asserts that Trump swimmingly condemned Putin: "During the campaign, Trump repeatedly praised Russian president Vladimir Putin for being a strong leader...." I disagree that this quoted language describes Trump condemning Putin.  It explicitly says he praised Putin.  But the matter is not quite so simple as that, which is why further detail is useful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you have a bad habit of changing sections that are under discussion, and imposing your own version even when discussion at the talk page didn't support it. The main problem I saw with that edit is that you were inserting or implying your own Original Research claim (disproven in a section above) that Trump stopped praising Putin after the hacking was revealed. As for the order of the sentences, I consider that to be in order of importance - with Trump's praise of Putin to be the least important. (As for the claim that Trump "rebuffed" the charges, that mild disclaimer ("I don't love him. I don't hate him" [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-farmville-idUSKCN1240WJ') was on a par with his rebuttal to Clinton, when she mentioned that he might be considered Putin's "puppet" and he insisted "No puppet. No puppet. You're the puppet.") As for Pence criticizing Putin, put that in Pence's biographical article. This is Trump's biographical article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * User:MelanieN, you have a bad habit of mischaracterizing edits that you dislike. Anyone can look at the diff at the start of this talk page section to see that the material you removed said absolutely nothing about Trump stopping his praise of Putin after the hacking was revealed.  Try again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was strongly implied by your insertion of the word "later" in front of the hacking information. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong. This article is chronological for the most part.  The word "later" simply and correctly indicated the chronology.  Trump said he doesn't love Putin, and later the U.S. branded Putin a hacker. Contrast your insistence on writing non-chronologically without even informing the reader that you're doing so. And it's interesting as well that you want to include gobs of information here about Manafort and Flynn who Trump fired, but anything about Pence must be removed even if Trump endorsed it so that it reflects Trump's view.  I infer from your statement of importance that you think it's least important that there's no evidence Trump or his staff colluded with the Russians, given that we provide that info last.  How revealing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The "hacker" announcement was not "later". Trump continued to praise Putin, at least twice after that announcement, including after his inauguration. More to the point, NO Reliable Source that I am aware of has claimed that Trump stopped praising Putin after the hacking was identified, or has attached any significant connection between the announcement and Trump's comments about Putin. Without Reliable Sources this is Original Research. "Gobs of information" about Manafort and Flynn? That's a bit of an exaggeration - take a look at the paragraph. Anyhow, Trump did not "endorse" Pence's comments about Putin specifically, he simply praised Pence's debate performance in generalities (while taking credit for Pence's performance to himself ). --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump said he does not love Putin on October 5. Two days later, the U.S. government officially accused Russia of hacking the campaign to interfere with the election.  And that chronology is all I used the word "later" for.  The language I proposed did not say the slightest thing about Trump ending praise for Putin after the hacking was identified, because Trump did praise Putin for not expelling U.S. diplomats in retaliation (that's the only praise I know of after the official U.S. hacking accusation, and it's hardly an expression of admiration for an American to say someone is smart not to mess with the U.S.).  I used the word "later" perfectly correctly, and you have misdescribed how I used it.  As for Flynn and Manafort, we include more info about them than the language I proposed about Pence, and why reject the latter?  Because we want to tie Trump to those people he fired, rather than tying Trump to Pence, apparently.  You're right that Trump didn't specifically endorse what Pence said about Putin, but Trump did specifically reject Manafort and Flynn and yet we have no compunction about tying their views to Trump's.  And Pence did specifically say that he and Trump shared the same view about Putin: "When Donald Trump and I observe that, as I've said, in Syria, in Iran, in Ukraine, that the small and bullying leader of Russia has been stronger on the world stage than this administration, that's stating painful facts. That's not an endorsement of Vladimir Putin — that's an indictment of the weak and feckless leadership of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama."  Anyway, I strongly object to writing this material in non-chronological fashion without even hinting to the reader that it's not chronological.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If the chronological order is that important to you I will go along with re-ordering the sentences, but without the word "later" (since his praise for Putin both preceded and followed the announcement). Flynn and Manafort have received enormous amounts of coverage for their connection to Russia and its effect on the Trump campaign, so important that they were both fired for it (which our article does not actually say; should it?); they are merely mentioned here with no details, which I think is appropriate for this bio; we could add a lot more explanation of what they did and why it is important to Trump if you want, but IMO it would be undue WEIGHT. As for Pence (whose comments about Putin echoed what most other politicians of all stripes have said), please show me any Reliable Source that links Pence's condemnation of Putin to Trump's opinion, or says that Trump's generic praise of Pence's debate performance means that his opinion of Putin was in any way embraced by Trump or modifies his opinion of him. In fact the opposite seems to be the case, since Trump dismissed criticism of Putin as recently as last month - an attitude which was condemned by people from both parties. Shall we put that in the article, to prove he still sees nothing wrong with Putin and will defend him against criticism? --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and willingness to keep things chronological when possible. I will look at your link and reply later, since the real world deigns to interfere (e.g. blizzard prep, tax prep, doctor scheduling).  Will probably reply more tonight.  Cheers.  I will just say now that during the campaign Trump's praise for Putin was rarely (if ever) blanket praise, but rather was focused on one particular trait: praising Putin for being a "strong leader".  Zillions of reliable sources attest to that.  So I don't see any reason why we should omit "for being a strong leader".  Omitting that detail incorrectly suggests Trump was praising everything about Putin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * He often did say "for being a strong leader, unlike what we have here". He also sometimes praised him in general, such as "It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond." (December 2015) It was the fact that he praised him AT ALL that struck the media as being so unusual, sometimes described as unprecedented, for an American politician. But we could make it "During the campaign, Trump repeatedly praised Russian president Vladimir Putin as a "strong leader".[380]" if you think that is important. --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would be an improvement (saying he's highly respected in his country is closely tied to being a strong leader). I'm still very leery about keeping this first paragraph, because it seems like a grab-bag of all the reasons why we should be suspicious of Trump, without including any of the stuff on the other side (e.g. the Russians say that we're being hysterical and that Clinton campaign officials also met with Russians).  There are pending investigations, so I think we ought to just wait and see what they produce.  I still have to respond to your comments about Pence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This may be a good time for hardworking contributors to reread NPOVFAQ. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please trim this as it does not seem biographical material, suggest move it to a more appropriate article. Thanks.  Markbassett (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How can it not be biographical if we are talking about something Trump has specifically said? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is tendentious to say that Trump "repeatedly praised" Putin without saying how he praised him or how he explained it. It implies the conspiracy theory that as president, Trump will take orders from Moscow and govern the U.S. according to Putinist principles.  If that is true, it should be stated explicitly.  Also, the next sentence is also tendentious:  "For these reasons, there has been intensive media scrutiny of Trump's relationship to Russia."  We cannot say why the media has focused on this issue.  A more likely reason, which has been proved in the past, is that the media show bias against politicians whom they believe challenge political orthodoxy.  But at this point their motivation is guesswork.  TFD (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They also did the same thing to JFK, the first Catholic president. He would be taking orders from the Pope and all the Catholics had guns in their basements, prepping for the Pope's Catholic revolution which didn't materialize. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. And I'd like to point out, though a thorough reading makes it obvious, that Anythingyouwant is driving this nonsense. Again. And I still support a topic ban for him. This is going to become another "neither won a majority of the vote,' obsessive endless arguments. And I oppose that happening again. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely with User:The Four Deuces. Unfortunately, I have been prevented from indenting this comment as a response to TFD, by an editor who apparently wanted this comment to seem like agreement with him instead of with TFD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I wanted to put my comment back where it belonged, because I was responding to TFD. Then YOU came along, and displaced my comment with yours. It's not my doing, it's your doing. Stop disrupting this page. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:Pot. You removed my comment, and then replaced it with a new comment of your own.  Your machinations left my comment completely out of context, appearing to be agreement with your own comment.  I also have no idea why you want to topic-ban me given that we both agree with TFD.  Please try to be reasonable.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Look back over all of MelanieN's comments. And STOP. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll continue to agree with editors when I think they're correct, and disagree with them when I think they're incorrect. In this instance, I agree much more with TFD than with MelanieN.  Deal with it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added "as a strong leader" per this discussion and because I happened to find a source that uses almost identical wording to what we had in the article. I searched for sources that mention Trump praising Putin and limited the search to sources that were published post-election. This was the first source that included some kind of duration. This came in search first, but I disqualified it because it says "particularly during the campaign" [emphasis added]. But the second source happens to have an answer to this question "Shall we put that in the article, to prove he still sees nothing wrong with Putin and will defend him against criticism?" Politrukki (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, your Reuters link is the first Reliable Source I have seen suggesting that Trump has praised Putin less since the election. Based on that, I agree with adding "During the campaign" to the sentence. We could go into a lot more detail, including his recent defense of Putin (which sparked a lot of reaction because he seemed to be implying a moral equivalence between the way Putin governs and the way the U.S. is governed), but I would oppose that as undue for a biographical article. It now says "During the campaign, Trump repeatedly praised Russian president Vladimir Putin as a strong leader" and is provided as merely one of several reasons why Trump's relationship with Russia is being scrutinized. --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a subsection on "political positions" during the campaign, and another subsection on "foreign policy" during his presidency. If his views about Putin belong anywhere in this BLP, they belong there.  I object again to starting this "Russian interference" section with a bunch of speculative reasons why we should suspect Trump colluded with the Russians despite zero evidence, excluding of course all reasons why such collusion is unlikely (and excluding reasons why Putin disliked Clinton).  There are ongoing investigations, so let's see if they turn up anything.  We ought to simply say in this subsection that Russian hacking occurred and that there's no evidence he colluded with it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the proposed edit is synthetic. There's no real evidence that Trump's praising of Putin, which amounts to praising someone he recognizes as a strong leader, has legitimately put Trump 'under scrutiny.' As for the 'moral equivalence' of how Putin governs versus the US, well lets take a look at some of our defense of so-called Allies, like the Saudis. They throw acid in women's faces when the women piss them off, and they throw gays off roofs, while at the same time, Saudi men have no problem raping children. They also have no problem murdering female relatives who get raped. But if ISIS invaded The Kingdom, it would be US troops, US air support, that responds. So we would go in and save rapists, pedophiles and murderers, because they're our ally, even though we know the Saudis would make Hitler blush. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"During the campaign, Trump ... rebuffed claims that he loves Putin." Not the best choice of words. See Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail: "‘Christ, we can’t get away calling him a pigf-cker,’ the campaign manager protested. ‘Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.’ ‘I know,’ Johnson replied. ‘But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.’" --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support removal by MelineN. This is insignificant information, given further development of these events. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)