Talk:Donald Trump

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Current consensus

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per this discussion including an admin. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item [n].

1. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (link 1, link 2)

2. Show birthplace as "New York City" in the infobox. No state or country. (link)

3. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (link)

4. Lead phrasing of Trump gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College and receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide, without quoting numbers. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15)

5. Use Donald Trump's net worth value of $4.5 billion, and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (2016 edition), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link)

6. Do not mention the anonymous Jane Doe rape lawsuit, as it was withdrawn. (link)

7. Include "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2)

8. Mention that Trump is the first president elected without prior military or governmental service. (link)

9. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (link)

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (link 1, link 2)

11. The lead sentence is Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (link)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days, manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours. (link)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (link)

15. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense.[1] No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4)

16. Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (link)

Open RfCs

• #RfC: How to describe the popular vote outcome

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)

(edit conflict) 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)

@JFG:, 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.[2]. 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)

RfC: How to describe the popular vote outcome

This is about the final phrase of a sentence in the lede -

Current Version: He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

The question is whether to replace the current wording of the final phrase. The earlier part of the sentence is a consensus version and is not under discussion here, only the final phrase. This has been extensively discussed above, and after much discussion and compromise we have come up with the following choices, which should be the basis of this RfC.

• • Option 1: The wording currently in the article: ...and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.
  • Option 2: ...and the fifth to have lost the national popular vote. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3 ". . .and the fifth to lose the popular vote ' SW3 5DL (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 4: ...and the fifth after losing the national popular vote. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment if you can support the following new wording for the end of the election summary paragraph in the lede.

1.

...and the fifth president to have lost the popular vote.

Reasoning: I think "the fifth ___" is too abbreviated. "to have lost" because "to lose" implies he we president before he lost the popular vote. "losing the popular vote" is wording that many sources use even though it is not a contest to be won or lost or even part of any criteria for being president. If you do not support, please say why. Bod (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Bodhi Peace: You need to show a full sentence so that editors know the context. The ending must follow from the beginning of the sentence in tense and verb form. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural note – The anonymous poster of this RfC should have obtained local consensus in the ongoing discussions before throwing their preferred wording to RfC. — JFG ^talk 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Preference

• Option 2 Option 3 This version is much clearer and is more in line with how Reliable Sources have described the outcome.[3] [4] [5] [6] "Plurality" is kind of an obscure word and is not necessarily clear to all readers. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: I prefer Option 3, I would accept Option 2, and I oppose Option 1. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I also oppose the newly added Option 4 as unclear. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Changed your mind, then? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No. The version I previously accepted was something like "the fifth to become president after losing the popular vote". That was clear. "The fifth after losing the popular vote" is not clear. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Okay, thanks Melanie. I like support those options, as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's not about the sources, it's about the grammar. "To have lost" does not match the sentence. We'll have to change the whole thing. Just say, to lose the national popular vote. That matches. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I got distracted by Bodhi's wording, which as far as I know has never been proposed before. I meant to list the version which seems close to consensus in the discussion above - "the fifth to lose the popular vote." I see that parts of the proposal are getting struck and comments changed; yet another reason to abort this and start over. what we are left with may be a viable RfC despite its rocky start. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3 per Melanie. @MelanieN: I thought we were there on our own, I don't know why Bodhi started an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Abort - There is enough wrong with this RfC to justify an abort. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, if policy permits. I tried to reformulate this into a proper RfC comparing the existing version with the version that seemed to have reach consensus in discussion, but it would be better to start that RfC properly from the beginning. Maybe we could get Bodhi Peace to withdraw this one. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw my agreement with "abort". Bodhi Peace has now struck his original comment and replaced it with the fuller explanation and the three options. This leaves us with a possibly viable RfC. Other people may wish to strike or remove their comments about the earlier procedural problems if they have been dealt with. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do. Abort costs only a few hours and results in a far cleaner end product, well worth the cost. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK policy permits either voluntary withdrawal or a consensus to abort. Obviously I would prefer the former. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup, IAR and WP:SNOW. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's about grammar. "To have lost" is bad form in this sentence. We'll have to change the whole thing. Just say, "To lose the national popular vote." SW3 5DL (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing grammatically wrong with "to have lost". One could argue that it's unnecessarily conplex. But my abort !vote has nothing to do with grammar, so that's moot to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 2Option 1 It's been discussed before. "Lost the popular vote" is not a normal way of describing an electoral win. The president of Mexico (36%) and the prime minster of Canada (39%) received a lower percentage of the popular vote than Trump, but no one says they "lost the popular vote." TFD (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Four Deuces: You sure you made the right choice? Bod (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, now corrected. TFD (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Spurious argument. Neither Mexico nor Canada is a de facto two party, de jure winner-take-all system like the United States. And please no other spurious arguments about the US not being a legally mandated 2 party system. Tapered (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Grammar issue with Option 2 . .to have lost is bad form. . .use plain English. . ."the fifth to lose the popular vote," much better. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural close as above abort vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Point out the national popular vote in 2016, was California vs the rest of the country. Take California out & Trump finishes about 1.5 millions votes ahead of Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 Very clear and seems to agree with sources. Nothing wrong with grammar. Similar to proposed version. If @GoodDay: can provide 3 reliable sources, support mentioning CA as the sole reason for the defeat in the popular vote. Of course, either #2 or #3 is better than current. Bod (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Abort – Can't make sense of all this back-and-forth editing of the question by multiple people, plus random comments in the !votes. — JFG ^talk 21:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3 (both seem equally good to me.) They seem to reflect how it's covered in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1. It's perfectly understandable, avoids calling Trump a loser which is totally unnecessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Ist choice Option 3 or 2nd choiceOption 2, clear simple, linked to relevant article for those who don't understand the concept and 'college' system. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3 - That's what happened and was reported. Objective3000 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete and Objective3000: Note above MelanieN's change of vote to Option 3 and her rationale. Please choose either 2 or 3. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Please choose either 2 or 3. Note above, MelanieN changed her vote to Option 3 and her rationale. Please choose just one. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

SW3, there is no requirement that people choose one only. If they don't express a preference they can be counted as support for both; if they have a first choice and a second choice they can say that. Personally my !vote would be "prefer Option 3; accept Option 2; oppose Option 1", and I should probably clarify that above. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Option 1 has not been excluded has it? Pincrete (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If Opt2 is in the lead, I'm for Opt 2. If Opt 3 is in the lead, I'm for Opt 3. Just end it. Objective3000 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Abort per above. Rerun later... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2. Achieving "less than a plurality" in a popular vote in the United States is understood as "losing" that vote, which is how reliable sources describe such an outcome, so Option 1 is overly complicated. (It even still links to an article about people who "lost" the popular vote.) I prefer Option 2 over Option 3 because I believe 2 gives a better description. Option 3 describes him as a president who lost the vote, which sounds like losing the vote happened when he was president. Option 2 makes it clear that he took office, having previously lost the vote. At the time he became the president, his loss in the popular vote had taken place earlier; this is correct use of the perfect infinitive tense, and is grammatically correct in the sentence. DavidK93 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 – None of the options reflects how the so-called popular vote is covered in reliable sources. Usually it is not mentioned at all: out of twelve randomly picked sources that say Trump won the election ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) I could find only one that makes the distinction between electoral college vote and popular vote (LA Times mentions the popular vote because Sanders brought it up), which suggests that mentioning popular vote gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. There was never a contest for popular vote, hence there can be no winners or losers. If we imply that there were two contests, then we must follow reliable sources and mention U.S. Electoral College. Majority (or plurality) of non-US readers have no clue what the heck electoral college is, which the majority (or plurality) of participants here have not addressed. All suggested options have problems, but the current one is the least worst option. Politrukki (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 4, with mild support for option 3, feeble, arm-twisting support for option 2, and total opposition to option 1. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Opt.3 makes it plain he lost the popular vote. That's the real issue. Won the presidency, lost the popular vote. Keep in mind, loads of people don't want any mention of him losing anything. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Mild support" means exactly that. I'd prefer the "after losing" construct, but I've already agreed to the "to lose" construct in option 3 that you prefer. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - It's perfectly fine and neutral, I find it ridiculous people are getting unsettled by it. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  The issue with option 1 is the word "plurality", which is only familiar to the small percentage of Americans with an interest in electoral politics. It is not used at all in all the other English-speaking nations of the world, which the English language Wikipedia is meant to cover. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  FYI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - I see no compelling reason to change the long standing content. PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  It's only "long standing" because every attempt to change it has been reverted, and the current version is being "held" until a consensus for a new version is reached. So this is not a convincing argument at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  That section has been brought up over and over. The current wording is what has survived. I doubt anyone is 100% happy with it, but there is something to be said for that being the longest lived. I also see no arguments strong enough to change it. Plus if everyone dislikes it at least a little you know its a good compromise. PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Is it possible you didn't actually read my comment? It has only "survived" because it was being held during the near continuous discussions over the last few weeks. Anyway, it appears from the RfC that the existing version is unlikely to survive any longer. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  I fully read and understand the comments you made, I just disagree with them. At the moment it looks like about 5 votes for 1-3 and 1 vote for 4. So I there is no clear answer which version will win at this point, though it does not look like a clear consensus will be formed. Especially with the number of options presented. Though whatever the outcome I'm sure it will be best for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - it is the most suitable and encyclopedic version based on reasoning provided in this RFC and previous discussions.--IntelligentName (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 - or 2 or 4. Option 1's wording is confusing and misleading. Let's keep the language plain and direct. --Pete (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 as the most neutral and encyclopedic. Laurdecl ^talk 00:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Options 2 and 3, although I prefer option 3. Zakawer (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, option 1 – If this trainwreck of an RfC doesn't get suspended, I support status quo Option 1, not because I like the convoluted phrasing, but because all other options emphasize "losing the popular vote" which is a non-existent contest in the US presidential electoral system, and therefore misleading readers with regard to the legitimacy of Trump's presidency. By the same token, a consensus of editors has rightly rejected material stating that Trump "won an overwhelming majority of counties", because that too is a non-existent contest. — JFG ^talk 10:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  Reliable sources have no problem with "losing" the popular vote. Hundreds of high quality sources are available. It may not be technically true, but it's how it is perceived. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3. Concise wins here. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• option 1 There is no popular vote to win or lose. Such a description is factually incorrect and misleading. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 is the most neutral and accurate. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3. Summoned by bot. I respond to a lot of these and I wanted to compliment the initiator of this RfC for putting forth a clear and neutral choice. I think Option 3 is worded simplest and most direct, and utilizes language that is clearest. I see no neutrality issue. The current language is not bad either, but 3 is preferable. Coretheapple (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1, perfectly fine and encyclopedic. Don't see the need to change. RoCo^(talk) 15:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - prefer keeping what it was before, see no need to change. Markbassett (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 is sufficiently neutral (avoids directly calling him a loser) while telling what needs to be told. This is really a minor detail and in the current state it's, as per multiple above, encyclopedic and factually correct. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Lost ≠ loser, linguistically. It may imply loser, but "loser," in addition to its technical meaning implies an emotional category/judgement, that none of the five options contains. Ergo, spurious argument, nay even a "strawman." Tapered (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

*Option 5 ..."to win (the election) with an electoral college majority while the losing candidate won a majority of the popular vote." Further option 1 is intellectually dishonest, grouping the 2 and 3 way anomalies (see one of my previous comments) of 1860, 1912,1992 with 1 other election when the losing candidate did win a majority of the popular vote, and another when the losing candidate outpolled the winner of the electoral vote in a de facto 2 way contest without winning the majority vote. Good grief, am I mistaken or should the options read "sixth?" @Scjessey: Tapered (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The losing candidate in 2016 did not "win a majority of the popular vote". Also, the years to which option #1 refers are 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 (not 1860, 1912, or 1992).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 Avoid anything in the lede that states losing the popular vote. The note of a loss, when the election result was a win, can confuse what is otherwise clearly stated and utterly correct by keeping option 1.Horst59 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1. Plurality is a more accurate description of the results, as no candidate received a majority vote. It is also more neutral. RedBear2040 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Hatting as off topic. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
California was the deciding factor in Clinton getting more popular votes nationwide, then Trump. Remove California from the picture & Trump wins by about 1.5 million. Put that in the proposed changes & mention the 1888 US presidential election (with Texas example) for the other 1-state difference example. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC) This is only relevant if California secedes. Objective3000 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Not even relevant then. If California secedes (which is very unlikely), the California vote in this election would still count. This "don't count California" meme is ridiculous. California has 12% of the entire population of the country - half again as many people as the next largest state, Texas. California has as many people as the 21 least populous states COMBINED. Of course it has a large effect on the popular vote. You might as well say that Hillary won the election - if you don't count Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC) @MelanieN: Have you seen this? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Reverted. That phrase was not in the current consensus version as per consensus #15. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Why the hell does this RfC even exist? I thought we'd come to an agreement further up the talk page? My understanding is that we had already agreed on option 3. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Some cannot accept a contrary opinion, I suggest. I am amazed that anybody would thing that "plurality" was a useful word to use. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Plurality is indeed a correct word (among others - majority comes to mind) to use. And anyway, this is exactly what RfC is for - requesting comments from other on potentially controversial changes (or, in this case, whether there should be one or no). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Plurality may be cromulent, but it is uncommon. "Majority" is a much more accessible word. I suggest that those supporting "plurality" wish to obfuscate rather than illuminate. --Pete (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The 2016 election was the nineteenth in which someone was elected with less than a majority. Winning with less than a plurality is much more unusual, and that's why we say "plurality" instead of "majority". The word "plurality" is used in thousands of Wikipedia articles. Google News currently has tens of thousands of hits for this word. We currently wikilink the word "plurality" in the lead, for anyone unfamiliar with it, so they can learn. Plurality voting is typically covered in high school.[19] Moreover, Clinton won a plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote.[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] (talk) 23:51, 14 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.[20]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In this edit [21], 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 [22] 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. ―Mandruss ☎ 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 "ForeignRussian 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 Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) 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)

@Anythingyouwant: 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 Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk · contribs) 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 Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk · contribs) 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 [23], 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)

Govt size and deregulation

I just reverted the addition of a section added by 1990'sguy (talk · contribs) on "government style and deregulation" per WP:SS, but forgot to put an edit summary explaining this. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

...and your explanation is...? --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said above with "per WP:SS." It appears the entire section was copied from another article. We are trying to cut down the article and push more of the content into child articles, are we not? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I re-added a trimmed version of the info. This is a relevant topic of Trump's presidency, considering the orders and bills he has signed so far, and it is better to have a short mention of this info rather than remove it entirely. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: It would be better if you self-reverted and then proposed text here. We are trying to cut down the length of the article through the use of summary style, and throwing in bits that exist in other articles is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I added the info to Political appointments of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump the same time as I added it here. I copied some of the info from elsewhere. The full-length info is in the "Presidency of Donald Trump" article and a trimmed section is here. Most of this info did not exist on Wikipedia until I added it to both pages yesterday. Also, this is a very relevant part of Trump's presidency. This article would be incomplete if we did not include a section on it. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: You are missing the point. You added something, which was reverted with an explanation here. It is standard practice in such instances to discuss the matter here and win consensus for what you want to put in the article, otherwise you run the risk of violating the discretionary sanctions associated with the article. I assume you understand the concepts of consensus and summary? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is what I wish to add, as a sub-section to the "Domestic policy" section:

On January 23, 2017, in a Presidential Memorandum, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze of the civilian work force in the executive branch, preventing federal agencies, except for the offices of the new presidential appointees, national security, the military and public safety, from filling vacant positions. On January 30, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13771, which directed federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every one new regulation, and to do so in such a way that the total cost of regulations does not increase. On February 24, 2017, Trump signed an order requiring all federal agencies to create task forces to look at and determine which regulations hurt the U.S. economy. Reuters described the order as "what may be the most far reaching effort to pare back U.S. red tape in recent decades."

On February 28, 2017, Trump announced he did not intend on filling many of the numerous governmental positions that were still vacant, as he considered them unnecessary.

Reference list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

This is a shortened form of what I added to Presidency of Donald Trump. I really don't mind making changes to the specifics of this proposal, but I do think we should mention Trump's positions and actions concerning deregulation and size of government in this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The first problem I see with this is that it is only tangentially-related to domestic policy. The hiring freeze, for example, encompasses departments dealing with matters beyond US borders as well. If other editors agree, I think the material is more suitable for the "first 100 days" section. Second, I think it is impossible to mention the stupefyingly insane "reducing regulation" executive order without including some of the opposition commentary on it. Finally, I think the sentence on filling governmental positions slightly misrepresents the source. Although Trump's extraordinarily stupid position on the matter is worth mentioning, I think his position is a little less extreme than the language you suggest. I would be interested in hearing the views of other editors before moving this any further forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this info should go into the domestic policy, as this has to do with the U.S. government structure, even if some parts of the government interact with foreign governments. I don't think this info should be in the "100 days" section because it will probably be expanded later in his presidency as he signs new laws, issues new executive orders, etc. Also, I don't see why the opposition should necessarily be mentioned for his executive order. I could be wrong, but I don't think it earned him more criticism from the Left than most of his other actions have done. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal #2

I think my proposal above could have been worded better, and I did find some new relevant info.

Trump has strongly favored a smaller-sized federal government and deregulation through his policies as president. In the first six weeks of his tenure as President, Trump abolished over 90 regulations. Trump became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution on February 14, 2017 – the Act had only been successfully used once before in its history.

Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze on January 23, 2017. He signed Executive Order 13771 on January 30, 2017, which directed federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every one new regulation, and to do so in such a way that the total cost of regulations does not increase. On February 24, 2017, Trump signed an order requiring all federal agencies to create task forces to look at and determine which regulations hurt the U.S. economy, something which Reuters described as "what may be the most far reaching effort to pare back U.S. red tape in recent decades."

Reference list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

I guess this section could be in the "100 days" section if it is more appropriate there, but I think it would preferrably go into the "Domestic policy" section. This deregulation/government size section would be updated through his presidency. Once again, I don't really care about the specifics about this proposal. I think it is relevant to add, however. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that saying trump has favored smaller government is an overstatement. Time will tell. The final sentence is incorrectly worded, it is a statement by two reporters in a signed article, not necessarily the opinion of Reuters. The hiring freeze and the review of regulations should be mentioned of course. but it seems to be more in line with his populist style than any policy shift. (One populist politician for example publicly auctioned off all government limos then privately bought new ones.) TFD (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal #2, condensed

Proposal #2.3 (responding to comments by Scjessey and Casprings)

Trump's early policies have favored far-reaching deregulation and a smaller federal government. During his first six weeks in office, he abolished ninety federal regulations. Trump became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution; the law had been used only once before.

On January 23, 2017, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze. A week later he signed Executive Order 13771, directing federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation issued. The order has been described as populist theater and condemned as "just plain dumb". On February 24, 2017, he ordered the agencies to create task forces to determine which regulations burden the U.S. economy.

Reference list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

1,024 characters -> 684 777. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC) 03:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Better, but I'm concerned none of these proposals mention criticism/opposition to these policies, which is understandably strident. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Do not mention any opposition viewpoints and possiable negatives.Casprings (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I support the condensed proposal #2. Thank you Dervorguilla for drafting it. Scjessey, I see no reason to include opposition to Trump's deregulation policies. Has there been more opposition to these policies than his other policies? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it might be hard to spot the near-continuous condemnation if you never watch TV or open a newspaper! Just this morning, Tom Philpott has an article about the deregulation of drinking water, for example. The are also plenty of articles talking about how stupid his deregulation rule is. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I do read the news and watch TV to the point that I'm a news junkie. What I'm saying is that I don't see why criticism of Trump's deregulation policies is notable enough to include in this section. The Left is criticizing Trump on pretty much everything. I have to admit (respectfully and in good faith), however, your calling Trump's policies "stupid" and etc. several times in this section makes me worry about your POV on this topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose proposal #2.3. What makes this opinion piece, probably picked out from among numerous opinion articles, worthy or appropriate to include here? If criticism of Trump's deregulation orders is really do notable as to include here, there must be at least some reputable journalistic article somewhere reporting about that criticism. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal #2 -- without the added criticism info -- is the best option by far. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: Shortly after you posted, TIME came out with a cover story on "Trump's deregulation orders" and the most newsworthy criticisms thereof. See Proposal #2.4. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: Everyone has their own point of view, but the view that Trump's deregulation executive order is "stupid" is near universal, with only the most extreme "small government" types supporting it. Reliable sources all say it is a dumb idea. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Of course everyone has their own POV -- I do as well. What matters is that it does not affect our editing. The view that Trump's deregulation policy is "stupid" is NOT "near universal." And more than just extremists support his order. At least most of the GOP, other conservatives, and libertarians likely support the orders. It is false to say that all "reliable sources" (whatever that means) call them dumb. We should cite nonpartisian sources describing the criticism of the orders rather than the opinion pieces themselves. The opinion articles are not RS. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal #2.4

Trump's early policies have favored far-reaching deregulation and a smaller federal government. During his first six weeks in office, he abolished ninety federal regulations. Trump became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution; the law had been used only once before.

On January 23, 2017, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze. A week later he signed Executive Order 13771, directing federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation they issue. On February 24, 2017, he ordered the agencies to create task forces to determine which regulations burden the U.S. economy.

Defenders of administrative agencies have expressed opposition to Trump's attacks, saying that the bureaucracy exists to protect people against well-organized, well-funded interest groups.

Reference list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

884 characters. Graf 3 attempts to paraphrase the most relevant passage in the new TIME cover story, "Trump's War on Washington". (Can't say I agree with the author's analysis, but it does accurately summarize what the reputable mainstream opposition is saying.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Good work, but there still needs to be more opposition for neutrality. See proposal #3 below. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal #3

Trump's early policies have favored far-reaching deregulation and a smaller federal government. During his first six weeks in office, he abolished ninety federal regulations. In a letter signed by 137 organizations, interest groups warned Trump that Americans would "be exposed to more health, safety, environmental and financial dangers." Trump became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution; the law had been used only once before.

On January 23, 2017, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze. The head of the GAO criticized the move, saying past hiring freezes "haven't proven to be effective in reducing costs and [can] cause some problems if they're in effect for a long period of time." A week later he signed Executive Order 13771, directing federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation they issue. The order was described as "arbitrary" and "not implementable" by Harvard law professor Jody Freeman. On February 24, 2017, he ordered the agencies to create task forces to determine which regulations burden the U.S. economy.

Defenders of administrative agencies have expressed opposition to Trump's attacks, saying that the bureaucracy exists to protect people against well-organized, well-funded interest groups.

Reference list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

It's a little longer, but it addresses the neutrality concerns I have. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal. We don't need a criticism for every action Trump makes -- this proposal overemphasizes the criticisms to a large degree. I don't mind adding those criticisms to the articles of the individual orders, but it is UNDUE to include them all here. I support Proposal #2.4, as it includes mention of the criticism of the orders without including opinion articles or violating WP:UNDUE. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The criticism is appropriate weight, and not at all an overemphasis. The criticism I added was from the head of the GAO (unimpeachable source) and a scholarly source, both quoted themselves by a reliable source. Your choice is to have the criticism, or not have the section at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There's also the TIME source. I'm not disputing the reliability of the sources (even though a conservative academic might say something entirely different than Jody Freeman -- you linked to the wrong person). But, yes, three different criticisms is undue weight for such a short section. If we have so many criticisms, then we should list at least one RS in support of the orders. Also, you said: "Your choice is to have the criticism, or not have the section at all". We have three or four different proposals that I support already listed here. If none of the other proposals if adequate enough for you, or if one criticism by TIME is too little for you, then that is unfortunate. I prefer proposal #2, but I am willing to accept the TIME criticism or the GAO criticism. Three is way too much. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but nobody else but you has weighed in on my proposal. You will need to wait a bit. I've actually added hardly any criticism, and I've stuck with unimpeachable sources. And we don't need to list supporters of Trump's orders because that would be a false balance (the kind of "balance" preferred by Fox News). Thanks for the correction though. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I just saw the fourth criticism in the first paragraph. I'm sorry, but that is way too much criticism to pass WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. Also, your statement that you've "actually added hardly any criticism" is false. I just checked and literally half of your proposed text is criticism. That is not "hardly any" criticism. Also, adding a RS in support of Trump's policy would not be "false balance" as you claim. Roughly half the country supports Trump's policy. However, that is beside the point. I don't want to add unnecessary commentary or opinions from either side of the aisle. One dissenting opinion is OK, but four is definately UNDUE. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: NPOV policy -- in particular, WP:UNDUE -- is clarified at WP:BALASP. Positive/negative treament in the article should be proportional to positive/negative treatment in the total body of published reputable sources on the subject.

India leads the world in terms of newspaper circulation, so you may want to consider adding material from (for instance) The Times of India, which has a more cosmopolitan perspective than some US newspapers. See, for example, Swapan Dasgupta, "The Trumping of Neutrality: Trump's Belief that the Media Has Ganged Up on Him Isn't Entirely Misplaced", February 21, 2017.

Whenever you add something positive to this article, you can expect something negative to be added per BALASP. You can then edit as necessary for accuracy and fairness. Even better, add some negative material yourself! --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Originally, I didn't want any praise or criticism in this section -- only the facts. However, as Scjessey wanted the section to include criticism, I am OK with adding some critical views. The GAO and TIME sources are OK, IMO. However, having four different criticisms is way too much and probably not proportional to the actual level of criticism from RS sources (also, about half of the characters of the proposals are criticisms). Personally, I would rather remove two criticisms than add praise (the proposals for this section are getting a bit lengthy anyway -- from ~700 to ~1,500 characters). --1990'sguy (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you are hung up on the number of criticisms. Virtually every proposal made by the Trump administration has attracted significant criticism that has received oodles of coverage in reliable sources. You will just have to face up to the fact that almost everything Trump has done is unpopular, and so any text on his presidency is likely to include a fair amount of criticism. And it's simply not true that "half the country" supports Trump's policies. It's not even half the people who voted, let alone half the people that could've voted, and a great number of those are already expressing "buyer's remorse" now that Trump has appointed fully paid up members of the swamp in every corner of his administration. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Of course I know Trump is unpopular, at least with the mainstream media, and I know that he had received much criticism from the Left on pretty much everything (I already stated this at least once further up). I'm not sure if the "buyer's remorse" thing is accurate--I've seen reliable, mainstream sources stating that his blue-collar base is literally unfazed by the actions/negative news. But this is beside the point. Just because Trump has received much criticism from the press and the Left does not mean that literally half of the proposed info should be criticism. Deregulation is clearly not the most criticized aspect of Trump's presidency.

Also, no other section in the "Presidency" section of the article is comprised of 50% criticism--not even close (with the sole possible exception of the "Immigration order" section). It would be UNDUE to include such a disproportionate amount of criticism in this section when a number of criticisms listed in other sections do not even come close (even though Trump has received just as much if not more criticism in those other sections). For consistency, we should devote at least 67-75% of the text to describing what Trump has done rather than criticism of what he has done. Not 50%. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not just "the left" and the media criticizing Trump. That's typical "right wing echo chamber" thinking. There are also people on the right, including lawmakers, critical of Trump's actions. And then there are legal scholars, scholars in economics, and foreign leaders. There are umpteen stories (not to mention social media postings) of Trump voters angry at what the president is doing, so the "buyer's remorse" thing is real. And I'm not asking for "50% criticism" at all. I'm asking for some criticism with appropriate weight. Really, your objections don't seem to be based on reality. Try to look outside your own media bubble, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes some right-of-center people are criticizing Trump, but are they criticizing him on deregulation? Of course, they are on other issues like immigration and trade, but deregulation? Even if Trump received criticism from the Right on deregulation, mentioning all this criticism would be UNDUE because no other section in this article devotes so much space for criticisms of Trump and/or his policies (and Trump has received much more criticism concerning those other policies than deregulation), as I've pointed out. You may not be asking for 50% criticism, but 50% criticism as you are effectively proposing is undue weight, considering this context. Also, I must point out, you originally asked me to self-revert because we were trying to trim the article length. I do think such a section that I am proposing is important to Trump's presidency and thus should be included, but your proposals are getting lengthy (please compare the condensed proposal #2 with #3.1). I think we should implement the condensed proposal #2 (even though I can accept one or two of the criticisms if necessary), and then add the rest (including the other criticisms) to Presidency of Donald Trump. That way, the section here can be a summary of Trump's presidency. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Deregulation in general is never criticized by the right, but certain examples are indeed being criticized. You cannot compare the level of criticism from one section to the next because they are unrelated. The section on the presidency is bound to have a lot more criticism because there's more to criticize! Finally, shoving all criticism off to the sub article turns it into a POV fork instead of a summary style article. This article must summarize that article. Anyway, I support #3.1, and it appears others do as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

All the sections I compared were within the "Presidency" section. It really would look bad if we add a section with all the criticism when even more controversial issues do not have as much listed criticism. Also, the proposal that you support is about as long as the section in Presidency of Donald Trump. The section here wouldn't be much of a summary. For those reasons, I support the condensed #2. I see that more editors support #3.1, so I will not fight it anymore. It's just a waste of my time. However, I still believe #3.1 is not a good choice. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: By the way, concerning Trump's popularity and "buyers remorse" among Republicans, see this BBC article. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal #3.1

Trump's early policies have favored far-reaching deregulation and a smaller federal government. He became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution; the law had been used only once before. During his first six weeks in office, he abolished ninety federal regulations.

On January 23, 2017, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze. The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office told a House committee that hiring freezes have not proven to be effective in reducing costs. Unlike some past freezes, however, the current freeze bars agencies from adding contractors to make up for employees leaving.

A week later Trump signed Executive Order 13771, directing administrative agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation they issue. Harvard Law professor Jody Freeman said that the order was not implementable and would do no more than slow the regulatory process, because it was written so as to did not block rules required by statute. Nearly 140 interest groups wrote Trump a letter saying that US citizens did not vote to be exposed to more health, safety, environmental and financial dangers.

On February 24, 2017, Trump ordered the agencies to create task forces to determine which regulations burden the U.S. economy. Agency defenders have expressed opposition to Trump's attacks, saying that the bureaucracy exists to protect people against well-organized, well-funded interest groups.

Reference list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

1,359 characters -> 1,531. (Adds balancing information from article about GAO comment; expands Freeman's quote for clarity.) -> 1,488. (Trim longest sentence, no substantive change in meaning; full ref quote given in citation.) Tag last sentence in graf 3 for apparent inconsistency with last sentence in graf 4 and for question of undue weight. Are the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, National Center for Transgender Equality, or National LGBTQ Task Force recognized as authorities on whether Trump voters are willing to "be exposed to more dangers" in return for, say, more money or personal freedom? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC) 23:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC) 09:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems like the best and clearest of the bunch. Neutrality^talk 19:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not as complete as I would like, but I can support it in the interests of getting some sort of agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop writing these paragraphs

Everything that this man does as president CANNOT be included in his BLP. Not even a paragraph. This page is WP:NOTNEWS. Put these proposed edits on the presidency page, not here. This page is his BLP. That means his life, not his presidency. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And his presidency is somehow not part of his life? Add a Template:main article to the section that concerns his presidency and link the relevant article, while still It's ok to keep summary coverage of it in there. That would be standard, as can be seen on Obama's or Bush's pages, which both have substantial sections on their presidency. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. We should have a short summary of Trump's policies with a more detailed version at Presidency of Donald Trump. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's some pertinent language from WP:NOTNEWS.

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events."

If Trump prevails in his undertaking to destroy much of the modern administrative state, this in itself will make him one of the more enduringly notable people in recent American history. Proposal #3.1 is meant as a description of the first actions Trump has taken toward implementing this preeminently noteworthy project. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Agree !!! - Start trimming and stop duping and dumping material that goes elsewhere and WP:OFFTOPIC for a biography. Really, quoting a random Harvard professor or columnist from Independant or Vox is neither a mainstream consensus nor of particular significance deserving a mention, much less a significant event in the life of Trump which is the topic of this article. Markbassett (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett:, yes, definitely WP:OFFTOPIC, especially as he's been in office for less than 2 months. Imagine the bloat that's yet to come if this keeps up. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett and SW3 5DL: I trust you're not arguing that a Time cover story is undeserving of mention? --Dervorguilla (talk)

Yeah, this is ridiculous. WP:OFFTOPIC refers to stuff not/loosely relevant, and this material is absolutely relevant. Editors need to stop wikilawyering to try to prevent negative stuff from being in the article. If you are going to do it, at least put in a better effort LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Please stop attacking. Your comments are almost always disruptive, filled as they are with your obvious bias. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Er... whatever, dude. It seems like you are the one doing all the attacking here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop the drama, please. On a more serious tone, I agree with Scjessey that the material discussed is not off topic. However, coverage of it should not be too extensive (otherwise, why have a specific page about his presidency?). I'll repeat, summary coverage should be present in this article - on grounds of common sense and because that's what's done on other similar articles. That coverage can (and I expect it will) change with time, depending on how the presidency unfolds. So we should include what we know as of now and expect to change it over the course of the following 4 years. As for the concern of 'negative stuff' being wikilawyered out of the article, I think that despite the outrage Trump generates, we should (our personal opinions of the man notwithstanding) strive to cover it in a neutral way - or at least, as neutral as how we find it in the majority of reliable sources. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Section length is a legitimate concern and policy requires that we address such concerns through a process of compromise. Accordingly, I've trimmed the longest sentence by seven words, and I'm noting for the record the participating editors' general understanding that the section may be gradually shortened over the next few months. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla -- refer to WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:BLP to see if material should go here, and then see if it is not already covered and significant enough to toss out other bits to fit it in. If it is not biographical, then see if another of the circa 200 Trump articles are better suited. A prominent magazine seems more likely speaking about Presidency of Donald Trump or Protests against Donald Trump than life of Donald Trump the man. But if the significance is just about being on cover prominently, go by magazine cover, that seems more a list of article, and you could start a list of Man of the year and such coverage. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Thank you for the demonstration of good negotiation skills!

The most restrictive language appears in WP:BLPSELFPUB: The material should "not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject".

WP:OFFTOPIC is an explanatory supplement to MOS, not a guideline. But it does suggest that material which is "only loosely relevant" to the topic be moved elsewhere so that readers who aren't interested won't be distracted by it.

Here are the proposed sentences that describe significant and interesting events directly related to Trump:

"He became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution. During his first six weeks in office, he abolished ninety federal regulations. On January 23, 2017, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze. A week later he signed Executive Order 13771, directing administrative agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation they issue."

The other proposed passages are more directly related to claims about Trump's policies thsn to Trump himself. They are nonetheless more relevant to Trump than is the material about his "licensing his name to son-in-law Jared Kushner's fifty-story Trump Bay Street, a Jersey City luxury development that has raised $50 million of its $200 million capitalization largely from wealthy Chinese nationals who, after making an initial down payment of $500,000 in concert with the government's expedited EB-5 visa program, can usually obtain United States permanent residency for themselves and their families after two years. Trump is a partner with Kushner Properties only in name licensing and not in the building's financing." I'd be happy to remove those 560 characters before adding the proposed (1,488-character) passage.

The Time cover illustration shows him busy posting anti-bureaucracy tweets; it portrays such events as being more than an insignificant or uninteresting part of his life. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In response to WP:BLPSELFPUB - I'm not sure that would apply here. Sure, the tweets are self-published. However, they are covered by (a relatively large number) of RS whose scope does include Trump's politics - which, already agreed, are a part of his life. So the issue that remains is not whether we should include comments about Trump's policy and his tweeting, but how much we should cover. Currently, the above 1488-character paragraph has 61 words (disregard, I though of the short paragraph he posted, didn't even count number of characters). In my opinion, that's enough. Furthermore, it's treated in a neutral way without either criticizing or (worse!) praising what's done. So I think the the current proposal is good. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: @1990'sguy: I've deleted the 83-word graf about the Kushner development. Maybe you could go ahead and add Proposal #3.1 (218-word version) with the understanding that it will (most likely) be gradually but radically shortened over the next few months (perhaps to as few as 61 words) as events unfold? --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 02:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the possible confusion. I think that if we manage to reduce it to maybe 100-150 words then it might really meet all criteria we've been discussing. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

To reduce text length: "did not vote to be exposed to more health, safety, environmental and financial dangers." -> "did not vote to be exposed to more dangers." (44 characters, 5 words)
"Agency defenders have expressed opposition" -> "Agency defenders expressed opposition" (5 characters, 1 word). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Just "danger" alone seems rather vague. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"did not vote to be exposed to dangers arising from deregulation."? (now only 25 characters and 3 words less). That is what the source says: (quote for demonstration purposes) "Environmentalists, unions and consumer watchdogs have warned of the dangers of slashing regulations, which they claim include pollution-induced disease, contaminated food, unsafe workplaces and shoddy financial practices." - that quote could be put in the ref (i.e. |quotation=...) (actually no it's too long, will add too much to article size) 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC) edited 02:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Looking for a few more editors to support the changes. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 23:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – This is political discourse about current issues, undue for the biography, rather should go to Political positions of Donald Trump or Economic policy of Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 03:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@69.165.196.103 and Boomer Vial: I support, but see my question below as to whether the 137 signatories to the letter are widely held to be authorities on the subject of Republican voters. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Continued discussion

@JFG: Proposal #2.4 is about as neutral as it gets - it has 0 controversy. However, it has been rejected on the grounds that not covering the controversy wouldn't be a complete and accurate coverage of the topic of Trump's Presidency, even if we try to make it as brief as possible. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with any proposal, as long as it goes into the appropriate article, which in my opinion is not the biography. — JFG ^talk 04:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I checked the list of "nearly 140 interest groups" who wrote the letter to Trump. They include the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Family Equality Council, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality, National LGBTQ Task Force, and Trevor Project. Are these interest groups (or, indeed, the other 131) widely held to be authorities on such matters as whether Trump voters did indeed register their willingness to be "exposed to more dangers" -- in return for, say, more jobs or personal freedom? (The Hegelian dialectic might come in handy here.) I propose that we just omit the material and keep the other, more authoritative analyses by recognized experts at Harvard and Yale Law Schools. This would bring us down to 191 words, with no loss of significant information. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I support deleting that info. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

So the current proposal is, after all removals (yours included), (for clarity):

Trump's early policies have favored far-reaching deregulation and a smaller federal government. He became the first president in sixteen years to sign a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution; the law had been used only once before.[1] During his first six weeks in office, he abolished ninety federal regulations.[2][3]

On January 23, 2017, Trump ordered a temporary government-wide hiring freeze.[4][5] The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office told a House committee that hiring freezes have not proven to be effective in reducing costs.[6] Unlike some past freezes, however, the current freeze bars agencies from adding contractors to make up for employees leaving.[6]

A week later Trump signed Executive Order 13771, directing administrative agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation they issue.[7][8] Harvard Law professor Jody Freeman said that the order would do no more than slow the regulatory process, because it did not block rules required by statute.[9]

On February 24, 2017, Trump ordered the agencies to create task forces to determine which regulations burden the U.S. economy.[10] Agency defenders expressed opposition to Trump's attacks, saying that the bureaucracy exists to protect people against well-organized, well-funded interest groups.[11]

Which is 191 words and 1321 characters. I'm in favour of that proposal, but let's see if anybody has more propositions or suggested removals. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding 8 links. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CON, I suggest that we go ahead and add the above text with the general understanding that (1) editors will subsequently add a (reasonably noncontentious) sentence about some legitimate authority’s claim that Trump's actions will expose Americans to more risk; and (2) the section length will gradually increase or decrease over the next few months as the prominence of particular claims about his actions increases or decreases. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I support this as well. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 04:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I can live with this proposal. At least one criticism was removed, making the text more acceptable and have less potential POV. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is missing some key criticism that is giving Trump a pass for heavily criticized actions; however, it is better than nothing and I won't object. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, we have yet to find a way to tell that that satisfies all involved - I understand their point that this might, despite all the fuss, be only be looked at as a minor point of Trump's presidency in 4 year's time. Though, again, Rome wasn't built in one day and we should take the time to do this properly now, with the potential to change if we see with time that it's not really that important. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:07, 17 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.

References

”

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, @Anythingyouwant:, 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:

References

I believe FT is considered one of the most reputable newspapers in the Anglosphere. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, @Dervorguilla:, 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, @Dervorguilla:. 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)

@SusanLesch: 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 @Dervorguilla: why are you guys trying to insert it here, top-down? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: 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)

  @TheValeyard: 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 [24]). --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump said he does not love Putin on October 5.[25] Two days later, the U.S. government officially accused Russia of hacking the campaign to interfere with the election.[26] 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 [27] - 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.[28]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)

@Anythingyouwant: 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[29]), 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)

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)

valuable picture of trump's childhood

I just found a valuable picture of trump's childhood (here: [30]) 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)

This article could use a new image

Maybe one with him smiling, such a this one[31]? 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 Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 01:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Boomer Vial, you've searched the archives for past image-related discussions? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 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 Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 01:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Discussions tend to be... contentious. Here are past discussions and one recent one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 1. No searching was required in this case. ―Mandruss ☎ 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 [32]) 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

Remove redundant {{pp-blp|small=yes}}. 219.79.127.36 (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done 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. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Billion dollar tax loss

The article says, "Trump claimed a loss of $916 million on his 1995 tax returns. As net operating losses from one year can be applied to offset income from future years, this loss allowed him to reduce or eliminate his taxable income during the eighteen-year carry forward period." That was never accurate, since it assumed he never recovered the losses. But we now know he paid $38M in taxes in 2005, so it should be revised. TFD (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Especially as Trump would be subject to Alternative Minimum Tax and the claim of a deduction would not wipe that out anymore than it would wipe Social Security and Medicare taxes. Those are paid no matter what else you have to deduct. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to indicate whether or not 2005 might be an anomaly, so it doesn't invalidate the earlier referenced material about the eighteen-year carry forward. Unless a source can be found that specifically refutes the earlier referenced material, it must stay in. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that despite the fact the White House confirmed the authenticity of the tax return, Trump later tweeted it was "fake news". There are sources that note this discrepancy, but I'm reluctant to put it in the article because if we included every Trump lie, the article would be ten times longer. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to "could potentially have allowed him to" reduce or eliminate his taxable income. SW3 5DL makes a good point about the alternative minimum tax. Maybe we should remove the whole sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. There's nothing to say this couldn't be an anomalous filing, and that he otherwise took the carry forward. Proper sourcing is needed here, and certainly not OR/SYN. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

For that matter he might have taken the carry-forward even in 2005; we don't know what he is using to get that huge deduction. But I do think the wording "this loss allowed him to reduce or eliminate his taxable income during the eighteen-year carry forward period" is misleading, since it implies he actually DID reduce or eliminate his taxes for 18 years. In fact, that assumption was often used during the campaign to accuse him of paying nothing in taxes. So I think it is more honest to say that he COULD have done so. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Any carry-forward would show on one of those two pages, on line 13. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's sort of a moot point what others think. It's what the sources say. Unless we have specific, high-quality sources that refute the referenced material we have, it should really stay in the article as is. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The less said the better. His tax filings must be enormous. With so little info, there’s too much speculation. Objective3000 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are two sources that support he could of done it but didn't necessarily [33] and [34]. I support MelanieN's version since with the new information seems to be the most accurate. PackMecEng (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• We cannot use Wikipedia's voice to make suppositions. Without seeing the schedules of deductions, the corporate losses, the personal losses, and the AMT rates, saying "Trump could have used the 18 year carry forward. . ." is synthetic. Just because sources want to go down that road, does not mean we have to. Looking at the two pages from 2005, it's obvious he had no carry forward from the 1995 loss. And there's no evidence he didn't close that out that year or over a two or three years. According to the IRS, long term carry forwards are not common. The sources don't seem to bother asking the IRS. Or if they have, it doesn't fit their narrative. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Let's take a look at the actual language in the New York Times article: In October, The Times published three pages of Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax returns, which showed a $916 million deduction that could have allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years. The forms disclosed on Tuesday do not say whether the $103 million in losses were left over from that 1995 loss. Notice that in 1995, Trump did take the $916 million deduction. It's only the NYTimes making the claim, that he could have spread this out over 18 years, but in the same breath they say, he took the deduction. The $916 million WAS taken in 1995. There is no 18 year carry-forward since he'd already used the entire $916 million deduction to wipe his casino losses. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Needs to be removed from article

This needs to be removed from the article as it is entirely synthetic. Wikipedia is making it appear that Donald Trump spread out his $916 million deduction over 18 years and then it arranges comments by Trump to make it appear he is being dodgy on answering. This is cherry picking to craft a false narrative:

Trump claimed a loss of $916 million on his 1995 tax returns. As net operating losses from one year can be applied to offset income from future years, this loss allowed him to reduce or eliminate his taxable income during the eighteen-year carry forward period. Trump acknowledged using the deduction but declined to provide details such as the specific years it was applied.When questioned during a presidential debate about such practices, he stated that avoiding paying income tax through such methods "makes me smart."

The key words are, Trump claimed a loss of 916 million on his 1995 tax returns. . . End of. There is no evidence he spread it out over 18 years. And everything around that first statement is synthetic invention. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not "synthetic" if it's in the source. We cannot pretend to be tax experts. We go with what the source says. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It is synthesis. The sources are being used to craft a narrative. This is his BLP and we don't have to go with what sources say. It's up to the editors on the page. In addition, the Alternative Minimum tax went into effect in 1970. That means, that no matter what his loses, Donald Trump still had to pay taxes. He had to pay his social security/medicare taxes and he had to pay the AMT. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just no. We can't ignore sources - if it's out there we should try to find a way to include it. I tried to think of a way to change it to avoid the (false) "18-year" supposition, but I can't find anything better. Has anybody thought of something better? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors don't have to be tax experts in order to perform "Routine calculations". "Trump paid income tax in 2005; 2005 was less than 18 years following 2005 (2005-1995=10, 10<18); therefore the statement that Trump did not pay income tax for 18 years after 1995 is false." That uses basic concepts that are taught in the first year of public education. You don't seem to have trouble with the concept that if Clinton got 66 million votes and Trump got 63 million votes, that Clinton got more votes than Trump. Reliable sources sometimes turn out to be wrong, and we correct them as new information is published. TFD (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Trump still paid taxes, whether or not he's using a carry-over from 1995, or if he's done with that and has new losses, he still paid the AMT which is a federal tax. He also paid penalties, late fees, and he paid Social Security and Medicare taxes. The edit as it stands now, feeds a false narrative that Trump does not pay taxes. This needs to be rewritten, with quotes from the second debate where he told Anderson Cooper he paid millions of dollars in taxes, or something to that effect. Just on the AMT alone, Trump has likely paid hundreds of millions in taxes over the many years his income has been high enough to trigger the AMT. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "false narrative" at all. For all we know, 2005 was the only year Trump paid any taxes, or at least any significant taxes. And the AMT exists to prevent people like Trump getting away with not paying any taxes, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Ad ignorantiam - Simply because we don't know of something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Especially with controversial statements about a very controversial living person, we should strive not to have speculations inside the article, our opinions of the man (and his honesty/lack of) notwithstanding. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I downloaded the 1995 tax return from he New York Times website and it clearly shows that Trump took the entire amount as a loss in that year. HIs gross adjusted income was (-)$913,765,884. That's negative 913,765,864. There was no carry-over. The NYTimes obviously knows that and tried to make a story out of it by saying, Trump "could" have taken a carry over for the next 18 years, but apparently he did not. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to say he is not taking a carry over (even though he probably did from 1995 to 2004), we should also mention the multiply-sourced theory that Trump himself probably leaked the 2005 return. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like pure, simple, unencyclopedic speculation to me, unless it's supported by a significant number of sources. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC) The report does have "client copy" stamped on it, for all that means... 02:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well you are a non-neutral editor. That is unencyclopedic reasoning and this content in question should be trimmed or removed from the article for the concerns raised above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelligentName (talk • contribs) 04:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL - I'd be OK with trimming this out just for it being WP:OFFTOPIC as not something suiting a Biography article. If we're including it due to WP:WEIGHT prominence to the theme of suspecting his taxes, then I suggest following guidance to state it WP:NPOV with a neutral point of view as a topic and otherwise attribute the positions to cover any possibility of such being speculations per the guidance of WP:BIASED. How prominent something was will not change due to truth or falsity -- and if disproven, I think that just becomes part of the story arc of the claim. Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In looking further into why he would have this loss, I went back to the casino bankruptcy which began in 1992 and concluded in 1995. Reading sources of that time, this write-off is the end of the business bankruptcy and represents Trump's personal losses at the time the bankruptcy judge concluded the case and was satisfied with Trump's reorganization of the businesses. Apparently, the reporting in 2016 on this, wants to maintain a false narrative that Trump is manipulating the law to cheat the taxpayer, but the bankruptcy does not bear that out. That's probably why the Times isolated the write off without ever explaining fully why he had such a loss. And Trump knew better than to take a carry-over because that is credit death when you go cap-in-hand to the banks after a reorganization. They look at your taxes and they're looking for a clean slate, no carry-overs. When you read the whole story, you see a very different picture from what is being painted now. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett, IntelligentName, and IP: Here's another thing that should be removed:

An analysis by USA Today, published in June 2016, found that over the previous three decades, Trump and his businesses had been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state courts, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate.[132] Of the 3,500 suits, mostly in the casino industry, Trump or one of his companies was the plaintiff in 1,900; defendant in 1,450; and third party, filer of bankruptcy, or other in 150.[132] Trump was named in at least 169 suits in federal court.

I can't see the reason for any of this without the relevant context, and not to mention, this is USA Today, it's not a professor from the Wharton School doing this. And the line, ". . .an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential canddiate" implies some kind of wrong doing. It also does not define what these suits are all about, they just rattle off numbers. Compared to what or whom? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It does say what the suits were mostly about: the casino industry. This is an appropriate overview, and people can go see Legal affairs of Donald Trump for more information. I do support removing "an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate" because it's not an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate who has run a huge billion dollar business, AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And none of it is relevant to his BLP. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It (the "analysis" by USA Today) is a false comparison. It is like saying "most animals do not have feathers, birds have an unprecedented amount of feathers compared to all other animals" to imply an inappropriate amassing of feathers by birds. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Or like comparing parking tickets issued to those in towns against those living in rural areas to make accusations about the lack of honesty of town dwellers compared to rural dwellers! It is not a genuine like for like comparison. Obviously someone with no business activities at all is going to have less legal cases than someone heading a multinational company, and someone heading a multinational company with business interests operating within particularly litigious areas is going to have more legal cases that a company with no such interests. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the "unprecedented" bit, since we all seem to agree about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Yes, perfect analogy. Well said.SW3 5DL (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's what the paragraph says now: Trump's legal affairs have been extensive in connection with his business interests. As of 2016, he and his businesses had been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state courts, mostly about half involving the casino industry. Trump or one of his companies was the plaintiff in 1,900 and defendant in 1,450.[135] Where there was a clear resolution, Trump won 451 times, and lost 38. In my opinion, this is much better. We should include some summary of Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Is this summary okay? I think so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of those cases were dismissed. And of 3500 cases most were not in the casino industry. Of the 500 cases that did make it in front of a judge in court, Trump won 451 times and lost 38. So the 3500 simply represents someone filing a lawsuit. That doesn't mean they were litigated in court. They were either withdrawn, settled, or dismissed. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, the claim that he was 'involved' in 3500 cases, that could mean he was a witness, or had some tangential relationship to the litigants. That doesn't mean he was the subject of the lawsuit. Lots of people get named and then later they are dropped from a suit because there's no there there. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The cited source says about half the cases were casino-related, so I changed that in the article and in the green quote above. Please note that that green quote already says Trump won 451 times and lost 38.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Half of what? 3,500 or 500? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

About half of 3,500. So says this BLP, and so says the cited source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

According to USA Today, Trump is the plaintiff in 1900 cases he brought against gamblers for financial problems he's had with them. Probably failing to pay. The edits here are deceptive since no where does it mention Trump is the plaintiff. It gives the impression that he's been the subject of 3500 lawsuits. He has not. Other lawsuits where he's the defendant have been against the hotels/casinos for personal injury. It needs to be specific. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, this BLP says "Trump or one of his companies was the plaintiff in 1,900 and defendant in 1,450." So you're obviously mistaken to say this BLP "gives the impression that he's been the subject of 3500 lawsuits." Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was still looking at the first part of the sentence you proposed. The whole thing needs to be rewritten. I'll read over the USA article again and come up with suggestons. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks fine to me as-is, but of course I'm glad to read whatever you suggest. By the way, if you want to reply to a comment, it's always best to indicate that, for example by indenting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

This edit removed material with the edit summary "c/e redundant". This strikes me as a highly disruptive edit, because the material was not redundant. Here is what was removed (footnotes omitted):

“ Trump attended the Kew-Forest School while he lived at home with his family in Jamaica Estates, Queens. At age 13, he enrolled in the New York Military Academy (NYMA).... In 2005, Trump, then 58 years of age, married Slovene model Melania Knauss at Bethesda-by-the-Sea Episcopal Church on the island of Palm Beach, Florida. A star-studded reception followed at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.....His daughter Ivanka's husband Jared Kushner is serving as a full-time senior advisor in the White House. Meanwhile, his eldest sons Eric and Don Jr. are running the family business. Trump's elder sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, is a federal appeals court judge on the Third Circuit, and she changed her judicial status to inactive in February 2017. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the above content that is struck out. This is an article about Donald Trump, not Kushner, Trump's children, or his sister. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 04:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Shall we remove all mention of all other family members? This is a section about "family". In any event, the person who deleted this material did not suggest we should not mention Kushner; he said this material is "redundant", which it isn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If the material is redundant as you claimed, User:SW3 5DL, would you please say where you think it is already located?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The sister is mentioned further up in the article with a link. His sons are already linked. Jared Kushner, (who has his own page), is already mentioned as Ivanka's husband in 'religion.' The 'star-studded' reception is for Vanity Fair, not WP. We cannot keep mentioning the same thing over and over. It makes no sense. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And where he grew up is already mentioned in the lede. We get that he lived in Jamaica Estates, Queens. With his parents. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SW3 5DL, right now, nothing in the article says that the sons are now running the company, right? Nothing right now in the article says the sister is a US Circuit Court Judge, one level below the U.S. Supreme Court, right? Nothing in the article right now says the son-in-law is now a senior advisor in the White House, right? Nothing in the article right now says he lived in Jamaica Estates before going to military school, right? And nothing in the article right now suggests why this particular wedding reception is notable, right? Attendees included Bill and Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Simon Cowell, Regis Philbin, Kelly Ripa, Star Jones and Barbara Walters. So don't tell me "redundant". Give an actual reason, please, or restore the information. Even if all of this info were in the lead (none of it is), the lead is not supposed to contain info that's not in the article body.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A minor point compared to the others, but this claim is false too: Jamaica Estates is not the same as Jamaica. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL: But other information that you removed is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, e.g.: "His daughter Ivanka's husband Jared Kushner is serving as a full-time senior advisor in the White House." Please stop making misleading claim about your edits. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy forbidding mention of persons who are not identical with the article subject, so I'm not sure about the basis for the "This is an article about Donald Trump" argument. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed this is a highly misleading edit summary and a clear violation of WP:SUMMARYNO.

As for the content question: In each case, the brief remark about the family member provides context that is clearly relevant in this article - e.g. that the president's son-in-law is senior advisor in the White House. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It is redundant. Mary Anne Trump is mentioned in the early life section. Her link takes you to the main article that discusses her. This is Trump's article, not his sisters. HIs sons are already linked and their names link to their articles which talk about them running the family business. It does not need to be here. We do not need tabloid hyperbole for "star-studded," and Jared Kushner is already mentioned in the 'religion' section with his name linked to his article. I'll mention in that section that Kushner works in the White House, but the rest has to go. But more importantly, the inappropriate response by Anythingyouwant, and your comments, are very disturbing and disruptive to this page. And your revert is also disruptive. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SW3 5DL, because you are not properly indenting your comments, it is impossible to know whether you are accusing me of a disruptive revert or accusing someone else of a disruptive revert. I have requested before that you please indent to indicate who you are speaking to. See WP:Talk. That said, I find very strange your notion that we should never say in this BLP anything about anyone (or anything) that is contained in that other person's (or thing's) Wikipedia article. You really want to stick with that notion? Because it would imply deleting a heck of a lot more of the present BLP. And why have you now inserted Kushner's White House role a second time, I thought you dislike redundancy. And why have you now pipe-linked Jamaica, Queens to "Jamaica Estates" even though there is a separate article about Jamaica Estates?[35] I object to both of those odd edits by you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

The second or third opening paragraph states something like "Most of Trump's statements are false or controversial". This is an obvious POV edit and needs to be removed. It degrades practically the entire page and stamps a big biased label on President Trump's statements and does not infer what or any statements he made are false. Further this does not belong in the opening paragraphs of the article.Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done – First of all, the "controversial or false" wording is qualified by "many statements" not "most statements", and it is restricted to the context of the presidential campaign. Second, the issue has been debated at length and settled by RfC, see links above in #Current consensus item 7. Obviously, consensus can change but I would advise that you read the prior extensive discussions before suggesting a change based on new developments. — JFG ^talk 10:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please restore paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anythingyouwant can come by and remove something and I can't re-add it according to the sanctions? I have other things to do and I cannot engage in an argument here. His edit summary was:

"remove paragraph because Trump has not had any formal role in Trump Entertainment Resorts since 2011 or earlier. See http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424052970203579804576285341283000706"

That Barrons source dated 2011 says Trump reduced his stake at the bankruptcy from 24% to 5% and that he had no formal role. He owned "less than $3 million" dollars of the casino and his name was on it. In what world is a $3 million dollar stake not significant?

Also, another sentence not supported by Anythingyouwant's source was removed at the same time. Kindly restore that paragraph. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry but that statement seems to reflect the source. If the source says Trump had "no formal role", then yes removing it is justified - otherwise it's giving WP:UNDUE weight to non-significant things. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with IP69. If Trump no longer had any formal role in the company, then details about the company's decisions are undue weight here. We could fill Warren Buffett's article with all the decisions made by companies in which he owns a minority of shares, but that would be undue weight too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"Trump Taj Mahal has a long history of prior, repeated BSA violations cited by examiners dating back to 2003." -SusanLesch (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"Notably, Trump Taj Mahal had ample notice of these deficiencies as many of the violations from 2012 and 2010 were discovered in previous examinations." It looks like Treasury didn't think the pre-2010 violations were particularly noteworthy. Also, the keyword "Donald" doesn't appear in its news release. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned news release makes absolutely no mention (at all) of Donald Trump. Would close this as WP:OFFTOPIC ("contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information.") but I'll leave that to somebody else. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Making sure stuff in the lead is also covered later

Per WP:Lead, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents....Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article....make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article." Does anyone object if we comply with this guideline by making sure that facts stated in the lead are added to the rest of the article if they have not already been added? For example, that Trump grew up at Jamaica Estates? Also, I think the lead is currently incorrect to say that he was born in Jamaica Estates.17:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Anythingyouwant (talk)

I went ahead and fixed this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing repetition re. Kushner

This BLP currently says twice that Kushner is serving as a senior advisor in the White House. It's in the last paragraph of the "Religious views" subsection, and also the last paragraph of the "family" subsection. I plan to remove it from the former, because it has nothing to do with religion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree that it makes more sense in the family section. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I edited so it's only in the "family" section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla and JFG: I disagree. The family section is for Trump's immediate family. The family he created. Not his son-in-law, who is already mentioned in the religion section. The children already have their names linked so info on Jared, who, btw, has his own article and his name is linked in this one in the religion section, which is enough. Also, Anythingyouwant is making multiple edits over the last 48 hours, at a manic rate, some of which should have consensus. The grammar goes wanting as well, in some of the more florid sentences such as, "Later that year, she gave birth to their son Barron, who became fluent in Slovene and English." Was his ability to speak Slovene and English the result of the birth? And what kid born in America to an English speaking family won't learn English? He then runs over to the talk page to get a 'consensus' and if his edits are reverted he seems to have a violent reaction. He flew into a rage the other night when I changed something back in the family section. This seems more disruptive to me. Especially the number of edits. For example, from 16 March at 16:04 to 17 March 03:49, he made 60 edits. A lot of those edits, including his multiple subsequent ones, are poorly written. He's adding junk that will only get taken out when the article finally gets to GA status. In other words, he's making work. And I don't like the photos being moved. Photos being staggered help prevent walls of text. This is disruption, it's not editing. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have edited the family section to rephrase the activities of Trump's adult children; this puts Jared Kushner's role in context with Ivanka's move to Washington. He had really nothing to do in the religion section. Regarding the rest of your comments, I would encourage you to AGF and improve the grammar where you see fit; collaborative editing is the beauty of Wikipedia. — JFG ^talk 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is important to note in the religion section that one of his children converted to Judaism. And since he's already mentioned there, his name is linked to his own article, he doesn't need to be anyplace else. And Ivanka's move to Washington is in her article. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, no one has sought to remove this from the religion section: "Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Jared Kushner, Trump said in 2015: 'I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that […] it wasn't in the plan but I am very glad it happened.'" Also, User:SW3 5DL, do not change your comment after someone else has already replied to it, without indicating the change (see WP:Talk). Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Peale books in "Religious views"

Regarding the recent edits I have made to the "Ancestry" section, I moved the section on the Trump family's religious background from the "Ancestry" to the "Religious views" section, as per Anythingyouwant's note on my talk page, as it seems the most logical. Anythingyouwant suggested that I should leave his works out altogether; however, I have kept the books that Peale wrote as it helps establish his notability (connections were made in the Washington Post article between Peale's The Art of Living and Trump's The Art of the Deal, but I decided to keep those out as it seemed to be the author's speculation). What does the Wikipedia community think of this? HelgaStick (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)