Talk:Donald Trump

Open RfCs and surveys

• #RfC: "useful fool"
• #RfC: Position statements regarding Women's Rights

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

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. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

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. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)

11. Superseded by #17

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." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. 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 (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (October 2021)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

Too pointy?

I've been considering it for a while, and I can see how it might be kinda pointy to go through and try to deal with some of the massive overlinkage here, it just looks really ugly to my eyes. Thoughts? Gabriel syme (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You think the article has too many blue links? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Most articles do, considering that most editors apply the following rule: If it can be linked, link it. Trim all you like with my blessing, Gabriel. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard though. The links are there for a reason, after all. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK is the relevant guideline, FYI. In short, useful links helpful to the understanding of the article should not be drowned out by unnecessary or duplicate ones. The lede looks like it's overlinked for sure, and the body does not look as bad but could surely still benefit from a review. I wouldn't worry about that being considered "disruptive to make a point", it's more like routine MOS quality control. Swarm ♠ 02:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Swarm: I don't blame him for being cautious. When you improve anything too much too quickly, somebody is guaranteed to yell "disruption!", and the community often sides with them because avoiding upsetting editors is more important than improving the encyclopedia per MOS. I've avoided widespread removal of MOS:EGG vios for exactly the same reason, and the same goes for widespread changes per the clarified MOS:JOBTITLES. In the end, the community gives very low weight to MOS. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed some links from the lead Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate all the input, I'm going to take a look through now and see what seems reasonable. I get that it's a long article, so a few instances of duplicate links are probably in order. Unrelated question, what's the functional difference between indenting and using bullets on a talk page? Thanks again. Gabriel syme (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter and Gabriel syme: Many thanks for your excellent WP:Gnome work on tackling overlinkage. I have taken the liberty to restore a few links which may not be obvious to non-American readers, and made a few tweaks here and there.[1] — JFG ^talk 01:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Guilty as charged! Thanks for looking it over, I need to keep non-American readers more in mind definitely. I'll probably come back in a couple days and work on the overlinkage in the second half of the article, but otherwise this gnome is going to find other corners to sweep. Gabriel syme (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Was just wondering - isn't the link under 'See Also' to list of honors and awards unnecessary and redundant? It's linked in the navbox along with other lists. 21:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:93E9:4700:28DC:373A:BBD3:6E09 (talk)

Thanks for pointing that out, but navboxs don't show on mobile currently so it is still useful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Employee bonuses

Scjessey, I'm not interested in getting bogged down in extensive discussions on this talk page, but this edit pretty clearly failed verification and violates the "consensus required" arbitration remedy. I suggest you self-revert. As I mentioned in my edit summary, I wouldn't be at all surprised if these bonuses were attributed to low unemployment, but that's not what the source says. You also blew through my other edit to fix the WP:WEASEL problem as well. And you marked your revert as minor to boot. Not cool. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: My edit challenged your removal of cited material. No violation or self-revert required. The rollback was using Twinkle, and it most certainly shouldn't have been marked as "minor" (no idea why it did that). I quoted the relevant text of the source in the edit summary, and the "weasel" word is contained in the text also. There are other articles. Even the Department of Labor notes the connection. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You are not actually reading the sources. The sources do not attribute the bonuses to low unemployment. Yes unemployment is low, that's not in dispute, but where in these sources does it say the bonuses are attributable to them? And I don't know what you mean when you say the "'weasel' word is contained in the text also." The BBC News source says, "Opponents of the overhaul have dismissed the announcements as little more than publicity stunts." I simply reflected the source's attribution to make clear who was lodging the criticisms. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I got confused between the two different sources, so your attribution edit was fine, but the CNN article provides adequate sourcing for the stuff you removed. Continuing to insist I violated an ArbCom remedy (including templating me on my talk page) is unacceptable. You removed cited material and its reference, and I challenged that removal with a reversion. No violation there. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, Thanks for that at least. Now, for the rest, please cut/paste here specifically what source language you are relying on for your contention that the CNN article provides adequate sourcing for the following content: "the pay increases have been attributed to unemployment." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I quoted the source language in my edit summary at the time. Now I read it again, I agree the language suggests the connection, rather than outright stating it is the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If the source doesn't say something explicitly, then neither can we. That's Wikipedia policy - see WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Even aside from that, It's odd that you refuse to lay out the relevant source language here so it can be discussed in the light of day. Here it is:

Also, with unemployment at a historically low 4.1%, many companies are having trouble hiring. The job market is so tight that many companies increasingly will be forced to raise pay and offer better benefits to entice job candidates and keep current workers from leaving.

I fail to see how this excerpt even "suggests" that the pay increases alleged to be spurred by the tax bill were in fact attributed to low unemployment. The inference can be made by a dot-connecting reader, but it's not made by the source. The source simply lays out some relevant economic forces, some of which are consistent with employees receiving increased benefits. There's nothing there about the pay increases, let alone what they were attributed to. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this is resolved by my recent edit. I found some sources that were more explicit. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Tariffs

I believe this edit by The brave celery is jumping the gun on Trump's foolish plan to impose tariffs. There's been no treasury instruction, no executive order, and no legislation. All we know thus far is that Trump blurted it out in a meeting. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, we should wait until something actually happens. PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, I think this by Galobtter is premature. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. I think a mention could be fitted in about his general policy on trade even if it doesn't exactly go through. But we can wait Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree any mention of this is premature for this article. He has not actually imposed the tariffs, just said he plans to - during a White House meeting with industry executives arranged by his commerce secretary, in other words, in response to the last people he talked to. His staff and cabinet may well talk him out of it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Supposedly he's signing these "noon Thursday" (DC time) [2]. The page Trump tariffs now exists and is best for the blow-by-blow; a one to two sentence mention (possibly including Gary Cohn's resignation as well) will likely be relevant in this article, once it's clear what is actually happening. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of RS content

This edit [3] removes well-sourced content from the now-eviscerated section captioned "Russia". This matter is one of the central ongoing issues concerning Trump personally and officially. It is widely discussed every day in the global news media. This content and its citation and footnote should be restored unless consensus can be demonstrated to keep it out of the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You should mention who these people are and just summarize what they said rather than use extensive quotes which make reading more difficult. Also, you should mention that Trump denies the claim. TFD (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We need to mention that Trump denies being a useful fool? I think that could be assumed. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

During the Cold War, a number of people confessed to being Russian dupes. Of course we know that Trump is unlikely to admit to anything, but not all readers may know that. TFD (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, as I've said on the Useful idiot talk page, it may ultimately be revealed that Trump is not currently being duped. His denials speak for themselves and I see no reason not to include them to the extent that they're specifically saying he is not a useful fool. His relationship to Russia may have evolved so that it's now something different. He may now be threatened with a whole range of ruinous outcomes on which observers are currently reluctant to speculate on the record, but that the Russians could help ensure. That would mean that his status evolved from fool to tool. Actually, looking at this now, I think the entire quote might appropriately be placed in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Salient comments removed

I didn't realize the previous comments above were being written when I wrote the following. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This deletion by JFG removed this content:

• and both Michael Hayden and Michael Morell have expressed their belief that Trump is a "useful fool...manipulated by Moscow" and an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation".

Note that the quotes are from the same source, where Hayden quotes Morell almost exactly. Here's the full context:

We have really never seen anything like this. Former acting CIA director Michael Morell says that Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation. I'd prefer another term drawn from the arcana of the Soviet era: polezni durak. That's the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited. That's a pretty harsh term, and Trump supporters will no doubt be offended. But, frankly, it's the most benign interpretation of all this that I can come up with right now. -- General Michael Hayden

This version uses the original sources and may be better to use:

• Michael Morell, former acting CIA director, wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." Michael Hayden, former director of both the US National Security Agency and the CIA, described Trump as a "useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited."

The removal's edit summary was: "Opinions from November 2016, when everybody was in panic mode over Trump's election, are undue today". Frankly, that's a BS excuse. Context and history says just the opposite. The secret knowledge shared by these top intelligence officials forms their opinions of Trump, and that knowledge has been proven even more true by subsequent events and revelations. Hayden went on to say: "That's a pretty harsh term, and Trump supporters will no doubt be offended. But, frankly, it's the most benign interpretation of all this that I can come up with right now."

Therefore the very well-informed opinions of those top intelligence officials are even more, not less, salient now, so that "undue" edit summary is both misleading and dead wrong. Note the location in the article. It seemed to be on-topic there, but another location might be better.

The quotes should be restored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Agree with User:BullRangifer and User:SPECIFICO. As it stands now, the entire section has to stand on one person's opinion (Clapper) and that is not enough. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary of "Opinions from November 2016, when everybody was in panic mode over Trump's election, are undue today" clearly indicated a personal, emotion-driven opinion, rather than a rationale supported by sound (claiming that the opinions of intelligence officials become undue over time is absurd) policy. TheValeyard (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, as I said above, you need to mention who Hayden and Morell are, since not everyone knows who they are, and there is no need for excessive text. Also, Trump's response should be included. TFD (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

TFD, I totally agree. That info is above. If Trump responded, that too should be included. Clinton called him "Putin's puppet" during the debate. Is that included? It should be, because he vehemently denied it during the debate. She knew the same things that Hayden and Morell knew, and she must have been frustrated that she couldn't just blurt out the evidence that he was lying. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I just checked, and the "Putin's puppet" quote is not in the article. Do we have an article about Trump's "unique" relationship to Russia and Putin? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned in this article: United States presidential debates, 2016. It's also relevant here, but the strong deletionist/protectionist forces at work on this article will likely not allow its mention. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

My opinion: These comments from more than a year ago may not be the most relevant opinions on the matter. They were made before he had any chance to take actions as president, which could have confirmed their opinion or could have disproven it. Can't we find any credible sources saying this about PRESIDENT Trump, as opposed to Candidate Trump? If not I'd be inclined to leave it out entirely. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We can ADD such things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that those were seminal and historic remarks BullRangifer recently added. There are other follow-ons that speak to the same theme by intelligence officials and former White House staff of the Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras. We might add some of that commentary if it gets into more specifics or is widely noted and discussed. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Some more recent citations, based on his actions as president: Foreign policy; Steve Schmidt quoted at MSNBC; opinion piece at WaPo, quoting Madeline Albright and former FBI agent Clinton Watts. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek in December 2017: Putin’s “pawn” or “puppet”. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Good finds. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Still seem rather undue and minor over all, and never been a fan of cramming old opinion columns in. PackMecEng (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

We now appear to have consensus to undo the removal of this RS content in the Russia section. SPECIFICO talk 04:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Not particularly, could use more input. PackMecEng (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

How so? We seem to have 7 editors favoring to restore it. SPECIFICO talk 04:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with SPECIFICO. Restore, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

We have not even had a reply from JFG, the person who removed it in the first place. Could at least get his input and rationel. PackMecEng (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we need to know whether it's "snow minus one"? It was just a bad edit. Maybe a mistake. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe? What is the rush to add old opinion sources about a tiny factor of his life into his main BLP? It is not unreasonable to at least wait for his comment is it? PackMecEng (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

1.Tiny: No, it is the central fact of his fame at this point. He tells us every day - no collusion 2. The editors above note the unprecedented concern and public warnings about this from the most senior intelligence officials. And the warnings are ongoing. Could we just close this and reinstate the RS text? SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The reports from these two are drown out in the what 10-20 stories per day on the same subject? What makes these two op-eds from a year ago any more special than the avalanche of others covering the same thing? Nothing really, and warning again come out multiple times a day of this or that against Trump. Until anything is actually know though, they mean less than nothing. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Like the reports that confirm that not only did Putin choose Trump, he even trumped Trump's choice of Romney and had him pick Tillerson? Tillerson hasn't even used any money to stop Russian interference, and Trump hasn't enforced the sanctions. It's pretty obvious both Trump and Tillerson are Putin's puppets. The buck seems to stop with Putin. Those reports you speak of confirm all of this.

This is just more evidence that Hayden's and Morell's statements are more true today than when they said them. That content should be restored. Because I'm the one who added it, I'm not going to do it...at least not now. Others can do it. We have a clear consensus to restore. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Please keep WP:FORUM in mind here, while I am sure you think it is super important new info. It is not and has not lead to anything of note. If it has not been important enough to include in the past year, common sense says it still is not. Also keep in mind consensus is not a head count. PackMecEng (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I think it's clear we have consensus to put Hayden and Morrell back. My sense is that you are very familiar with this reference. I am not. So I hope you will put the text back in the most appropriate possible form. SPECIFICO talk 00:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see such consensus. I have challenged the recent insertion of this old news about Hayden and Morell's opinions, calling them undue by now, and I don't see a cogent policy-based rationale to insert them again, other than WP:ILIKEIT kind of statements. — JFG ^talk 01:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is that you and one other like your watered-down version whereas 8 editors prefer the full version. It doesn't reflect well on you to deny that. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I am going to undo the removal of this, per consensus on this thread. Any adjustments or additions can of course be done without wholesale removal such as was rejected in this thread. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll chip in a belated support to this as well. It was a relevant opinion then, and the sourcing found above shows that it is relevant still. ValarianB (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added more info to this paragraph about his apparent friendliness with Moscow and willingness to do their bidding. I have removed the "cast doubt on his election" quote because it wasn't really related to the other content in the paragraph, and because that is not a widely shared opinion (most commentators say it is impossible to tell whether and to what extent the Russian interference influenced the outcome). --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the Russia connection is not just from the campaign; it is even more relevant now. What would you think about moving the "Russia" paragraph from the "Campaign" section to the "presidency" section? --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh maybe first 100 days. There really has not been anything new and current past then. Even the congress bill part is pretty weak, and the sanctions part sounds like gossip from anon sources again. PackMecEng (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, we have POTUS failure to implement Congressionally-mandated additional sanctions, we have failure to respond to various Russian provocations and propaganda, and most significantly failure to take specific countermeasures in the face of public disclosure of ongoing interference by intelligence officials. And other developments, commented on by RS media and commentators. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm just going on what is currently in the section pretty much all first 100 days and before. PackMecEng (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The attempt to rescind the sanctions in January 2017 is not gossip and not anonymous, and it had real world consequences. It was first reported by Michael Isikoff[4] and cited to named sources from within the State Department. And the attempt to head it off included the actual introduction, on Feb. 7, of bipartisan legislation by senators Cardin and Graham. That attempt to lift the sanctions is as well established as it can be. As for Trump’s refusal to carry out the requirements of a bipartisan bill that had passed Congress almost unanimously, that was just six weeks ago.[5][6][7] --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think MelanieN's suggestion to move this content is a good one, and I encourage her to implement it. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else has an opinion. There's no rush. --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a topic for Foreign policy of the Trump administration, not Trump's main biography. — JFG ^talk 10:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. They didn't say that POTUS' policy is "foolish" -- that would not be appropriate. They stated that he, personally, is a useful fool. It was a national security warning about his having been compromised. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to MelanieN's suggestions about Russia sanctions. Please pay attention to the actual conversation. — JFG ^talk 19:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No idea what you're saying, actually. Very unclear. File wherever you wish. SPECIFICO talk 20:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Related AfD may be of interest

The article on Trump's notable manservant Anthony Senecal has again been nominated for deletion. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Does no one know the meaning of neutral... But yes, it is of interest being directly related to the 2016 election related news coverage of Donald Trump and all things Trump related. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Another one! - Another deletion nomination, this time for a book about Trump [8]. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If you examine which editors are making all these AfDs about Trump related topics, one begins to have difficulty in AGF with some of them. They seem to have a NOTHERE mission. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Take it to a drama board or leave the aspirations at home. PackMecEng (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Source for Russia-related stuff

For anything related to Russia, this superb article from The New Yorker can be used for sourcing on multiple aspects. It is such a complete accounting of everything from the Steele dossier to the Nunes memo, it can probably be used as a sort of "universal reference" that will help to reduce the number of sources we're currently forced to use. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't get better. Jane Mayer is a highly respected and awarded investigative journalist who digs deep and is very thorough. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Greek symbols in infobox

Right at the top, under "incumbent", I'm getting a greek symbol in "Assumed" replacing "ffi" in "office". 139.138.69.196 (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, crap, it's replacing my edits with that symbol, too....???? 139.138.69.196 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You're saying you see the replacement in this thread? If you're the only one seeing this (and that has been in the article for many months without any other complaints that I'm aware of), it's very likely a problem local to you. There isn't much we can do for you here, but you might get some help at WP:VPT. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Watering of ODNI

This revert [9] waters down the statement in the ODNI (p.11) by placing "high confidence" as an afterthought in a separate sentence of the article text. @Prodego: has appeared at JFG's talk page asking him to undo his revert. [10]. Are we all in agreement that the revert should be undone? SPECIFICO talk 04:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean this. Prodego obviously missed the later page number correction, so their comment is not support for your position. They are simply saying that the |quote= does not match the text on page 11. I'm an abstain. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is the complaint here that one citation quote was chosen over another? I don't see that any article text was changed.- MrX 🖋 17:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Is the complaint here that one citation quote was chosen over another? - Yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Good grief. Can't we just put both, or neither, quotes in the citation? Should we even be selectively quoting it since it's a primary source? The only thing that matters is if the reference support the article text.- MrX 🖋 17:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Not both, since they have about 80% overlap. Either or neither would work for me. I think it's a nit. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss is correct – I did not see the later edit to correct the page number. Thank you for pointing that out. Assuming the page number agrees with the quote, whichever quote has consensus is fine. Alternately, I don't see any problem with citing both quotes in the article if that is for some reason preferred. Prodego ^talk 00:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

After I reverted Mandruss's edit, we discussed the issue at User talk:JFG#Trump revert, and settled by adjusting the page number for the longstanding quote. Case closed. — JFG ^talk 01:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I changed |page=7 to |page=ii.[11] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Forbes

Forbes: Donald Trump’s wealth has fallen for second year running

Donald Trump has tumbled more than 200 places in the world ranking of billionaires as a result of his fortune shrinking by more than $400m (£287m) to $3.1bn over the past year.

According to Forbes magazine’s annual ranking of the world’s wealthiest people, the US President slipped from 544th richest last year to 766th this year. It is the second year running that Trump’s fortune has dwindled.

Can someone please update all mentions of his wealth? I can't do it myself due to edit protection. Azure94 (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

As we mention Forbes data for at least 2015, 2016, and 2017, I'm not sure whether we need to replace 2017 with the new data or keep 2017 and add 2018. If the latter, I think we're approaching the point where a table would work better than prose. It's the same data points every year. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is to use the most recent yearly Forbes valuation in the lead and infobox. We can keep the historical data at campaign time in the "Wealth" section, because the mismatch between various estimates and Trump's own claims was widely discussed at the time. I don't see the benefit to keep a tally of all yearly changes. — JFG ^talk 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Besides, no one really knows. O3000 (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it best to use the most updated data we have, to keep the article as current as possible. Forbes now has him at $3.1B. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Updated as per prior consensus. Once a year is enough. O3000 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I finished the Forbes updates[12] and copy edited the consensus list.[13] ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Suggests this info is in too many places. It's not like this article needs padding.:) O3000 (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

New Billionaires list

Attached to existing discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Forbes came out with their 2018 Billionaires list, and they have Trump ranked at #776 with a net worth of $3.1B.

I just want to make sure that everything is up to snuff before I add it, because I don't want people getting up in arms about consensus and whatnot.

Should be a no-brainer to make the appropriate adjustment to the article, but I just want to be safe before doing so.

Vjmlhds (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It is being discussed right above in the Forbes section. PackMecEng (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: "useful fool"

Should Trump's main biography include the phrase:

Both Michael Hayden and Michael Morell have expressed their belief that Trump is a "useful fool...manipulated by Moscow" and an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation".

References

For context, please see the above discussion, whereby this phrase was recently added,[14] removed[15] and inserted again.[16] — JFG ^talk 10:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose – Calling the President of the United States a "useful fool" and an "unwitting agent of Russia" is a BLP smear. The sentence reports opinions by two former intelligence officers, expressed in November 2016, shortly after before Trump's election. There is no particular notability for those opinions today. They are appropriate to cite, in context, in the article on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (they are in the section about reactions of the intelligence community), but they have WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in the subject's main biography. — JFG ^talk 10:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's not name calling, but an intelligence-based "benign" description of the factual state of affairs. See the full quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BLP, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SPECIFICO – Op-ed pieces are not subject to normal fact-checking or editorial oversight. If it is uncontested that Trump is an "unwitting agent", it should be easy to find multiple reliable, secondary sources to support the claim. In the material, it is not clear from the context that Hayden is citing Morell and it is not even verifiable that Hayden and Morell have used both expressions. Politrukki (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the same reasons; you've said it best. This content runs contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is not being said in Wikipedia's voice, it is an opinion properly attributed to respected intelligence veterans, a former director of the NSA and a former deputy director of the CIA, respectively. This was discussed above at Talk:Donald_Trump#Removal_of_RS_content, where consensus was found to restore the material reverted by JFG. TheValeyard (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. They are highly significant opinions by two men who know more about this than anyone, and their veracity is borne out by recent events: Trump refuses to criticize Putin or Russia, admit that Russia interfered in the election, refuses to take action to protect the American election system from ongoing Russian hacking and meddling, even not using the money assigned by Congress for the State Dept. to use for that purpose, and does not enforce the sanctions against Russian (the sanctions he is allegedly promised $11 billion for lifting). (As noted on the news, we now have two people whom Trump will not criticize: Putin and Stormy Daniels.) Suspicions regarding the veracity of allegations that he is being blackmailed by Russia are strengthened by all these events. For full context and an improved version, see this section above: Talk:Donald Trump#Removal of RS content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Largely undue for main BLP. Two former Obama officials opinion on an opposition candidate days before the election does not help it's weight either. Also since all the cool kids are doing it, Talk:Donald Trump#Removal of RS content. Good luck finding anything useful in that mess of a thread. PackMecEng (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BLP. Both Hayden and Morell have a dubious reputation. Hayden lied under oath to Congress about torture [17], Morell lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq [18], [19]. @BullRangifer: Trump's anti-Russian remarks – [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As per all the above reasons given. Sad that we had to resort to an RfC for this when I thought it should be pretty obvious. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as the opinion of a few people; not sufficiently mainstream or widely held enough to include in this BLP. I notice that these two people are quoted with their opinion at the article Useful idiot which may be a better place for it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Just two old guys sittin' on a park bench? Who could have a more informed and considered and stonefaced an evaluation of the situation? SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's not name calling, but an intelligence-based "benign" description of the factual state of affairs. See the full quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• We could fill many books with analyses and descriptions, by various experts, of the factual state of affairs about Donald Trump. In this biography we need to focus on the ones that have gotten heavy, longstanding, significant coverage from multiple sources. There is such coverage about his relationship with Russia, and that issue is included in this biography. The particular analysis being discussed here - this particular name for his relationship to Russia - has not gotten that kind of coverage and should be excluded per WP:WEIGHT. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

But isn't this comment by intelligence experts (and there have also been others more recently) who have deep professional understanding of the nature Russian tactics to compromise "useful idiot" actors, a noteworthy indicator of the very widespread public discussion of the likelihood that Trump has been compromised by the Russians? It may turn out that there are more specific explanations of his behavior, but this is one that has been consistent and widespread for the past 20+ months. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If this particular "useful fool" tag actually was "very widespread" I would support including it. But it isn't. Once in a while someone brings it up, that's all. That specific "useful fool" tag, proposed for inclusion here, is a different matter from the more widespread speculation about why he is so deferential to the Russians - although I wouldn't support including that either, because speculation is just what it is. Nobody really knows why he acts as he does toward Russia: as an innocent dupe, or out of fear of something they "have on him", or as a conscious agent of their policies. The intelligence officers quoted here are part of that speculation, and their view has not become widely accepted. Maybe someday Robert Mueller will explain his motives to us with evidence; until then, educated guesses have no place here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN hit the nail on the head. Undue weight indeed 16 months later. — JFG ^talk 22:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Everyone seems to forget:

• BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE: They don't get much protection: "Allegation...belongs in the article."

Use attribution.

• NPOV: Biased sources and opinions can be used. Failure to do so is censorship, also not allowed.

Personal opinions of editors has no bearing on this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because they have an opinion does not make that opinion notable. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Content does not have to be notable, but since who said it are very notable, that counts FOR inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The notability, or not, of the people who said it is irrelevant. What matters is the WP:WEIGHT of coverage given to their comments by sources. That WEIGHT is lacking; they said it and pretty much nobody responded or commented. If this had become a widespread opinion, a "meme", a commonly expressed opinion, I would favor including it. That hasn't happened; they said it and that was pretty much the end of it. That's why I favor leaving it out. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support with additional context and addition of recent opinions of other national security professionals of both political parties who say the same thing. It is unprecedented for national security chiefs of any free country to make such a statement about a candidate or sitting head of state. These comments come from two men whose level of knowledge -- of Russian methods and of surrounding recent history -- is matched only by a handful of current officials who, as such, cannot publicly comment. There is no BLP policy concern and it's laughable to suggest that these comments are dishonest or politically motivated. All editors who !vote here should review the previous thread that overwhelmingly favored this text. Both the text and the references should be expanded after we wrap up this RfC next month. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons that should be obvious, but apparently aren't. It's not entirely clear that it's illegal for Trump to be a "useful fool", but the BLPCRIME guidelines regarding alleged crimes should still apply; accusations, even if the accusation is made by a notable person, generally shouldn't be included. Also there's never any shortage of people making allegations against high-profile political figures, these are generally excluded. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• On the contrary. Per BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE we are supposed to include such allegations. They don't get much protection: "Allegation...belongs in the article." Just attribute them and label them as allegations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• If an allegation or incident is noteworthy - "the Russia thing" is noteworthy as a whole, but why are these noteworthy? We don't include Mitt Romney calling Donald Trump "a fraud" [32]. These are people acting as pundits (read: people who say outrageous things for publicity), not as representatives of the intelligence community. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• That's absurd. They are highly informed and "benign" (see full quote) descriptions of real danger. They aren't name calling either. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BLPCRIME is about a person who is involuntarily preyed upon and becomes known for a crime that had nothing to do with their own actions. That simply doesn't apply here. Could you explain the details as to how Trump's accomodating stance wrt Russia comports with the details of BLPCRIME? SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• You're right that BLPCRIME isn't relevant. I definitely recall some guideline regarding including accusations of this general type in biographies, I'll try to find it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• The policy is BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which says such allegations "should" be included. Public persons are not spared, and rarely a president. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• In general, most of these pages are about "notability", which isn't really relevant; the high-level topic of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is obviously not going to be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose — election period Opinion piece that is mis-paraphrased. Not noted then, Opinion piece is not acceptable RS, and the cite simply does not contain Morell saying anything about fool, so lacks WP:V. Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Both these men are career officials whose voices carry a lot of weight. They're both politically independent, they've served in various capacities under presidents of both main parties, and their resumes indicate they are supremely qualified to make this kind of determination. "Useful fool" (or "useful idiot"), while somewhat derogatory, is a well-used term in the security services for people who are unwittingly manipulated. In the context of the section it is contained in, it makes perfect sense to include this properly attributed content. That said, if it turns out that Trump has knowingly collaborated with the Russians (rather than being unwittingly manipulated), "useful fool" would be inaccurate and we could revisit this again. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – Until the outcome of this RfC, I have edited the text to mention that Hayden and Morell are former intelligence officials. Doesn't mean I condone the inclusion of their dated opinion, but at least it informs the reader. — JFG ^talk 17:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Note, for editors coming to this discussion the 1st time, see the previous discussion where consensus supported the restoration, Talk:Donald_Trump#Removal_of_RS_content. TheValeyard (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to support this material with more than one source? Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the section referenced immediately above by TheValeyard contains a better version using two sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. They list Washinton Post opinion section as the primary and NY Times opinion section as the only sources listed in the section discussing Michael Hayden or Michael Morell. With the pieces in question written by those two rather than reported on by others. PackMecEng (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Perfectly good sources for opinions by notable persons. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Pack, this is beyond noteworthy. It was historic. There has never been such a statement of concern by such senior national security or intelligence officials. This isn't Fox&Friends or Rachel Maddow speaking. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

But it is two people that worked in the Obama administration that just so happened to make these wild claims days before the election. Makes it hard to take their comments as anything past partisan. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

They also worked for previous GOP administrations. There is no evidence they were politically motivated. Context counts. They were receiving multiple intelligence reports from allied (even east bloc) nations warning that Trump's people were plotting with Russians to steal the election. There was also the active election interference, which Trump refused to acknowledge. So nothing political. They were patriotically warning of an unprecedented danger. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Pack, that's highly personal conclusion. But we can certainly add more recent statements by the many national security pro's -- including in sworn congressional testimony -- who express the same and related concerns. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Specifico. “Historic” claims call for support. Put up a couple cites SAYING that is historic to support that argument. How many said that word is how historic it is. Or accept that few or none in RS felt that it was historic. Markbassett (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Google "useful fool trump". I didn't say to put historic in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 04:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I was calling overblown the arguing of it as “historic”. Googling useful fool +historic see ... Zero RS say this opinion piece was historic, and without +historic seems not seen as very noteworthy either. Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah but we could google "bunion historic" and it wouldn't come up either but we still have an article about bunions. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I got my first bunion last year. It was unprecedented, but that didn't make it historic. Hey, you started with the bunions. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think it should be temporarily removed while we discuss it. I was about to boldly do that, but I can't just yet, per the DS. As per discussion above I do intend to move the "Russia" section (where these quotes are cited) from the "Campaign" section to the "Presidency" section, because it cites some of his actions during his presidency, and I will do that now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If Russia plays a big enough part in the life of Trump to have a paragraph in the lead, then I think Russia ought to be in the TOC. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

All that is really under #investigations section Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Position statements regarding Women's Rights

Should Trump's main biography include a section documenting his record on Women's Rights? Only current discussion is with regards to sexual misconduct allegations.

For context, please see discussion at archive, whereby content was recently added, Domestic policy: Social issues (para. 3), then reverted for stated reasons of synthesis.

Seeking contributions circumventing issue of synthesis. — algocu (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No — UNDUE for his WP:BLP, this is not a big part of his life story. Anything of his Presidency belongs in that article, not here, and I doubt there was enough attention / mention there to be DUE coverage. Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  I believe you mean "Anything of his Presidency belongs in that section ...", not article? algocu (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Algocu: Markbassett is likely referring to Presidency of Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  Correct - if it is something significant about his Presidency it belongs there; if it is about things significant to his life it belongs here. Nothing specific was mentioned, so unclear where it should go. It does not seem he has significant amounts either way, but for Presidency there are noted reactions on the topic. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  Just to clarify - there seems significant coverage re sexual misconduct in private life and women’s movements against his Presidency, but I am not aware of significant coverage of his life having participation in women’s rights. Markbassett (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Need more research on significance of conduct/policy between life and presidency. In the same vein, assuming reference to Presidency of Donald Trump, and weight of life significance to a WP:BLP, then is not the current Presidency section in Donald Trump too long and detailed? Is it not overly subjective to include (or omit) a topic from this section? algocu (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  I haven't !voted here, and I doubt I will as I don't have much of an opinion on the issue. Did you mean to address Markbassett instead? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• No. This is not something he has paid a lot of attention to, nor have the media. There are many, many issues of potential interest to a politician; in a biography we should only include the main/definitional issues. We do not make that decision subjectively, but rather based on the WP:WEIGHT of coverage an issue has received in Reliable Sources. In other words we only report on what Reliable Sources report, not on what we think they should be reporting more of. RE "need more research" - maybe so, but it is not up to us to do that research. See WP:OR. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• No – Can't find much sourced content about this topic, and it would be undue for the main bio. Better address this in Presidency of Donald Trump if/when something notable happens on this front. — JFG ^talk 17:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Two edit requests

There should be two corrections made to this article, can someone please edit and correct them as I cannot due to the article being locked:

1 - The word "potential" should be used in the lead before the word "links" (no concrete links have been proven so far)

2 - Trump grew up in Jamaica Estates, Queens (not Jamaica, Queens) 158.222.189.226 (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Stormy Daniels

I agree that as of right now the info does not belong in the lede. It surely belongs in the article however.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

JFG clearly disagrees with what I added on Daniels - if it's not due here, where is it due then? starship.paint ~ KO 08:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: They use this little tactic, where if you put it into one article (say Donald Trump) they claim that it doesn't belong in that article but some other article. Then when you try to put it into another related article (say Donald Trump sexual allegations) they say it doesn't belong in that article but another, unspecified, article. It's like a little shell game. Anything controversial to do with Trump, we have to go through this inane process to get some actual info in. It's a way obstruct inclusion of reliably sourced text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the last discussion though, the White House via press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has admitted that there was an arbitration case won "in the President's favor" - which points to certainly something going on between Daniels and Trump, otherwise there would be nothing to arbitrate. Also a new development, Daniels is suing over the non-disclosure agreement, if there wasn't one, there would be nothing to sue about. Finally, remember the first smoking gun, Trump's lawyer admitted he paid $130,000 to Daniels but refused to say why. starship.paint ~ KO 08:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"The Stormy Daniels Affair" has been receiving significant and continuous coverage in the mainstream media (both old and new media) for quite a while now. The internet is littered with cast iron reliable sources discussing the matter. All are basically saying the same thing:

1. Trump probably had an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford).
2. Fearing the news would come out at a critical time of the election, he had his lawyer pay hush money to keep Clifford quiet.
3. Seeing an opportunity to raise her profile and make a bit of extra cabbage, Clifford drizzled a spoonful of detail over some eager media outlets.
4. Mainstream media got wind of Cohen's payment, forcing Cohen to contort himself into a ludicrous shape in order to try to protect his client (Trump).
5. Trump orders his Press Secretary to lie to the White House Press Corps (what else is new?) about a ridiculous "win" in arbitration.
6. Clifford's lawyer is on cable TV almost continuously.
7. As usual, it's no longer about the affair, but rather it is about the lying.

We can no longer pretend this isn't getting significant play in the mainstream media, so it absolutely belongs in this BLP in some form or another. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia should refrain from reporting recentist gossip, especially in high-profile articles on living persons. — JFG ^talk 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The ship sailed on "recentist gossip" years ago, it is verifiable (that's not to say the affair is true, per se, just that sources are covering it) and is a prominent section of Ms. Daniels' article, Stormy_Daniels#Alleged_affair_with_Donald_Trump. Dismissing it as a base conspiracy theory is beyond the pale. ValarianB (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Noting coverage on the current home page of that notorious gossip rag, The New York Times. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Still recentism, and yes still sensationalist gossip, no matter who prints it. And I said nothing about conspiracy theories. I would definitely support inclusion if/when something more tangible appears. WP:There is no deadline. — JFG ^talk 22:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we'd all be interested in a credible argument to keep this kind of stuff out of the article, JFG, but that ain't it. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have zero interest in getting involved in this article or talkpage, but I will make a general comment about site policy. WP:BLP specifically addresses this situation, in its section on "Public figures". The policy states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." It goes on to say, by way of example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred." (emphasis mine).

  So this sort of material is described as appropriate for inclusion—in fact, it's a canonical example of appropriate material—in the WP:BLP policy. It's arguably a BLP violation to remove this material, since fundamental site policy so clearly supports inclusion. I'm concerned by the lack of policy awareness in some of the arguments here; among other basic matters, essays on recentism and deadlines don't supplant WP:BLP, which is a fundamental and non-negotiable site policy. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You are right that the BLP policy does not prevent us from mentioning these allegations, but it also does not obligate us to mention them. We still have to consider due weight in Trump's overall life story, and that can't be established as of yet. — JFG ^talk 22:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Please respond to the points MastCell made above. You've just repeated your POV. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JFG: the policy is hardly agnostic on the subject. It literally says that such material "belongs in the biography". (Where, and how broadly, to cover it are questions of WP:WEIGHT). You're contravening a clear statement of fundamental site policy, and it's not a good look. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A large number of sexual or "groping" affairs have been considered for inclusion in this bio and a consensus of editors has agreed to just briefly summarize them, while pointing to the main article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Some more serious allegations such as a rape case have been fully rejected from this article after extensive debate. So there is not hard and fast obligation for the biography to include an allegation just because it exists, nor to immediately reflect the latest scandal à la mode. That's why we are all here to discuss the case and make a collective determination, and I will most certainly respect any consensus that emerges. — JFG ^talk 23:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

So... you're saying we should include the Stormy Daniels stuff in the "sexual misconduct allegations" article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That would make sense. Strange it's not in there yet. — JFG ^talk 15:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get sucked in any further here, but I'm concerned that moving the material to the "sexual misconduct allegations" article is inappropriate, and potentially a BLP issue. After all, there is no allegation of actual misconduct in this case—right? (I can't say I've followed the sources or editing here closely, so correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think anyone has suggested that anything non-consensual occurred, and the non-disclosure agreement was apparently legally dubious but not a form of "sexual misconduct". MastCell ^Talk 15:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with others that this material should be included in the article, but not the lead (not yet; possibly later). This is well-publicised matter that is directly relevant to Trump's bio. In fact, to leave this material out would tend to tilt the article's neutral stance. Casually dismissing it as "sensationalist gossip" is not much different that declaring IDONTLIKEIT.- MrX 🖋 23:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• At this point, one just ignores the editor who's entry into the discussion is directly contradicted by policy, as shown above. We should work out a paragraph here before inclusion. TheValeyard (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Somebody should just go ahead and be WP:BOLD.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

For a controversial issue at an article under the ArbCom remedies, there is little point. After the one inevitable revert, we're back here seeking consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is, we already had it, two more supports below to pile on as well. If the holdout reverts, you send them to the enforcement page. TheValeyard (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per MastCell's clear analysis. I too am reluctant to delve deeply into the 24/7/365 Trump world on Wikipedia, but the policy based reasons for including this content are so strong at this point that I must comment in favor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. There are no BLP problems nor would it being a BLP mean we reduce or remove that coverage, as pointed out above, because of how public a figure Trump is. This is has been coverage extensively, far more than say the rape case. NPOV doesn't have a thou can ignore WEIGHT in highly reliable sources if what they print is "gossip". I think there is consensus to at-least restore this, though I'll wait. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment In this case, where we have a single editor denying WP site policy and deflecting any attempts to engage in discussion, there is clearly consensus to include. So if any text is reverted, it can immediately be reinstated per current consensus. I don't believe the DS are intended to prevent reinserting evident consensus that a single editor chooses to deny. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  Don't edit war though. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2018

12.252.77.50 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

change the picture to another more recent picture

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

About the "Presidency" section

There is a problem with the Presidency section of this article. A lot of the material in the Domestic policy subsection is actually from 2016 or even earlier, quoting what he said on the campaign trail rather than what he has done as president. That stuff belongs in the Campaign section, if anywhere - probably under Political positions. Meanwhile significant things that he has done during his presidency are not included anywhere.

Under Domestic policy, the Economy and trade section should now be OK; I added the withdrawal from TPP and the new tariffs, and deleted as obsolete a paragraph about a tax plan he proposed during the campaign. The Education section is entirely from the campaign and says nothing at all about his presidency; IMO it should be deleted, maybe summarized briefly in the Campaign section. Energy and climate: again, all the content is from 2016, except for a single sentence about withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. Government size and deregulation is OK; it actually focuses on his actions as president. Health care is OK. Immigration has way too much detail about the various iterations of his proposed "Muslim ban", while it doesn't even mention DACA. Social issues is entirely about things he said during the campaign, which IMO should be moved or deleted, while things he has actually done like the transgender military ban need to be added.

Under Foreign policy, the introductory three paragraphs are entirely about what he said during the campaign, except for a sentence about NATO and a sentence about a Syrian missile strike. But the subsections under Foreign policy are pretty much current and OK. We might want to add a subsection on the general subject of "Europe" or "European relations".

I encourage everyone who has a little time, to work on this problem. IMO the material in the Presidency section should actually be about his presidency. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for these useful updates, MelanieN. I agree with your assessment and will take a look at what can be improved. Probably the "First 100 days" subsection should be removed, as an arbitrary breakpoint which has vanishingly little significance. Relevant events from that period can be integrated in the appropriate policy sections. — JFG ^talk 22:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the "First 100 days" section. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 00:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have now trimmed the travel ban section and added a new section on DACA. What do you think? We need to find a citation for the current lack of DACA legislation after delay expired, even though that's somehow rendered moot by the legal blocks. — JFG ^talk 00:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Revolving door news

Just hours after Rex Tillerson said Russia was involved in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Trump has fired him (I'm sure it is a TOTAL COINCIDENCE). Mike Pompeo will run the State Department, and the tape-destroying queen of torture Gina Haspel will run the CIA. I guess all this will need to be added to this article and the presidency article. The internet is already littered with all the sources we could possibly need. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Not much surprises me about the reign of Trump, but this one is pretty shocking. Yes, this will need to be added here.- MrX 🖋 13:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that was out of the blue, any word on the official reason he was fired? I heard Tillerson was not even told a reason yet. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

We should mention that the presidency has been characterized by high turnover. I don't think though it is helpful to suggest that he was fired on the orders of the Kremlin. Tillerson's departure has been rumored for months and Trump claimed there were policy differences, which observers had noticed.[33] TFD (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point. That he was hired on orders from the Kremlin is pretty solid, but, until we have RS which show that his firing was also dictated by the Kremlin, we shouldn't state it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a conspiracy site for anti trump wackos there is no proof of any russian collusion with Trump the only collusion was between hillary the dnc and steele in the russian made anti Trump dossier. עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Which RS claim that Tillerson was "hired on orders from the Kremlin"? Sounds pretty speculative and conspirationist to me… — JFG ^talk 15:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if we are going to go with an assumption Trump is influenced by Russia, there is not going to be any reliable source to say he was hired on orders lol. At best hired on recommendation or suggestion is the furthest I think any credible source will say, but this doesn't translate to on orders. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Also significant is the firing of Trump's personal assistant John McEntee, for an unspecified security issue. He was unceremoniously escorted out of the White House by security. As has been said earlier, the level of turnover in this administration is unprecedented. There are many reliable sources available that make this particular point, so perhaps our coverage of these hirings and firings should be presented in this context. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a conspiracy site for anti trump wackos