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 (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15)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 Do not mention the anonymous Jane Doe rape lawsuit, as it was withdrawn.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

(Not an) emergency: Dividing the "Donald Trump" article

The Trump presidency is only a month old, and we are 3 times over the limit of human readability and are causing WP:CHOKING access and possibly display problems. "intitle:Donald Trump" yielded "311 KB (28,385 words)" at 12:19, 25 February 2017". WP:TOOBIG guidelines say an article > 100 kB should be divided.

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

Kudos to User:epicgenius for Talk:Donald_Trump#Article_size and to User:Scjessey and User:MelanieN who replied. Deferring to the experienced editors of this article, I propose the following:

• We start work on a copy in the Talk space. Because MediaWiki software can handle it, I propose simple one-colored yellow markup for every bit that can be moved. HTML comments can explain their destination.
• The article be < 100 kB by March 15.
• "Awards, honors, and distinctions" could be a new article (citations add to article size).

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

Note for interested editors: Prose size (text only): 78 kB (12729 words) "readable prose size" (which is what WP:TOOBIG refers to) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I don't use Javascript. But when someone gives me the argument that I can't quote President Trump because of no room, that is a problem that needs to be fixed. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that you're using the wrong benchmark number for WP:TOOBIG. I have no opinion on whether or not if content should be split off. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Long pages ---Moxy (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Long pages not counting lists or timelines:

1. Ingrid van Houten-Groeneveld [690,974 bytes]

2. India–European Union relations [506,076 bytes]

3. East Turkestan independence movement [435,341 bytes]

. . .

14. Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 [355,782 bytes]

. . .

38. Donald Trump [308,028 bytes]

--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support @SusanLesch:'s proposal. The article is unreadable and filled with nonsense that's nothing to do directly with this man. Who cares what his father did? Who cares that someone in his class harassed someone else? What is that doing in this article anyway? Normally, the bit about the harasser would go into the harasser's article. But he doesn't have a Wiki page because he doesn't meet GNG. See my point? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• I disagree with SusanLesch's proposal, if I am understanding it correctly - to make a copy of the article and mark bits that can be removed and discuss them there - way too cumbersome. I think we should just WP:BOLDly trim stuff that is already covered in other articles, or that is too trivial to need inclusion in a biography - being sure to do so in a neutral manner rather than removing all the "good stuff" or all the "bad stuff". If someone objects to a particular deletion, they can restore it and start a discussion here. This article is bloated with way too much information about his businesses, his campaign, etc; there is lots of room for paring it down. But IMO this is not an emergency requiring drastic action. (P.S. This isn't a formal RfC, is it? Please say it isn't!) --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I agree with that. My point is the article is bloated. Susan's well-made point is that Trump is only a month into his presidency and look at the size of the article. It is unreadable. Keeping up with all the bits being added, even stuffing comments into footnotes that have no consensus, requires attention. I support Susan's suggestion to reduce the size of this article. I don't see anyone talking about an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not a formal RFC. Besides the incorrect assertion in the lead statement, such a RFC would be far too broad in scope to be useful. Plus, editors should first follow the usual WP:BRD cycle and see if progress can be made that way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

• "Emergency" RFC? Just a reminder: There is no deadline. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Muboshgu. You are right of course. I editsd the topic line. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, an RFC could be crafted. But this section is not a "formal" RFC (which is what MelanieN was asking). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, I removed the letters RFC from the topic. I don't think being bold is going to work here. Just today a whole section was boldly removed and I object. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please watch for invalidated refnames when removing content. This is easily done by finding (Ctrl+F) "cite error" on the page. There are currently two invalid refnames, Barbaro8Sept and MiamiH3Mar2016. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The readable prose size is 77 kB. According to WP:TOOBIG the article should probably be divided. "Readable prose size: > 60 kB | What to do: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". Also, we can unquestionably reduce the prose size by adhering to WP:BLPSOURCES and removing material attributed to sources not widely known to be reliable mainstream sources ... like the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame, World Wrestling Entertainment, the Christian Post, Liberty University News Service, Blacktie Arizona, the Weekly Standard, the Tax Foundation, and such. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)
• 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)

Unofficial partial tally

• Option 1 12
• Option 2 9
• Option 3 10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhi Peace (talk • contribs) 00:45, 10 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)

Acomplishments

I made a new article for all of the President Trump's acomplishments... Acomplishments of the President Trump... please help me expand my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josef9 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Can experienced editors look at this, pronto? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

AfD. Way, way too early for anything like this, even as part of an existing article. Quickly changed to redirect since I made my comment. Objective3000 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Re [19], please explain to this neophyte (i.e., me) the benefit of a redirect for a brand new term that could not possibly have any significant incoming links and contains one spelling error and one grammatical error. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

People will mistype stuff. What would you propose as an alternative? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

AfD. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please explain the benefit of an AfD for an article which has spellings errors, a grammatical error and cannot be possibly be considered encyclopedic. Prod or redirect and be done with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

True, PROD would have been good too. Like I said, I'm a redirect neophyte, and I've yet to grasp the point of trash redirects. Anyway I guess it's water-bridge at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

For example, we have redirects for common mispellings for tons of articles. Err, misspellings.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, when there are existing links using the misspellings. Or, when there is a high likelihood of a search using the misspelling. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The page was moved into userspace by its creator. I've nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Josef9/Acomplishments of the President Trump --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it is a redlink is ironically delicious. TheValeyard (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

When should the WP:Weight of the subject of Russian involvement in the election and possible collusion with Trump or Trump associates be expanded in the article?

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

Ties to Russia

Main article: Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia

See also: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Several of Trump's top advisers, including Paul Manafort and Michael T. Flynn, have strong ties to Russia. American intelligence sources have stated with "high confidence" that the Russian government attempted to intervene in the 2016 presidential election to favor the election of Trump, and that members of Trump's campaign were in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election. Trump has repeatedly praised Russian president Vladimir Putin. For these reasons, there has been intensive media scrutiny of Trump's relationship to Russia, and no direct ties were found between Trump or his businesses and the Russian government. Trump has said, "I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don't have any deals in Russia.” Trump hosted the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, in partnership with Russian billionaire Aras Agalarov. On many occasions since 1987, Trump and his children and other associates have traveled to Moscow to explore potential business opportunities, such as a failed attempt to build a Trump Tower Moscow. Between 1996 and 2008 Trump's company submitted at least eight trademark applications for potential real estate development deals in Russia. However, as of 2017 he has no known investments or businesses in Russia. Some of his real estate developments outside Russia have received a large part of their financing from private Russian investors, sometimes referred to as "oligarchs". In 2008 his son Donald Trump Jr. said "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets" and "we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia".

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

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

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

2. When should it become a major subheading?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Impeachment proceedings are started on Trump.

6a. Trump is impeached.

6b. Trump is removed from office.

7. Trump is charged with a crime.

8 Trump is found guilty.

If there are any other major options, please comment. However, big picture those are the things that could happen. So back to the original question but with the other to frame the question, when should the WP:WEIGHT of Russia's election interference and possible conclusion with Trump expand in the article? My own view is that in 50 years to 100 years, this is the thing of historical importance that is most likely to be remembered. However, I don't want to expand the subject without consensus so I wanted to get some editors thoughts. Given the direction this plausible way this may go, it would be good to get consensus now.Casprings (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Having watched Maddow tonight, I'd guess a time will come when its inclusion will become obvious. But, that's my speculative POV. As of now, I agree with the snow ending of the RfC and dislike speculation. Objective3000 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The RFC closure suggested opening this conversation. Plus I think that even if not added in the opening, there is a good argument for greater weight. Plus some general consensus now would help guide article development. Just my thoughts. Casprings (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with this discussion in a BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The RFC closure suggested opening this conversation. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I did not mean to support this kind of discussion at this time; I merely opined that it didn't belong in that RfC. I actually feel it's sound practice to cross bridges if and when we come to them, not before. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:BLP that would forbid it. What hasn't happened is clearly marked. The facts, as I understand them, are backed up in other articles and could be easily added. If WP:WLP forbids this, I am not sure where.Casprings (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure such framing of discussion would be very helpful. Current version is OK for the moment. Certainly, "every version is wrong version", and it can be gradually improved using new publications, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Now: We're at the point where the only person denying Russian involvement is Donald himself. pbp 15:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not even Trump. Trump: 'I Think' Hacking Was Russian --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Not now -- probably never - no new actual content edits proposed seems like a rerun of prior RFC without any actual or sufficient events for re-consideration, or is this a discussion of hypotheticals ? I'll suggest just look to the guidelines for answers on what gets put in then after anything does happen just follow the cites and come back only if it is something bigger than all preceeding items turns up, that can come with actual content proposal that seems to pass WP guidelines of WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:LEAD, and give something that suits the WP:LEAD neutrality requirement so it's not risking just being a partisan trolling.

Realistic guesstimate? I suspect this will probably never be able to reach the guideline levels. First, for this Biographical article context, material about other topics would be WP:OFFTOPIC, especially when there are layers of articles specifically for the 2016 election and within the election the topic of Russian interference. So this is asking about the fraction of a fraction that it matters to his life. Second, to rise to the level of being enough of the article to suit the WP:LEAD criteria seems a yet greater level so further unlikely. Some enthusiasts here may not even want it much if it is held to also complying with the neutrality guide of WP:LEAD by also mentioning the alternative views/counter-arguments. Third, I just speculate or suspect that it is unlikely for much more to turn up and even if it did it could just wind up being like the Abudin's emails flap and be a big nothing much. Markbassett (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Markbassett, I agree. James Clapper said today on Meet the Press that he has no evidence of collusion with Russia on the part of the Trump campaign (separate and apart from evidence he does have of Russia involving itself in the election). -SusanLesch (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Holistic editing

I've tried to take a holistic view of the article today, and edited accordingly. Maybe will take a closer inspection later in the week.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Section header about Russia

The section header "Ties to Russia" seems like it could be improved. The section says "no direct ties were found between Trump or his businesses and the Russian government.[394]" So I changed it to "Indirect ties to Russia" but MelanieN reverted because some investors in some of Trump's businesses are Russian. But isn't the main controversy about alleged ties to the government of Russia rather than private businessmen? Maybe we could say "Indirect ties to the Russian government"? That seems a lot more accurate than what we've got now, which suggests it's been established that Trump and Putin are joined at the hip.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick comment - for a country like Russia, a distinction between "the government" and "private businessmen" can be pretty irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Reminiscent of the title wars at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Can we assume that most readers read beyond the section heading? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think titles and headers are very important because they give a top-level summary. I don't recall being involved with titling Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations but that title seems fine. This header does not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That title seems fine to me, too. On the other side were editors who felt strongly that "sexual misconduct" was not the best descriptor of some of the alleged acts, and so the title should read "sexual misconduct and assault allegations". My response was to point to the grammatical ambiguity that would result, since he was not accused of physically striking anybody, requiring "sexual misconduct and sexual assault allegations". The lesson was that, if we assume that readers will read the title and leave before reading even the lead, there is often no end to the qualification required (or, at least, not before the title becomes unacceptably long). Similarly, I think we can allow readers to read the prose and discover exactly what we mean by "Ties to Russia". ―Mandruss ☎ 01:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Lots of people will read the Table of Contents to find stuff of particular interest, and if Russia is not of particular interest then they'll merely absorb that Russia and Trump are tied together, and go to read another section. If we can easily make this header more accurate and informative then I don't see why we shouldn't do that. Saying "ties to Russia" suggests the Russian government which is not what User:MelanieN said she means.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

In Russia, "the government" and individual wealthy Russians are heavily entangled with each other; to some extent this is a distinction without a difference. But I challenge the claim that "most of the main controversy" is about ties to the government of Russia or to Putin. That association ("joined at the hip"? really?) comes from you, not from the wording of the article. Most of our section is about business ties, which are with individuals or companies rather than the government. As long as it says "ties to Russia" rather than "ties to the Russian government", it is accurate and does not need an "alleged" or an "indirect". This is not confusing. I mean, aren't there millions of people around the world who have "ties to America" without having direct ties to the American government? --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a huge media controversy about whether Trump has ties to the Russian government. Our header seems to say "yes". You really think we should do that? Do the sources really say that there's no difference between having investors from Russia and being aligned with Putin?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I was replying to the earlier version of your reply, and I will repeat (since you may not have heard me the first time: The header does NOT seem to say he is aligned with Putin. The section does NOT seem to say that either; in fact I don't think Putin is mentioned anywhere. That's your straw man; it's not there in the article. To answer your question, yes, I "really think we should" have a section header pointing out the well established fact that he has ties to Russia. Period. --MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

He has ties to people in Russia, which is very different from saying that he has ties to the country as a whole.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You are editing too fast for me; I can't keep up. I was going to modify my comment above: the article does in fact mention his repeated praise for Putin. That's the only mention of Putin. That a far cry from claiming they are "joined at the hip" or even know each other. I am done here; you are just repeating yourself (proof by assertion?) and now so am I. Let's give other people a chance to comment. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Two of the most ballyhooed Russians Trump is tied to are the former owners of Trump International Hotel and Tower (Toronto). They left Russia around the age of 4, so saying that they are in Russia is misleading. TFD (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Are either of them mentioned in our section? --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, yes, but not by name. The section says, "Some of his real estate developments outside Russia have received a large part of their financing from private Russian investors, sometimes referred to as "oligarchs"." The sources identify these "private Russian investors" as the former owners of Trump Tower in Toronto. TFD (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

And now, Anything, you went and changed it again, to "Ties to people in Russia," even though we were discussing it here and you didn't discuss your change before implementing it. I object to that as inaccurate; it is not actually what the section is about. In fact the section mentions only one "person in Russia", namely, his partner in hosting a beauty pageant. Most of that paragraph is about his attempts to set up business dealings there ("there" = in the country, Russia, or the city, Moscow), in addition to hosting the beauty pageant there. The section absolutely is about business dealings and financial connections. It is absolutely not about his links to "people in Russia" - because he really doesn't have any such links that we know of. I am not going to revert it, because I (unlike you, apparently) respect the 1RR rule. Maybe tomorrow, if somebody doesn't revert it first. --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, I did not break 1RR as far as I know. I wrote above, "He has ties to people in Russia, which is very different from saying that he has ties to the country as a whole". You did not object so I inserted new material ("people in") which I thought would address your concern about inserting "indirect" while also addressing my concern about saying in wikivoice that Trump has ties to the country as a whole (including its leaders). I think you're wrong about 1RR, wrong to not make any attempt that address my concern, and wrong to interpret the word "people" as somehow excluding businesspeople. I don't think it's necessary, but please feel free to change the header to "Ties to people and business deals in Russia". In fact, I'll do it for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I have changed the header to "Business, financial, and other ties to people in Russia". I hope you find that more appropriate. Does anyone object to this subheader?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Too long. Just call it "Business ties to Russia" (finance is part of business, and "people" is just too vague and obvious). The main article about this subject, Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia, has kept the "business only" title by consensus after a requested move to Donald Trump's affiliations with Russia by Casprings was unanimously opposed. MelanieN correctly noted that Trump has no political ties to Russia, and that is the main allegation we should be careful not to make in the encyclopedia's voice. — JFG ^talk 07:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Works for me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Its been widely reported that numerous members of his campaign had Russian communications while the campaign continued. It isn't just business ties.Casprings (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, many people have alluded to such links, and it's been many many months without any solid proof emerging. Even James Clapper just said that the FBI, NSA and CIA investigations showed no evidence whatsoever of a collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. Time to drop the proverbial stick… — JFG ^talk 13:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Um, the White House has Jeff Sessions, Michael Fynn, etc. James Clapper said there was no evidence of collusion at the time he was directer. Investigations move and the pattern of denial and later conformation of contacts between Trump associates and Russians is significant because WP:RS comment on it. I imagine this stick won't be dropped for awhile.Casprings (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh. Just call it "Ties to Russia." There is no need to modify it or qualify it. This insistence that the heading "ties to Russia" somehow implies he is in Putin's pocket exists only in your mind. Look: If I say someone in another country has "ties to America," people don't think I am saying he is part of the government, or a golfing partner of Trump's. They know it might mean he has relatives in the United States, or maybe went to school here, or has investments here. "Ties" is a neutral word, and it well describes the situation laid out in the section: one paragraph about why this issue comes up at all, and about a couple of associates of his that have connections to Russia; and one paragraph about his attempts (so far unsuccessful) to establish business relationships there and his investments from Russian sources. Leave it as "ties" and let it go. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If someone in another country has links or ties or connections to America, it would probably help to say what kind. Vladimir Putin technically has ties to America (just like every other head of state who has received an American ambassador and every other person who has visited the USA), and a whole lot of other scattered people do too, for many scattered reasons. Direct political ties between Trump and Russia are highly disputed at this point, so if we refer to such ties in a header then we ought to make clear that they are disputed. Something like "Business ties and allegations of further ties to Russia". For now, "Business ties to Russia" is a big improvement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait, I just read the source and am I missing something or is the source being totally misrepresented? There appears to be nothing in the source [20] which says " no direct ties were found between Trump or his businesses and the Russian government." Indeed, the whole freakin' thing is about his ties to Russia, both direct and indirect (though some of them old). Removing this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Ties to Russia" is the best section header. It's open enough for ANY type of ties. Being more specific would then require creation of at least two sections ("Business ties to Russia", "Political ties to Russia", "Presidential campaign ties to Russia", "Financial ties (other than business, but pay-for-play described on page 30 of dossier related to politics) to Russia", etc.). You get the picture. Keep it short and simple. There are many types of ties to Russia mentioned in RS, and the header should be all inclusive. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Trump's ties to Russia" is a common phrase in the mainstream media (which equals RS support). Also, it is clear that some of those campaigning for Trump had contacts with Russian officials. I am pretty sure, Trump himself has talked to Russian officials with the aim of conducting real estate deals (over three decades). One example comes to mind, he had conversations with the mayor of Moscow that was notable enough to be mentioned in the mainstream reports (a paragraph's worth?). There is no need to change the section title, it seems to be as common as table salt per the main stream media. I can look for other contacts with Russian officials if people are interested (let me know).---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Politico Politifact properly deals with this. There are actual ties and there are possible ties. Just saying "ties" makes it sound like they are all confirmed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Someone went ahead and changed the section title again, anyway, before completion of this discussion [21]. I understand at the time, it may have seemed as if there was consensus to do this. But, I think it would have been OK to wait two or three days to do this, if there was agreement to do so. Also, the article entitled "Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia" is obviously topic specific, as it should be. I think this article, as a whole, has broader scope. And perhaps a good reason for maintaining "Ties to Russia" as a section title - it is broader in scope - and because it agrees with what sources say. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we want this subsection to include not just the actual, confirmed ties, but also the alleged possible ties? If so, the header should reflect both. The current header is fairly new I think. Was there previous discussion about it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Ties to Russia" is in agreement with RS. This is not an appellate court. Parsing words is not content policy and behavior guideline recommended editing. Also, there is no emergency here, although some editors act as though this is the case. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Is Politico Politifact a reliable source?[22]. And, to repeat my previous question, do we want this subsection to include not just the actual confirmed ties, but also the alleged possible ties? If so, the header should reflect that, no?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This is from that Politifact source: [23]

Claim 3: Members of Trump’s inner circle were in contact with Russian intelligence officials throughout the campaign. Evidence: The main source for the latest news on this topic is the New York Times, which based its Feb. 14, 2017, report on four unnamed American officials. The officials told New York Times reporters that phone records show Trump associates communicated with senior Russian officials — including Trump’s one-time campaign chair Paul Manafort — but they have not found these calls to be evidence of collusion to disrupt the election.

This is from the WP: [24] "The New York Times and CNN are both reporting that members of Donald Trump's campaign spoke with Russia frequently during the campaign."

This is from the NYT: [25]

Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials. American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

And so on... Steve Quinn (talk)

You linked to Politifact, not Politico. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. Obviously, the Politifact headline is "The possible ties between Trump and Russia, explained". Notice that they qualify the word "ties". Steve, you appear to be avoiding every single question I ask you. Is Politifact a reliable source? Do we want this subsection to include not just the actual confirmed ties, but also the alleged possible ties? If so, the header should reflect that, no? Do we want to broadly cover all communications between Russia and his campaign or his administration? What is the scope?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think, yes, Politifact is a reliable source, The short header "Ties to Russia" reflects all possible relationships to Russia pertaining to Trump and any Trump associates that are newsworthy.

I think User:BullRangifer has summed it up really well (see above). This is right on point. ""Ties to Russia" is the best section header. It's open enough for ANY type of ties. Being more specific would then require creation of at least two sections ("Business ties to Russia", "Political ties to Russia", "Presidential campaign ties to Russia", "Financial ties (other than business, but pay-for-play described on page 30 of dossier related to politics) to Russia", etc.). You get the picture. Keep it short and simple. There are many types of ties to Russia mentioned in RS, and the header should be all inclusive." Steve Quinn (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A possible tie is not necessarily a tie. Just like a possible elephant in your back yard is not necessarily an elephant in your back yard. That is why the Politifact headline hedges. We do not hedge because we are POV-pushing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you ask "Is Politifact a reliable source?" Yes, it's an extremely RS. Fact checking websites are generally the highest tier level of reliability here and elsewhere, except in the White House. There they are considered fake news. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Ties to Russia" You have multiple types of ties. 1. Campaign ties: Russia intervened in the election to support Trump. Multiple people connected with Trump were in contact with Russian connected groups, including Roger Stone,Manfafort, and others. 2. Trump has multiple business ties. 3. His administration and campaign had policy ties, including removing language from the GOP platform, etc. Casprings (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If Trump did not request and did not even know that Russia hacked Podesta, then that is hardly a "tie". Manafort was fired, and anyway a tie between Manafort and Russia is not necessarily a tie between Trump and Russia. Trump's business ties to Russians seem to all pre-date 2016 and so should be in past tense. I don't know about removal of platform language. I do know there's a strong effort here to tie Trump to Russia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• I'm responding to Anythingyouwant's question, which is now so much higher in the thread that it is likely to be overlooked - and they asked it twice so it deserves an answer. Do we want this subsection to include not just the actual, confirmed ties, but also the alleged possible ties? If so, the header should reflect both. Answer: the section now includes only "the actual, confirmed ties". Nobody has tried to add "alleged possible ties" at this point, and we certainly will not be adding any "allegations" without strong RS support, per BLP. So the concern about "alleged possible ties" seems irrelevant at this point unless and until strong evidence comes along. But having raised that possibility, all the more reason why the title should be an unqualified "ties" rather than having to keep modifying it constantly ("this kind of ties, oh, and now that kind of ties"). The article now says "Business ties to Russia", a change which was made in the middle of this discussion (there has been way too much of that here). Let's leave it alone until we get consensus here. Shall we choose between "Business ties to Russia" and "Ties to Russia", are those the main candidates now? I'll set up an informal poll below. Discussion can continue here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want the section to stick to actual verified ties, then all of the following should be deleted because it is pure unverified insinuation or speculation (my comments in brackets): "Several of Trump's top advisers, including Paul Manafort and Michael T. Flynn who had official positions before Trump replaced them, have strong ties to Russia [That two fired aides had ties to Russia does not mean Trump did or does]. American intelligence sources have stated with 'high confidence' that the Russian government attempted to intervene in the 2016 presidential election to favor the election of Trump [which does not indicate that Trump was tied to it], and that members of Trump's campaign were in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election [and they were also in touch with many other countries which we do not say Trump is tied to because mere communication does not imply 'ties']."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That material (all of which is well sourced) is included for the reason stated in that paragraph: to explain why this has become an issue. "For these reasons, there has been intensive media scrutiny of Trump's relationship to Russia." It is not intended to, and does not, allege anything about Trump's own personal ties to Russia; it is explaining why anyone is even looking into it. That is followed by a paragraph which explains exactly what is on the record about Trump's own involvement. There is no "insinuation" and no "speculation". --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're looking for a broad, non-accusatory header then "Relationship to Russia" would be fine. But I don't think that's what people here are looking for. The goal here seems to be a header that implies Trump is tied to the country of Russia including its leaders and/or that he is linked to all of the things discussed in the first paragraph of the section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't impute motives to other people, particularly when they are based on your reading things into the article that are not there. The goal here is to accurately reflect what Reliable Sources say and what readers are trying to find out, while complying with Wikipedia policies such as BLP. It is YOUR inference that the word "ties" somehow means connected to the Russian government. There is absolutely nothing in the article that supports that inference. (And wouldn't "relationship with Russia" be worse?) --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Worse? You yourself said at 20:08, regarding the unsubstantiated suspicions about Trump that are described at the start of this section: "For these reasons, there has been intensive media scrutiny of Trump's relationship to Russia" (emphasis added). And then when I suggest we use that exact language in the header (which you misquote as "relationship with Russia") it's suddenly worse than the current header? I don't buy it. "Relationship to Russia" is vastly more NPOV because it does not suggest that he is tied to that country, or was tied to that country during the 2016 campaign (which is a very serious accusation to make in wikivoice, and I've already pointed to a Politifact article that more cautiously refers in its headline to "possible" ties).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If you seriously think "Relationship" would be a better title or somehow more neutral than "Ties" I will add it to the choices. Still harping on "unsubstantiated suspicions about Trump that are described at the start of the section"? This will be the last time I point out that they don't exist except in your mind. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems a bit late for that, unless you re-start the poll. Maybe I'll do an RFC later. You said above that the stuff in the first paragraph "is not intended to, and does not, allege anything about Trump's own personal ties to Russia" and in that sense it does not substantiate anything about his alleged ties to Russia. That's what I meant by unsubstantiated, and it certainly is not all in my head. I think you're also missing that this subheader is in the 2016 election section, and will therefore be taken as a statement that Trump had ties to Russia during the 2016 campaign, which is also unsubstantiated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Informal poll

Informal poll: "Ties to Russia" or "Business ties to Russia" ? Or (newly added third choice) "Relationship to Russia"?

• "Ties to Russia". --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• It depends what material is in the section. If the section contains insinuation and speculation beyond business ties (as it does now), then "Business ties to Russia" is inadequate, but so is "Ties to Russia". Otherwise "Business Ties to Russia" is adequate. My preference is a broad, non-accusatory header such as Relationship to Russia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Ties to Russia regardless of what material is in the section. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Ties to Russia - and can someone explain to me how that "no direct ties to Russia" part managed to sneak in there, misrepresenting the source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That was a good edit on your part. I don't know how it got there. I just started looking at this section yesterday. The statement may be supported by other sources, however.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ties to Russia - as stated before, this is non-neutral and well supported in hundreds of reliable sources. There are more ties to Russia than just business. --- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Scjessey: As I understand it, non-neutral is to be avoided. Maybe you meant neutral? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, quite right. Brain fail. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ties to Russia this suffices for covering all possible relationships between Trump, his associates, his underlings and Russia. In contrast, Business ties to Russia is too narrow in scope for this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Ties to Russia seems most appropriate at this point. CBS527^Talk 22:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Ties to Russia - Ties is a good general term inclusive of a multitude of sins connections. It is a neutral term. Objective3000 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment as I mentioned above, the section also discusses ties to "Russians," which includes people who left Russia when they were around 4 years old. TFD (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Ties to Russia works best. It is neutral and leaves the section open for covering the many types of real and alleged ties mentioned in RS. (The suggestion to not include alleged ties, even when discussed in RS, is totally against multiple policies, including BLP. We include what RS say, and if they touch on BLP issues we use the proper language and attribution, but we do NOT....EVER...leave them out. That would be one of the most serious types of NPOV violations one can make. Editorial censorship is not allowed.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course, "ties to Russia" implies actual ties. If the section covers alleged ones, the heading ought to say so, or the heading should be broad enough to include alleged ones. Truth in advertising and all that....Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

"Politician" in the opening line

Hi, apologies for errors - I haven't attempted this before.

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

"Politician" seems superfluous and inaccurate. Trump is a politician by virtue of being POTUS but has famously held no other political office (for which it seems he is admired and denigrated in equal measure). I feel the addition of the word makes the sentence more inaccurate than if it were omitted. Garnett F (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Garnett F: thanks for your suggestion. This issue was debated extensively and the current exact phrasing is approved by consensus. See top of page, item 11, in particular this archived debate which established the current wording. Of course consensus can change and you are free to make a reasoned suggestion explaining why the text should be amended and calling for other editors' opinions. — JFG ^talk 13:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the preceding but I think any new argument should be a new argument; i.e., not raised in the prior discussions that form the consensus. Otherwise we're just re-hashing. Maybe things need to be revisited eventually with the same arguments, in case people's views have changed, but not within just a few months. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is redundant. If we say in the first sentence that he is the U.S. president, then there is no need to say he is also a politician, if he is a politician only because he is the U.S, president. TFD (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with The Four Deuces. No need to mention the typo of politician and then explain that he is a politician, when that is the only type of politician he has been. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)

We've already had this discussion at length. "Politician" must remain, particularly because he was "politicking" long before he became a president. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Not an official concensus but I support Scjessey's reasoning. IVORK _Discuss 23:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what "we" discussed at length if the "our" conclusions were wrong. No one else who never won office (except Jill Stein) are referred to as politicians. The only reason it was added to those articles was to help Clinton overcome their status as non-politicians running for president. We're supposed to be writing informative articles not pushing DNC talking points. TFD (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what "we" discussed at length if the "our" conclusions were wrong. That's very tangled logic, and not very Wikipedian. Consensus conclusions are "right" by virtue of being consensus conclusions. And we don't spend a large amount of editor time and sweat to form a clear consensus, only to resurrect the issue a couple of months later, starting over from zero, because some editors disagree with the consensus, one even outright declaring it "wrong". Arguments very similar to yours were raised and rejected by the consensus, and your claim about DNC talking points is baseless AGF failure, which is the antithesis of Wikipedian. I wouldn't personally oppose revisiting this in an RfC after more time has passed, as I suggested above; maybe around September. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: After some painstaking research, Scjessey and I did come to the conclusion that Trump was indeed a "politician". To wit, he had been "active in party politics" off-and-on since February 2011.

It's true that the article first identified him as a "politician" on March 2, 2016, during the heat of the campaign. But by that time, he had become far more active. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

He's been active in politics for years, there are plenty of sources describing him as a politician (even before he was elected), and in that long, rambling press conference he gave recently, he said this: "I can't believe I'm saying I'm a politician, but I guess that's what I am now." - Trump refers to himself as a politician, and so it's case closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That is an extremely flawed argument. After implying repeatedly that Trump's statements are unreliable, you now cite him as a reliable source. What makes sources reliable is not whether or not they express what we want to put into articles. While I don't question that some people may use the term politician to refer to aspiring or unsuccessful politicians, it is not what most readers would understand and the Manual of Style says, "Avoid ambiguity." TFD (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a flawed argument. It's an argument we've already had, and one where we decided "politician" should stay in. The reason for this is that he is a politician, and there are plenty of reliable sources that state this obvious fact. He's arguably the most famous politician in the world at the moment, so it would be ludicrous to pretend he isn't one. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The question is not merely whether he is or is not a politician, but whether we should have the redundant word included in the lengthy lead when his only role as a politician (i.e. 45th President of the United States) is mentioned already. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It is standard on articles about presidents to include the word politician. "Politician" refers to the occupation, whereas "President" refers to the specific job title. They are different things. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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.[27]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In this edit [28], 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 [29] 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)

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)

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 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.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"Other businesses" header and other headers

I think we ought to change the header "Other businesses" to "Business career beyond real estate". That matches up better with other headers like "Real estate career" and "Media career" and "Political career". It is also a better standalone header (i.e. "Other businesses" raises the question "other than what?").Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally there's a lot of overlap between two separate subsections of this BLP, titled respectively "Branding and licensing" and "Name licensing". That needs to be fixed somehow. Probably the best way would be to merge the two subsections into one subsection under "Business career beyond real estate". Some of the licensing is for real estate properties but those properties are owned by other people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to consider whether all his businesses are notable though. His world famous real estate career is obviously notable, but this article should not just be a listing of everything he has licensed his name to. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing that listing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and made these changes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine

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)

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)