Talk:Donald Trump

Open RfCs and surveys

None

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Too pointy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump as a gun owner

Apparently Trump is or was wont to carry a gun, and has a concealed carry permit. This might be worth a mention, although I don't see where it might currently fit: "Missing from the gun debate: Trump's own experience with concealed carry". POLITICO. Retrieved 1 March 2018. Sandstein 17:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Kind of interesting, I did not know that about him. We mention gun control under Donald_Trump#Domestic_policy in social issues. Perhaps something there about his background with it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Something like 15.7 million of such. Kind of trivial for this large an article. As Sandstein says, maybe in his domestic policy article. O3000 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Trump's gun control position is mentioned in the lede of Social policy of Donald Trump, but not in the body of that article (which is a startling omission). Anyway, that would be the correct place to mention it, if at all. Too trivial for this article, unless we pair it with "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters." -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'm surprised that quote has not gotten more play by RS. Probably to busy looking at the next shiney to go back on stuff like that. But your suggestion for Social policy sounds like a good one. PackMecEng (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The quote was covered everywhere, including all the reliable mainstream media outlets (old and new media), so I'm not sure what you mean by "more play". -- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Because relatively speaking it did not last long. Sure at the time, like everything Trump does, it was all over. But like everything else Trump something shiny came up and they got distracted. PackMecEng (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Got lots more than Doc. Jacson and the senility screening. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Employee bonuses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tariffs

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

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

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

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

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

Please help me change this

The page is protected so I can't edit it, but for the sake of readability I think it would be good to change "blood pressure and liver and thyroid function" to "blood pressure as well as liver and thyroid function" -- thanks! 101.15.34.67 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! You can request edits like this by clicking the view source tab and then clicking the "submit an edit request" button Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Too fast. I was working on a mini-essay explaining why those two additional words couldn't be justified. But if you think so. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think its slightly better Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of RS content

This edit [2] removes well-sourced content from the now-eviscerated section captioned "Russia". This matter is one of the central ongoing issues concerning Trump personally and officially. It is widely discussed every day in the global news media. This content and its citation and footnote should be restored unless consensus can be demonstrated to keep it out of the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Salient comments removed

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

This deletion by JFG removed this content:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related AfD may be of interest

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

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

Source for Russia-related stuff

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

Greek symbols in infobox

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