Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Election summary in lead: further actions

Trying to summarize where we are standing after the latest round of discussion:

• The paragraph summarizing the election in the lead should remain short;
• Most of the current wording is stable and agreed upon;
• The last part mentioning the popular vote situation keeps being discussed.

There are three proposals on the table on how to phrase this last part:

• (A) the fifth elected with a smaller share of the popular vote
• (B) the fifth to lose the popular vote
• (C) the fifth to receive fewer votes than his opponent

plus the status quo option:

• (S) the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote

Judging by the perennial re-ignition of this debate, it seems that the (S) option is unsatisfactory to a number of regular editors and new readers coming to the talk page; however it was also deemed "not too bad" and the last RfC resulted in no consensus, so we kept the status quo. There is also agreement that circuitous discussion among a small group of regulars here has reached the limits of the consensus-building effort, becoming repetitive and counter-productive. The logical next step would be to submit one or several variants above to RfC. My opinion is that any RfC should offer a binary choice, otherwise it is pretty much guaranteed to end up with no consensus again. No matter what we do next, the goal should be to establish a firm enough consensus about this phrasing so it can be confidently listed in the #Current consensus section.

Amicably resolved dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG (talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: JFG. You said, "Judging by the perennial re-ignition of this debate. . .. You are the one perennially setting the match to it. Please stop. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC) @SW3 5DL: Wrong. The prior long debate #Neither candidate won a popular majority was started by Anythingyouwant and I didn't make a single comment there. And the latest thread #Changes without consensus; time to move on? was in fact started by… yourself! — JFG talk 22:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) That's not true. I reverted changes made to the article that did not have consensus and mentioned it on the talk page. Anythingyouwant then went on to pursue changes and was not successful. Immediately after he left the page, YOU then opened up the Consensus proposal," section above, and you offered a new version. Not me. And note well, you offered two suggestions that say the same thing with a small word change, fewer to smaller. Then you suggested another RfC because it was clear to you those suggestions had no support, while the one I offered was gaining support. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC) What's wrong with offering a potential consensus wording after reading a debate? I though that's the reason we have Talk pages… And my suggesting an RfC was actually inspired by your suggesting an RfC last time. The only difference is that you rushed your preferred versions to RfC whereas I'm asking the regulars whether they think the time is right to open an RfC. I would appreciate if you stopped criticizing my actions, up to suggesting a TBAN (for what offense?), and focus on gaining consensus about the text instead, irrespective of who proposed which version. — JFG talk 22:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Now, let's take a poll for what to do next:

• Option 1: do nothing, stop discussing this;
• Option 2: pick the "best two" variants among A, B and C, and submit them to RfC; if one of them wins, it gains established consensus status, otherwise nothing changes;
• Option 3: pick only one of the A B C variants at random (say A), and pit it against status quo S in an RfC; if that fails, repeat with variant B; if that fails, repeat with variant C; if that fails, S remains and gains established consensus status;
• Option 4: eliminate one of the ABC variants by local consensus of regulars, then apply option 3 with the two remaining variants.

What do you all think? — JFG ^talk 11:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Poll responses

• Option 2, submitting B and C to RfC. — JFG ^talk 11:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 5 - delete this unnecessary and overcomplicated new section that actually misses other wording choices and continue the discussion in the previous section! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Best Option: Support topic ban for JFG. At this very moment, the article needs emergent attention as it is on the brink, stuffed as it is with nit-picking nonsense edits. This is another example of that. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• None of the above Continue the discussion above, where we are very close to choosing an option we can all live with. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I'd love it if we all "regulars" could agree on a wording (although from experience I doubt we can), but that would still have to go to RfC to establish firm consensus. And we do have an option we can all live with: it's called "Option 1" in the poll, do nothing. — JFG ^talk 22:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The current wording is the worst of all possible options in my book, so it is not something I can "live with" if I can help it. Anyhow, in discussion above we have pretty much agreed on Option B (reluctantly in some cases, but still accepted) and we should be about ready to move forward with an RfC pitting Option B vs. Option S. I don't think we need to start the winnowing-down process all over again; we have been doing that for many thousands of words already. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I agree that the (S) version is awkward, but the fact is we have been living with it for quite some time now, much though we'd like to have something more elegant eventually. About the RfC, although many editors have shown flexibility on the exact wording, I think there is a fundamental chasm between those who want to state the notion of winning or losing the popular vote and those who can't support giving such weight to this non-existent contest in the US presidential system. Which is why I suggest to pit a "lost popular vote" version against a "gained fewer votes" version in a widely-advertised RfC, to settle this once and for all. The best two wordings for those two views of the world are imho B and C, which is why I suggested putting those up. — JFG ^talk 21:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I seem to remember that there were multiple variations proposed on the "fewer votes," "smaller share", etc. approach. Was there ever a consensus for some version of that - comparable to the consensus several of us finally reached on "fifth to lose the popular vote"? Were there multiple people proposing "fewer", "smaller", etc. versions, and did they reach agreement on how to word it? --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Reading the latest round of discussion, I see that the "fewer votes" version (C) was supported by CFCF, Scjessey, yourself and myself + opposed by SW3 5DL, whereas the "lost popular vote" version (B) was supported by yourself, Scjessey, SW3 5DL and Objective3000, and rejected by me. That's 4 "regulars" supporting and 1 opposing each version, with an overlap of 2 people who would support both. We can scrap the "smaller share" version (A) because it evolved into the "fewer votes" version (C) in the discussion (same meaning, more support). Again, this shows that we should put (B) and (C) to an RfC focusing on the merits of the message conveyed (lost the popular vote or received fewer votes), not to nitpick on the exact wording which is imho clear and concise in both variants. — JFG ^talk 05:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Although I slightly prefer B, I'm OK with B or C. Objective3000 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; so we are standing at +4 -1 for (B) and +5 -1 for (C), with an overlap of 3 people. Methinks the RfC should be restarted cleanly with options B and C to choose from, and then we can relax for 30 days until the outcome is settled… MelanieN, what do you think? — JFG ^talk 20:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

What would we do about the people who have already !voted in the malformed RfC below? --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Simply ping them to !vote again. — JFG ^talk 20:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: We're not going back to 'fewer.' He did not get fewer votes. He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. In other words, "he lost the popular vote," which Melanie has already agreed to in the RfC. Leave it be. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Or in other words, he got 3 million fewer votes. There are two ways to say it, but one focuses on the vote count while the other focuses on winning/losing something. I know your opinion and you know mine, regulars are roughly evenly split, so putting these two versions to RfC sounds to me like the best way to cement a defensible consensus and move on. — JFG ^talk 20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

. . .and the fifth to lose the popular vote gets ride of plurality, and would settle it for good, imo, since "fewer' or 'smaller' will invite changes. "and the fifth after losing the popular vote' is misleading. He won the election because he won the Electoral College not because he lost the popular vote. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Look, SW3, those of us who preferred "after losing" have agreed (in some cases grudgingly) to settle for "lost" just to get this thing over. "After losing" doesn't even seem to be on the table any more. There is no need for you to continue to argue that point, and it could become annoying if you continue to do so. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Huh? What are you talking about? You're responding to a post made 2 days ago. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Pay attention to the time stamp. Both you and JFG have displaced my comment and you are responding to it as I just commented to both your newest posts. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, you wrote: "He did not get fewer votes." Actually he did get fewer votes from voters. The popular vote represents the actual number of votes cast in the election.

(Well, that's not really true, because the exit polls tell that story. Also, several million voters were prevented from voting, most of whom would have voted blue. That's known as voter suppression. Because of the consistent "red shift", blue states, where most voters actually voted blue, still ended up with red majority counts, so something happened between the exit polls and the final counts, something that cannot be explained by simple counting errors. This has been going on in all elections every two years since at least 2000, and it always goes from blue to red. That's why experts on exit polls don't use the term "blue shift". It doesn't exist. If the difference was because of counting errors, it would also favor blue at times, but it always favors red, so the GOP has totally rigged the system, and those who are elected benefited from it. They are the only ones who can change that, so they won't do it.)

So we have the final votes by voters giving a significant majority to Clinton, but because of the way the electoral college system works (for example, in Wyoming one voter equals four votes [1] ), when the electors met later, they gave a majority to Trump. A candidate who understands this system is wise to cater to the small states where voters have more voting power.

So Trump DID get fewer votes...from voters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2017

Where it sates many of his class were false in the introductory paragraphs, please change it to "some" and say "allegedly," as it is a matter of political opinion. trainsandtech (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template.. Pppery 22:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Declined. Please see Consensus #7 under Current consensuses above. ) --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

problematic source regarding Trump having loans in Russia

There is a TIME magazine source in the section Ties To Russia that says Trump had a bankruptcy so American banks refused to lend him anymore money so he had to get loans in Russia.

First, why would Russians give him loans? Russia isn't a rich country even today. In the early 1990s Russia's economy was in the toilet and a tiny fraction the size of America's economy at the time. And why would Russians lend money to an American if Americans would not do so?

Second, in the early 1990s Yeltsin was in power. Putin was not a high ranking government official at the time. This source mentions these Russian financiers were in the close circle of Putin rather than Yeltsin. Now that makes no sense at all.

Third, no names of the Russian financiers were mentioned. So it appears this source is dubious at best, and the information presented is not accurate or even not factual.

I suggest double check that source http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

I appears to be a hit piece during the election that not only makes zero sense, but also lacks credibility especially considering it hides the names of the supposed Russian financiers it knows so well about.

216.165.194.92 (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Time article quotes an L.A. Times article: "Trump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies." Is there some reason to suspect that either Time magazine or the L.A. Times is lying about this? Generally they are considered reliable sources. I don't see how failure to name specific Russian financiers makes either source "dubious". Sundayclose (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Does it mention when this supposed event supposedly took place? Trump's bankruptcies were in the early 1990s. At the time, Russia just emerged from the dissolution of USSR and its economy was in the toilet and it was undergoing turmoil, having no constitution. If Americans did not lend to him, why would Russians lend to him considering Russians had very little funds to spare on an American. Furthermore, post the early 1990s Trump did very well in business and had no more bankruptcies and began to quickly expand his businesses. Third, Putin was nowhere close to being in the high levels of government in the early 1990s, so why would these supposed Russians who lent money to Trump be close to Putin? None of this story makes any logical sense whatsoever.

216.165.194.92 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Concluding that Russia's economy was bad and therefore no Russian would finance Trump is quite a leap of logic, not to mention a gross violation of WP:SYN. A bad economy does not prevent individual investors who may have lots of money despite the economy from doing whatever they wish with their money. Again, do you have any specific evidence that Time magazine or the L.A. Times lied? Or do you have specific evidence that contradicts the sources? We need a lot more here than your speculative assumptions to remove a well sourced statement. Sundayclose (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Time source has inadequate information, suggesting it is a lying hit piece. No names. No dates. No nothing. If it is genuine, why hide? Considering during an election politicians pay big money to come up with hit pieces, we at wikipedia have every right to be careful and vet sources before including them in an article, even if an article was published in a RS, rather than blindly including any source that was published in an RS.

216.165.194.92 (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This IP user is just a "mainstream media is fake news!" stuck on repeat mode. Stop feeding it and move on, this is not valid criticism of a source. TheValeyard (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Loans from national banks are public information. If Trump does or did have loans in Russia, yeah, people would know about. Since no one knows about it, that means this source is fake and Trump never had loans in Russia. Simple as a b c. 216.165.194.92 (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you are sincere but you are giving us nothing but your opinions that the sources are lying or that no Russian would have financed Trump. Wikipedia doesn't work that way because it is original research. You or anyone has the right to doubt anything, but without a reliable source to back up your opinions, like all our opinions they are meaningless on Wikipedia. I have a lot of opinions about the content of Wikipedia, but if I don't have a reliable source to back up my opinions I keep them to myself. If we wrote articles based on individual editors' opinions, Wikipedia would be a chaotic mess. I hope you will read a few articles to see how reliable sources work. You might be able to make some good contributions. Thanks for expressing your opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This is based on semantics. Nobody says that Trump has loans from the Russian government or a Russian national bank (if there is such a thing). What he does have, and it has been reported by many sources, is large loans from wealthy individuals in Russia (what are referred to as oligarchs). When he says he has no connections with "Russia" he may be speaking the truth. But he has many, many financial connections with "Russians". Even his son has admitted that. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Widely reported in RS, along with discussion that such loans are not subject to any governmental regulation and that they are not subject to credit or capital requirements of regulated banks. Also, there's really no particular problem with one dude borrowing some coin from another. SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, there's really no particular problem with one dude borrowing some coin from another. Assuming no sanctions problems, efforts to hide liabilities, or efforts to hide conflicts of interest. Not saying any of these exist in this case. Objective3000 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree, that was good restore of important and well sourced info. This conflict of interest has been reported so widely. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree the restoration of this section was appropriate and it is important to have such a section. However, I felt the section as it stood was poorly organized and didn't even make clear why we were including it. I have proposed a rewrite; see above under "Proposed rewrite". --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In this case an article by Jeff Nesbit, a free lance author, in Time Magazine quotes an op-ed (clearly labelled as such) by Max Boot in the LA Times. The relevant policy is "News organizations." Whether or not the assertions are true, they must be treated as opinions, not facts, of partisan writers. TFD (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The Nesbit/Time article is not cited in the current (rewritten) paragraph. Neither is the Max Boot op-ed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition

May I add the following to this article? No matter about the past, President Trump said clearly during his press conference that he has no dealings with Russia. I think it is important to take him at his word instead of arranging a bunch of sentences like we have in Donald_Trump#Affiliations with Russia that never reach a conclusion. I hope NPR is acceptable as a news source: they published a transcript and I don't know of any criticism of their reporting by either the right or left. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In a February 16, 2017 press conference, Trump said, "And 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."

References

What Trump said in that quote is not a rebuttal to the sources given in Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia, which detail 3 decades of meetings, trips, proposals and failed initiatives. Trump's rebuttal seems to be a straw-man argument, honestly. ValarianB (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this should be added to the article Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia, if it hasn't been already. I also think it should be added to our existing paragraph - without removing any of the existing material. But let's talk about that paragraph in our article. It certainly doesn't deserve a level-one heading of its own. Maybe it could be a subsection under "careers" or the "election" section? --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree on inclusion, and also on the level-one heading, and the content overall. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. If you can improve this I hope you will. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Should be added, but the section needs to be re-titled and re-written. Trump has no affiliations with Russia, although he has had business dealings with people in Russian although fewer than he has had with people in Canada, the UK and many other countries. It is an allegation against him and should be treated as such. TFD (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose — A primary source, and is rebutted by numerous reliable secondary sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

See Fact-checking Donald Trump's Feb. 16 press conference — Politifact

Umm, what are you opposing? The proposal here is to include Donald Trump's own comment about connection with Russia. He would normally be allowed to speak for himself though a primary source. You think we should not allow him to speak? Has his disavowal been "rebutted"? --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Its inclusion of course. He is allowed to speak for himself, but there is no reason why this merits inclusion on Wikipedia — especially as there is evidence of a him expressing a large degree of falsehood. Better to cite sources that are known to be reliable — which in this case indicate what was said is likely false or at least dubious. As it stands you are including an objectively unreliably source; which is only subjectively notable — without giving as much as a nod to reliably sourced refutation. While there may not be articles refuting this specific iteration of the claim, it's been repeated over and over — and any reliably sourced refutation is enough. In its current form the section is WP:UNDUE.

See:

• Fact-checking Trump's claim that he has no business ties to Russia Vox
• Inside Trump’s financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin — Washington Post

What's also notable is how the statement is a tautology — if we're to take him by his word that he has left, resigned, stepped down, or passed on ownership of all his companies — that means he has no business dealings anywhere. This clearly does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

We do report, in multiple articles, that he said he was resigning all management positions with his companies, but that he is retaining his ownership interests. He still has plenty of business interests. Following the lead of Reliable Sources, we report his saying that he does not have an active management role in his businesses. But he still owns them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per CF. Keiiri (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The title of the section has been changed to "Ties to Russia" which is better IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: What about changing it to "Alleged ties to Russia." SW3 5DL (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think his ties to Russia are too well established for that. Some of the ties are through third parties, but there is plenty of evidence for his own direct connections. For example, holding a beauty pageant in Russia is a tie, isn't it? And we have the word of Donald Trump Jr. that "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets." [2]--MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yupp, the existence of ties is not alleged. Their implications are debatable, but not their existence. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: A beauty pageant 'tie' is a business tie. It does not make him a member of the Russian government. All I'm suggesting is that it be clear we are not suggestion any tie to the government. He is not a secret agent, he is not from Russia, he has no family in Russia. He did what other business leaders have done, he took advantage of the business opportunities in Russia. .SW3 5DL (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely correct, as much business-folk avoid Russia — in large part because being successful (that is turning a profit) is said to require going through the Russian government. In addition to that most (if not all) oligarchs have direct ties to the Kremlin, which means that any business-associate large enough to deal with Trump constitutes a government tie. There are ample sources stating this, and I would believe you were at least aware of the position. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Navigating a country's policies for doing business inside that country does not make any businessman a member of that country's government. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @SW3 5DL: Your logical fallacy is: strawman. Nobody has claimed that he is a "member of the Russian government" or a "secret agent" or "from Russia" or any of that. There is nothing in the article, or in this discussion, to suggest anything like this. We are pointing out the obvious, well documented fact that he has TIES to Russia. He certainly seems to have business ties, as well as more personal ties through third parties. He has denied having any business ties to Russia (specifically that he owns nothing there, has no loans there, and has no deals there; that could be strictly true and yet leave open other possible ties). I would like to include his denial in the article for balance, but there is not yet consensus in this discussion to do so. -MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. SW3, did you leave out the word "not" from your last sentence? --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. What I meant is that it seems it can be construed as Trump colluding with the Russians, as some news outlets and politicians are suggesting. That's their strawman, not mine. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think anyone has said that Trump was a member of the Russian government. When it comes to aspects of doing business in Russia, all one needs to do is look to the sources. A good overview, which does not relate to Trump [3] states:

State-owned enterprises dominate all the strategic sectors, such as energy, transport and banking, and account for about half of GDP. Taking this as a starting point, this article examines the informal [business] rules and practices that have developed in Russia. The paper first investigates the specific characteristics of these rules and practices. In particular, it focuses on systematic corruption, systemic favouritism and institutional ambiguity as the main political risks.

That article may give you an inkling as to what is meant when articles discussing Trumps Russian business ties state they are embroidled with government. Quite a few newspapers have referred to that paper. A simpler overview may be from the NYT Pervasive Corruption in Russia Is 'Just Called Business'

I'm not linking these because I'm suggesting they belong in the article or provide in-depth analysis of Trump's dealings, but they may give some insight. Other articles are less in depth about these issues, but relate more strongly to Trump's connections.

Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Has a decision been taken to delete SusanLesch's edit here? It seemed it was okay early on, but as far as removing, it seems that's not been decided yet, the arguments against are still ongoing, or so I thought. What is the objection at Trump speaking for himself? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There has not been a decision. SusanLesch added it; Carl Fredrik deleted it; per the Discretionary Sanctions we will need consensus before we can re-add it. I personally don't understand the objections to it, but discussion is still ongoing. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw, I didn't re-add per the ds. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"C-class. The article may ... need editing for ... balance ... or contain policy violations, such as bias." The sources in this particular section date back no further than six months, a common sign of a news spike. As for the image (dated February 16), I think it helps a dispassionate reader understand why the article itself has occasional overtones of spirited protest. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. Sorry I had never heard of discretionary sanctions until now. This policy sounds all right to me, in that a minority view can conceivably prevail. Please correct me if I overlooked something, but Carl Fredrik seems to be the only person here who disagrees with including the quote. Carl, I don't live in a country in which the president is not a reliable source, and I think any reporter working for any reliable source is as likely to speak with a forked tongue as he is (you might recall for example, Judith Miller and The New York Times). You have cited several secondary discussions of the press conference. I am in favor of any one of them as long as some of the president's actual words are part of what we add. Also, per WP:WELLKNOWN, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." (Here by "reported" the guidelines mean included.) So I leave it to you. Can you please select a source that you like and re-add the quote? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There is at least one other use above opposing the passage. I think a quote is undue in part because it carries with it a lot of rhetoric and the article is already running rather long. I would prefer something like:

Trump has As of February 2017 denied any current deals, ownership or loans in Russia, however multiple sources have discussed his previous business dealings with Russia, some of which were with figures close to Putin and the Kremlin.

Thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Instead of paraphrasing him and then immediately, in the same sentence, contradicting him, we should use his actual quote and let it stand. The previous information in the paragraph has already explained his previous business dealings in detail, it would be UNDUE to expound it again just as a way of rebutting him. (P.S. His quote is very short and simple; it does not contain "a lot of rhetoric"; and your paraphrase-plus-rebuttal is actually longer.) I think we should re-insert his quote at the end of the paragraph.--MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree. The proposed edit sounds like we're saying we don't believe his statement because sources can prove he's a liar and they can prove he's always been in cahoots with the Russians. Support reinstating quote at end of paragraph as MelanieN suggests. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That is what we're saying. There is too little mention of Russian business dealings as is, and we are only aggravating this problem by including his statement — especially so as it is WP:RECENTISM. He's said this more than once, why choose to include it now? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi CFCF. To answer your question, I proposed this now because the press conference where he said this was the first of his presidency (or at least the first one I noticed). I agree with MelanieN and SW3 5DL. Your suggestion started out helpful but got derailed at "however multiple sources...". Using Reuters, which is an independent agency as far as I know, how about the following? Much shorter than your proposal. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

In a February 2017 press conference, Trump 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."

References

This quote looks representative and WP:DUE to me. Trump has repeated this stance dozens of times, so that an attributed direct quote is better than paraphrase-plus-weaseling-innuendo. We should present the accusations and the denials equally; readers can make up their mind without hand-holding. — JFG ^talk 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this is appropriate, because it entirely ignores all the reliably sourced comments discussing how Trump has done quite a lot of business with Russia — and how if we are to take him by his word, should not even be aware of whether he has deals with Russia or not.
Two strong sources that could be used:

• For Trump, Three Decades of Chasing Deals in Russia — NY Times
• Contradicting Trump on Russia: Russian Officials — NY Times — actually discusses his recent quote and why it is incorrect:

“I have nothing to do with Russia,” he told reporters on Thursday. “To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.”
The denial stands at odds with statements by Russian officials, who have at least twice acknowledged contacts with aides to Mr. Trump before the election.

Best, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Carl Fredrik, please stop trying to include a rebuttal as part of Trump's denials. The Russian officials, the FBI revelations, the comment by Donald Trump Jr., the longstanding Russia connections of Rex Tillerson - these things are already in the paragraph, or should be. Give him one sentence quoting his denials; the rest of the paragraph stands as the rebuttal. --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's not our place to include a rebuttal. That seems synthetic to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's our place to include a rebuttal if the rebuttal is mentioned in reliable sources. Of course it isn't synthesis... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We are obligated to include Trump's comments by Wikipedia BLP guidelines. The President has denied these allegations, and his denial must be included (WP:WELLKNOWN). Carl and Keiiri, will you please either restore the quote or propose one to your liking? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Start an RfC about it, that might generate new suggestions. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't need an RfC, and we don't need "new suggestions". We just need to include a sentence with his denial, as required by BLP guidelines and as agreed to by most of the people in this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

I see that the section has been restored. However, as written it is not well organized and doesn't even make clear why we have such a section. I propose to replace the section with this rewritten version. Is this OK with the other discussants here? --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2017 (UT)

Several of Trump's top advisers, including Paul Manafort and Michael 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 himself 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 multiple occasions since 1987 Trump and his children have explored potential business opportunities in Russia, such as a Trump Tower Moscow. Between 1996 and 2008 his 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 businesses outside Russia have received significant financing from individual Russian sources; 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".

References

Good job, MelanieN. What we have now sounds like a meandering public defender who doesn't know his case. Please give full authorship to your sources (which include Nakashima and Mazzetti now, both excellent) and I will support. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: This is solid and balanced prose. Approved. — JFG ^talk 20:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Would one of you please restore these two links just above the prose?

Main article: Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia

See also: 2016 United States election interference by Russia

Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 04:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually left them out on purpose - because they are wikilinked in the text, which would be the more normal way to include them. User:JFG, I strongly object to your changing the subject title from "ties to Russia" to "alleged ties to Russia". The section as rewritten (and as you approved) makes it very clear what ties he has and what ties he does not have. There is nothing "alleged" about any of it. I request you to remove the word "alleged". --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, JFG. MelanieN, we do not force the reader to investigate every wikilink in an article to find more information. The word "alleged" was removed by SPECIFICO, thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I know that we are generally advised not to put links in a "see also" section if they are already linked in the text: per WP:ALSO, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." But I don't know if that also refers to "see also" links within a section. And it certainly doesn't hurt anything to do both. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You are right about see also and I agree both won't hurt. WP:HAT seems to be agnostic on this point. Accessibility is common sense and I daresay the links improve navigation for everybody. Per Template:Main article they could be combined into one line if need be. Anyway you did a great job on the rewrite. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that the "alleged" bit and other weaselly details or selective omissions from RS-cited text are still appearing on many of the American Politics articles. As more information is reported, these denials in WP text are WP:UNDUE and are in some cases outright WP:FRINGE. I guess we just need to keep this all in mind as we edit these articles. The information in RS reports is increasing and the article, even where it was appropriately circumspect in past revisions, should now reflect our best assessment of the mainstream view as it stands today. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump is not a "populist" "nationalist" or "protectionist"

Personal opinion, no visible connection to reliable sources. See WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
All of his policies are neoliberal supply side economics. It's just the same bullshit Republican economics with Trump "rebranding"! Deregulation, tax cuts, massive military and prison industrial complex spending, social conservatism, etc. (Redacted) This article is clearly biased in favor of Trump. AHC300 (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Russian influence in election paragraph in opening

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

---

The current wording concerning the 2016 Presidential election is as follows:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. 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.

Based on consensus gained here, I would like to add a mention of Russian Interference.

The proposed opening paragraph would read:

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. 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. Additionally, the United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections and developed a clear preference for Trump."

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

The questions for the RFC are:

1. Should a short mention of Russian interference in the election be added to the paragraph?

2. Should the suggested wording above be added? Casprings (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey: Russian influence

• Support As RFC author. This has received ongoing and consistent coverage from WP:RS. It is historically important for the election and is one of the essential facts of historical importantance about the election.Casprings (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The text implies that Russian activity influenced the outcome of the election. Not even U.S. intelligence has made that conclusion and there are actually proven reasons why the Democrats lost, including nominating their least popular candidate ever. Furthermore the addition is not informative unless it explains how they did this, which was by exposing that the DNC had interfered with the Democratic primary elections. Another thing that helped Trump was the army of Clinton supporters who attacked pushed her too strongly online and attacked anyone who disagreed with them. TFD (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Guilt by association is the worst kind of defamation. Either there is concrete proof or there is not So far we are in the "not" area. There is no proof that the election was tarnished in any way including Russians, illegal immigrant voting or hacked voting machines. Adding speculation opens the door to all other speculations with specious facts. --DHeyward (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• The added sentence doesn't imply guilt. It only states the fact of what US intelligence concluded which is historically significant, given those are the conclusions of the intelligence agencies where the election occurred. Casprings (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – This article is a biography of Donald J. Trump, not the 2016 election article, not an article on cyberwarfare, not an article on propaganda or US-Russia relations. Allegations of Russian influence on the election have a tiny place in Trump's overall life story, fashionable hyperventilation notwithstanding. See WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis for guidance. — JFG ^talk 05:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whenever it is shown that "X" interfered in an election and developed a clear preference for candidate "Y", I think we would need more information and more clarity to include this in the lead of the winning candidate's BLP. Was the interference illegal? Did it affect the outcome? Was "Y" in cahoots with "X"? Maybe when the investigations are done we will have answers. It appears that the government of Ukraine developed a clear preference for Trump's opponent, and interfered against Trump during the election, FWIW.[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I absolutely believe Russian interference (released of hacked information), and interference by Comey (bullshit witch hunt), handed Trump the election; however, the lede of this BLP is no place for this sort of thing. There's simply no way to properly explain the context within the confines of a sentence. Additionally, I strongly oppose the very existence of this RfC while another one on exactly the same sentence is ongoing. Furthermore, an RfC is only appropriate when all other avenues of discussion have been exhausted, and this is the first time anyone has even suggested we include something like this in the lede. I suggest this RfC be immediately closed and archived, and Casprings be beaten senseless with Wikipedia's preferred flavor of Salmoniformes. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If the community wants to close the RFC, so be it. I guess my question would be, when does it reach a point where it belongs in the opening? This issue has dominated his presidency and it is possiable that it could end his presidency if there is evidence of the Truml Campaign working or knowing about Russian interference. What is a decent standard for when to bring this back up and when? Clearly this seems very relavent to him personally to me. I just wanted to get some thoughts on when this belongs, if events continue to evolve.Casprings (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: You write: This issue has dominated his presidency and it is possiable that it could end his presidency – This is your opinion; it has no place in an encyclopedia until something along these lines eventually happens. The opposite opinion would have no place either. I guess you have noticed that the community is globally opposed to your proposal, irrespective of individual editors' opinions of Mr. Trump. Accordingly, I would advise you to withdraw your RfC, as you are entitled to do per WP:RFCEND. Or keep it going, your choice. — JFG ^talk 20:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It is my opinion and WP:Crystalball to put anything in the article suggesting that now. However, asking for guidance on when this becomes an issue that belongs in the article is not an issue.. It is also very supportable to say that the issue in general and connections to Russia have dominated his presidency. Depending on how the future unfolds, at some point mentions of Russia and Russian involvement belong in the opening. Just asking for some thoughts on when that would be.Casprings (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• oppose Such a sentence may be viable in the body, but not in the lede. Such a statement requires a lot of context and balancing info, and doing such would be way too much for the lede. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose putting anything about this issue in the lede. The things currently detailed in the lede (oldest, richest, fifth) are a permanent part of his history and his legacy. But nobody knows at this point whether the Russia allegations will come to nothing, or will be the defining issue of his presidency. If they turn out to dominate his presidency, we can add something to the lede then, but we are nowhere near that point now. (However, I oppose the suggestion to beat Casprings senseless with a trout. Use every Wikipedian after his/her deserts, and who shall 'scape trouting?) --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. You asked when that point would come? IMO the attempt by Russia (successful or not, we don't know) to intervene in the election will not, by itself, have a major impact on his presidency. (You may think that it should - but that is not the way things are going.) But the more we find out about contacts between his campaign team and the Russians, the larger the issue looms. And if it turns out (as it might) that Trump himself worked with the Russians to bring about that result, or that Trump as president starts favoring Russia in ways that go beyond reason and become scandalous - those are things that could end his presidency. --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion: Russian influence

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

Specific nature of the consensus

Casprings modified the new consensus list entry as follows:[5]. With that change, anyone could add Russian influence content elsewhere in the lead, and we would be into another discussion or RfC about that. My reading of the !voting is that the opposition is to inclusion anywhere in the lead, not just at that particular point (and not just with that specific wording either). I don't think Casprings's edit is appropriate or useful. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If that is the consensus, so be it. I just thought the sentence was overstating it. Most comments were talking about the inability to provide enough "context", etc. Moreover, the RFC directly related to the election. I didn't think it was a further statement the that or a theoretical addition of a statement with more context. Casprings (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed it back. The RfC closure clearly states that the subject should not be mentioned in the lede, and I believe that is an accurate reading of the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but I would like to see more comments affirming that. Like, four more with no dissent. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Aren't you the one who snow-closed it? Quite properly IMO, since at that point there were six people opposed to including it in the lede, vs. only one for including it. Second question: how do you propose to get four more comments with the discussion closed? Or to put it another way: if you thought it needed more comments, why did you close it? --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well if you put it that way. If lil ole me has the authority to unilaterally make that determination, I hereby rule that the consensus is to omit any mention of Russian influence anywhere in the lead.  Done (I meant four more in this subsection.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much the determination you made already, isn't it? "As I read it, Casprings has accepted that the content will not be added to the lead" - what was unclear about that? --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

My main reason for closing was to end the change in direction; it was mostly a procedural close. When Casprings changed the consensus entry, I saw at least some merit in their rationale, which was that the RfC's question was very specific and so any consensus should apply only to that specific question. The RfC did not ask "should something about Russian influence be included somewhere in the lead?", and Casprings asserted that an RfC cannot answer a question that was not asked. I therefore sought other input to clarify the consensus. All this does seem extremely legalistic, but it's not uncommon for consensuses to be challenged on the basis of just such nits, and I hoped to avoid that. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

My two cents: the WP:SNOW consensus was very clear, as editors both sympathetic to and skeptical of the Russian intervention have opposed inclusion in the lead of Trump's bio. Casprings' unilateral change was disruptive and deserves a second WP:TROUT (although I agree that the beating should not be senseless ). — JFG ^talk 07:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Disagree as to disruptive, several of us have made unilateral changes to that list per WP:BOLD. It's not disruptive if one understands that the change is subject to revert and discussion, and refrains from edit warring. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:58, 6 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 [14], 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)

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)