This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
In the Professional Wrestling section, "and a friend of WWE chairman and CEO Vince McMahon's" should be "and a friend of WWE chairman and CEO Vince McMahon". Slightly more formal, which seems appropriate for the current President's article. Apparently I can't edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CouldOughta ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In the last sentence of paragraph 2 it states that "As of 2016, Forbes listed him as the 324th wealthiest person in the world and 113th richest in the United States, with a net worth of $4.5 billion." However, his net worth is now 3.7 billion as of February 20, 2017. Someone please change this. York12321 ( talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC) [1]
The last sentence of the "Re-election campaign" section is missing the month. It currently reads: "Trump marked the official start of the campaign with a campaign rally in Melbourne, Florida on 18, 2017, less than a month after he had taken office" (bold to show location of error). Rjferreiro ( talk) 03:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Businessman Andrew Puzder is still listed as a potential Secretary of Labor in Trumps cabinet @ 'Cabinet-level nominations'. What is the best way to show his withdrawal? Buster Seven Talk 14:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
America's Nehemiah, is it policy-wise worthy for addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.160.219 ( talk) 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm told by Mandruss that my edit adding "Donald Trump (Character) at the Internet Movie Database" that Mandruss and earlier Sundayclose reverted should be discussed on the talk page—so here goes:
That's quite a list that I think adds to the page. If we delete that then perhaps "Donald Trump at the Internet Movie Database" could go as some may not like something someone said etc etc. I've added "... (Character)" references at many pages and don't recall any problems. What say the community? DadaNeem ( talk) 07:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
This is overly redundant. Please clean this mess up. 207.245.44.6 ( talk) 17:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph that discussed President Trump's mental health based on a letter to the editor of the New York Times. [2]. Aside from the HIPAA laws, which would prevent a real doctor from making this claim, if any of that were actually true, making the statement that "Donald Trump is not mentally ill." and then going on to explain that he's a narcissist is still a BLP violation. SW3 5DL ( talk) 07:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Relates to source:
I posted:
[REDACTED]
There is a great deal of scuttlebutt going around about Trump's mental condition. This seems to answer most of that stuff in an authoritative way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
There is NO way we are going to accept sensitive health information based on a letter to the editor for heavens sake, much less from an armchair psychiatrist, that is, someone who is just speculating and has never examined the person. For that matter we would only accept it from someone who HAD examined them if they had the person's permission to reveal it. Don't post this again. (Sorry, folks, I can't do the revdel because I don't have tools on this account.) MelanieN alt ( talk) 21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
A statement that most politicians are narcissistic is so obvious it does not need a reference. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump's mental health has been called into question by psychiatrists and mental health professionals — some going so far as to apply diagnoses such as narcissistic personality disorder. However other professionals contest this, suggesting any such categorization is a violation of the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater rule, and thus would be both unethical as well as incorrect.
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Sources discussion the issues with varying conclusions:
And that is from a 5-minute search and from the first pages of a couple of result-pages. There are far more sources, and likely some that are much more reliable, so don't go around saying that this discussion violates BLP… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless the Vice President & a majority of the cabinet are planning to invoke the 4th section of the 25th Amendment? I don't see any reason for adding such information on mental health speculation. GoodDay ( talk) 19:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
New source just out:
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.
But the attempt to diagnose a condition in President Trump and declare him mentally unfit to serve is misguided for several reasons.Basically, the source you cite tells people to, y'know, sorta kinda knock it off with the Armchair Diagnosing. Absent a document committal to psychiatric evaluation, e.g. Amanda Bynes#Legal issues or Mischa Barton#Psychiatric confinement, this sort of thing has no place in a BLP article. TheValeyard ( talk) 03:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I am proposing that we change the lead sentence to:
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States.
It should mention that he is the current president. It was set up like that for Bush [4] and Obama [5]. It would also eliminate any confusion for people who might think there are 46+ presidents. I do realize that Trump being the current president is pretty much common knowledge, but we should never just assume that the reader knows that. Grapesoda22 23:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, who is serving as the 45th President of the United States.
This sentence is more clear that it he is the current president, it complies with MOS Writing precisely, its not repeated information from the hatnote, and it isn't an akward looking sentence. Grapesoda22 00:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This edit (by an editor who also tried to discuss fascism accusations in the lead) is unwise. None of it is necessary or useful. And, User:Bodhi Peace seems determined to exclude from the lead that neither Trump nor Clinton won a majority of the national popular vote, which I think is essential information that has been included for months (i.e. the lead has indicated for months that Trump won less than Clinton's plurality). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Why do you believe saying 'neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote' is relevant? The average reader probably knows Hillary won the popular vote, so to make this claim will confuse those readers. Doesn't saying, 'Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote,' say the same thing in a concise, not confusing way? Might it be better to say the election was close with Trump winning the electoral vote and Hillary winning a plurality of the popular vote? SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote. Assuming the office on January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest to have done so, and the first without prior military or governmental service.
Agree with Dervorguilla, this is an article about an American president. We cannot use British or Canadian terms. And the 'relative majority' is wide of the mark anyway. As for the edit suggestion, it is not at all clear to the reader that Donald Trump decisively won the presidency with a clear majority of the EC which is the vote that counts. I still say we must use the dreaded word 'plurality' and Anythingyouwant agrees with that. It is the American standard in presidential elections because it goes hand in hand with the EC vote. I also agree with Anytthing that readers can look up the word if they don't know it. We're not here to spoon feed the reader. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the edit as it stands now in the article:
1.
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.
This is Scjessey's suggestion:
2.
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote. Assuming the office on January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest to have done so, and the first without prior military or governmental service.
The problem with #2 is this sentence: Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote.
Clinton never had an advantage with the popular vote. Trump broke the blue wall of Democrat states. Trump is the one with advantage with the popular vote. He played Moneyball, and started heavily campaigning in the states that had previously gone Democrat, had the biggest majority of out of work formerly middle class Democrats, and also had enough EC votes to put him over Hillary, no matter what she did in the other states. He won decisively. She won popular votes in heavily populated states like California, a state that holds a super majority of Democrats. She didn't even bother to campaign in California. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Scjessey: Why do you personalize your comments against editors with these personal attacks instead of showing RS to support your claims? I've seen you do this to other editors here. Now, I've taken the time to seek out the RS. Yet, you come back with a personal attack. I don't live in an alternative reality, unless that reality includes CNN, The Washington Post, Forbes, the New York Times, and Investors Business Daily. Where's your RS? SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Just chiming it to say I don't consider this version to be an improvement; quite the contrary. "Easily overcame" is POV and factually inaccurate. ("Squeaked by" would be more accurate.) Also, this version compares apples to oranges by listing the electoral college vote and the popular vote together in the same sentence as if they are comparable in significance; they are not. If you want to put something about the "Blue Wall" in the encyclopedia somewhere, I would suggest the article about the election. MelanieN alt ( talk) 18:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
2 has problematic language. I'm not sure why you prefer "nominee". The use of "easily" and even "overcame" when it's more apples to oranges between the popular vote and the Electoral College. "To have done so" is not a necessary phrase as you can see in some of the rephrasing suggested below. Bod ( talk) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I may suggest
3.
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Trump won the Electoral College, but became only the fifth US president to not get more of the national popular vote than his opponents. On January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest man to assume the presidency, and the only one to have not served in military or government.
\\ Bod ( talk) 19:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
4.
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither had a majority of the popular vote, but Trump won the Electoral College and became the fifth US president to not get a plurality of the national popular vote. On January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest man to assume the presidency, and the first who had not served in military or government.
Plurality seems unavoidable. \\ Bod ( talk) 19:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
5.
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. On January 20, 2017, at age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior government or military service, and the fifth to be elected without winning the national popular vote.
\\ Bod ( talk) 19:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Bodhi, I agree with Anythingyouwant on all those suggestions. SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Bodhi, I appreciate your repeated attempts to meet people's comments by modifying your proposal. It appears we are trying to cover three points here: 1) Trump won the election, 2) Clinton got a larger share of the popular vote than he did, 3) neither of them received an actual majority of the popular vote. (Note: not "popular votes"; the term "popular vote" is collective.) I think we should NOT try to do all that in a single sentence, because a single sentence requires a connecting word like "but" or "despite," which seems to cast doubt on his election. What we need: First sentence in the paragraph says he won. Later we say she received more votes nationwide than he did, but neither received a majority of the popular vote. The current version in the article conveys the first two points well and with appropriate weight but leaves out "neither got a majority". Your version is virtually identical with the current version except it substitutes "not winning" instead of "not a plurality", but we had been trying to avoid the word "win" with regard to the popular vote. Maybe we shouldn't be picky about that; while "win" of the popular vote is not strictly accurate (it's not a contest with a "winner"), maybe it conveys the point better than than "plurality". I would accept either this version #5 or the current version. I'm coming to think we shouldn't try to get "nobody got a majority" into the lede, but leave it for the election section. I think we came to that same conclusion before and I'm getting there again. MelanieN alt ( talk) 19:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
6.
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest, and the wealthiest, person to assume the presidency and the first without prior government or military service. Clinton received a plurality of the national popular vote, making Trump the fifth president elected with less than a plurality since 1824.
\\ Bod ( talk) 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Support status quo which, by the way, is already "rewritten" with just one "plurality". Illustrating my view that at a certain point continued "improvement" creates as many problems as it solves. I see nothing seriously wrong with the current language; let it be. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with @ Mandruss:. We've reached the point where these 'improvements' are beginning to create more problems than they can solve. The text is fine as is and I support ending this. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove "at age 70" again, since nobody has objected. -- Scjessey ( talk) 23:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
There's no real consensus here to make these changes and now you've got it poorly worded. It's a mess and I reverted it. Have a proper consensus but to pick away at it with these small, poorly constructed word changes and then to add in the redundant Clinton bit again is not consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SW3 5DL ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
When the RFC started, the lead used the word "fourth". [13] Where was there consensus to change that? The article body says "fourth", and "fifth" is simply wrong (because the election of 1876 does not count as an instance where the election winner got less than the plurality of the popular vote). If no objection, I will revert to "fourth". Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The article body says "fourth": As a matter of fact, the article text DID say "fifth", until you changed it to "fourth" earlier today. [14] So it is kind of a weak (some would say dishonest) argument for you to point out that the article body says "fourth", don't you think? MelanieN alt ( talk) 17:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, let's talk about Reliable Sources. Here is what they say:
The election of 1876 was sui generis in that the loser got a majority of the popular vote. That's not what happened to Hillary Clinton, because she did not get a majority of the popular vote, so it's fine for us to not lump Clinton and Tilden together as if the same thing happened to them. "Tilden was the only presidential candidate to lose a general election despite securing a popular-vote majority...." [18]
"Tilden was the only loser to win a popular vote majority...." [19] "The election of 1876 is the only election in the history of the United States in which a candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote and did not get to be president...." [20]. I therefore disagree with lumping Clinton and Tilden together. Moreover, if we decide to lump them together in the lead (which we need not do) then it ought to be described correctly instead of falsely implying that Tilden won a plurality of the popular vote. He didn't. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
It is correct that Trump is the fifth person to become president while getting less of the popular vote than someone else.Should we just say that? It is only quibbles about the wording that reduce the number to fourth. -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 20:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Now this sentence is vague and inconsistent.
Trump received a smaller share of the popular vote than Clinton, and he is at least the fourth person to become president in such circumstances.
Bod (
talk) 21:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Since this is so contentious, why not just say " one of few elected with less than the plurality of the national popular vote" instead? -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
"Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the popular vote".And I strongly object to changing "fifth" to "fourth", since "fifth" is used by dozens of Reliable Sources and "fourth" by only a few. (And "fourth" requires explanation as to which one we aren't counting and why.) -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 16:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Anything, I was not happy with your sudden, unilateral revision [21] to the article. Ironically, just a few edits earlier you had reverted a single-word edit of Bodhi’s with the edit summary “Better to keep this stable while it's under discussion”. Now you have put a sentence and a footnote into the article that you never even proposed here before adding it. Where is the supposed consensus for “few”? Scjessey proposed it; you accepted it; I didn’t like it but said I would accept it if there was consensus; The Valeyard didn’t like it; the discussion lasted less than 6 hours. That is not a consensus in anyone’s book. Incidentally, Scjessey proposed “few” because “this is so contentious” but it is really a one-person contention; you are the only person objecting to “fifth”.
However, I see that shortly after inserting the “few” sentence (and without removing it) you indicated you would accept Bodhi’s proposed sentence ‘’“Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the popular vote."’’ Everyone else who saw that sentence accepted it too, so I am going to put in that sentence in place of the “few” version. That still does not make it a permanent, binding consensus because it is based on an informal discussion among a few people. Whatever version we retain as a result of this discussion, we should not list it as a “consensus” version at the top of this talk page unless more people participate over a longer period of time. But it’s enough of a consensus to leave in the article during discussion.
Now let’s discuss your footnote to the text section. I believe we should delete from the footnote the sentence "But, the number five is somewhat uncertain because of claims that Richard Nixon won more of the national popular vote in 1960.[487]" The reference cited does not support such a claim except for the passing comment “if we don’t count 1960”. Official tallies of the 1960 popular vote show Kennedy with a small lead in the popular vote; [22] I have seen nothing to suggest that this outcome is uncertain or seriously challenged. Of the Reliable Sources discussing the 2016 outcome that I have seen, none mentioned 1960. MelanieN alt ( talk) 17:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Update: Both Anything’s revision and mine have been reverted as “no consensus”. I actually agree with that. See the section below “Changes without consensus; time to move on.” Also please see the section “New footnote in article“ to discuss the footnote added to the Election to the presidency section of the article. -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 00:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Theodore Micah Tarter 00:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
These two sections are bare-bones. Like, less than 500 words for the first 22 years of someone who is presently the most powerful person on Earth. Is this era off limits somehow?
Back in the 1960s, being "packed off to military school" was generally a punishment, for incorrigible (unruly, law-breaking, violent, promiscuous, etc.) behaviour, sort of a "last chance" before reform school or prison. (The only other reason to go to military school was with West Point or Annapolis or similar as a goal.)
This is skimmed lightly over by referring to Trump as "energetic" and sorta making his parents sound like hippies wanting him "to channel his energy in a positive manner." But anyone who's actually read The Art of the Deal knows that Trump said when he was in second grade he punched him music teacher, and he has never made a secret of picking fights, intentionally breaking rules, and defying his parents, which would explain how they decided to enroll him sixty miles away at NYMA. When Donald was 17, Fred calls him "rough," and that's where it stops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weeb Dingle ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The section about his Vietnam service does not belong here. It should be a separate section per Bill Clinton's article Gaas99 ( talk) 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I tagged this page with the "Critics of Islam" category. Trump speaks of terrorism and Islam as if they were nearly synonymous. On the record, he has stated that "Islam hates us" and that there is "tremendous hatred" within the religion itself. ( Source). It would be nice to add that somewhere. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 17:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is pretty big and needs to be split or cut immediately. It exceeds the post-expansion include size for templates, and the templates below the "References" section will not display if there is even a single template added to this page. This is not an easy decision, so a discussion on splitting or cutting should be held ASAP. epicgenius ( talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
legitimate use of sub-page. Could you please way in on this discussion? I am not sure about the technical details of transclusion however I assumed that it did affect article size for rendering purposes, but I understand that it obviously doesn't for readability. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
On Feb. 23, 2017, it was revealed he has a $50 million undisclosed loan + at least $713 million additional loan [24]. Create a loan section. Kuioooooo ( talk) 19:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
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.
A new footnote was added to the section “Election to the presidency” with this edit: [25] I believe we should delete from the footnote this sentence "But, the number five is somewhat uncertain because of claims that Richard Nixon won more of the national popular vote in 1960.[487]" The reference cited does not support such a claim, except for the passing comment “if we don’t count 1960”. Official tallies of the 1960 popular vote show Kennedy with a small lead in the popular vote; [26] I have seen nothing to suggest that this outcome is uncertain or seriously challenged. Of the Reliable Sources discussing the 2016 outcome that I have seen, none mentioned 1960. MelanieN alt ( talk) 00:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to remove this sentence from the footnote. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Russia was not sanctioned until 2014. Before that, every American businessman had business ties in Russia. It is a big market. Heck, even today GM and McDonald's have facilities in Russia. Implying that Trump had a special relationship with Russia because Trump had business ties in Russia is a bias that should not be tolerated on wikipedia. 69.166.122.249 ( talk) 04:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I say well done nuking it. It implies Donald Trump was hurting for financing and sold out to the Russian's, in a sort of "deal with the devil." As for rewriting it, it read like one long BLP vio, which says we are to remove any vio. How is he supposed to rewite that? Delete it and start over. So now we can rewrite it with neutral sources and not the weasel POV language that the first sentence starting this off is loaded with [33]. Earlier discussion in another section was to delete it, as I recall. But that could have been something else. SW3 5DL ( talk) 01:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The RS makes the Russians out to be the devil, so I used the comparison. I see problems with sources claiming, ". . .some reports state that the relationship is such that he is beholden to the Russian ruling powers." And therein lies the problem. It's casting aspersions and doing it without facts from a legitimate investigative body, like the Congress, or FBI. That then gets woven into, "The Russians hacked the election." They did no such thing. The integrity of the US election voting process, even according to Obama, was intact. No such hacking occurred. And there appears no evidence to support a claim that Trump owes the Russians so they made him president to remove the sanctions against them, and that is a claim from Rep. Maxine Waters, who did not show any sources or proof for her claim. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
A section about affiliations with Russia raises questions of whether there should be a sections with titles such as "Affiliations with Scotland", "Affiliations with Dubai", "Affiliations with Australia", "Affiliations with Turkey", "Affiliations with Panama", "Affiliations with Canada", "Affiliations with Indonesia" and so on. Why Russia particularly? This doesn't seem to indicate WP:NPOV. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 17:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
"Affiliations with Russia" has some problems. Firstly, it suggests Trump has some connection to the Russian government, which is false. Secondly, at best, he's had business dealings with private citizens, I don't see evidence he's had business dealings with the Russians. Did he build something for the Russian government? The title is problematic and should be put under "International business deals." Given the reporting in the press and the inuendos that he's involved with Putin, the word "Russian" is misleading and should be removed. SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If we decide that "Affiliations with Russia" or even "Business dealings in Russia" are worthy of a special section, should that also apply under "Foreign policy"? Does it follow that there be a sub-sub-section titled "Russia" in the foreign policy sub-section? Jack N. Stock ( talk) 00:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
As Jacknstock mentioned earlier, US opinion of Russia only dropped after the supposed Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. Even though it is very likely that Russia is at fault, I believe that it is not a valid reason to write an entire section/article on Trump and Russia's relationship just because he has a relationship with Putin and a few other people. Trump is a businessman, and businessmen do these things. York12321 ( talk) 18:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
This whole section should be nuked as POV-pushing. The linked article is about Trump's failed business projects in Russia; trying to do business in a country does not make you "affiliated" to its government. The rest of the section consists of hyped-up political allegations about some of Trump's campaign advisers, better covered in other articles. I fail to see why this deserves a level-2 header in the full biography. Delete it or move it to the business section. — JFG talk 22:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be nuked as POV-pushing. I was reading the article today and found this section has at least one serious inaccuracy. The sentence "Moreover, multiple members of his campaign and administration, including Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Michael Flynn, had extensive financial and business ties." It references a Time magazine article (Ref# 344). Donald Trump's Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia This article does not support the statement at all, other than a second-hand quote from an Op-Ed author. Not a good reference. Stackmachine ( talk) 05:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be rough consensus for removing this section, so I did the nuking and added a couple sentences elsewhere to summarize the US accusations of Russian intervention in favor of Trump and his denial thereof. — JFG talk 11:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I would also add that it would be a main section. Subject is important to campaign and presidency. Casprings ( talk) 23:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
This is an article which should be written. It is a very notable and huge topic, with myriad sources. The seriousness of the subject is also of great importance, since it is possibly the greatest threat to America and democracy we have ever witnessed. Here is just one source to whet your apetites:
Who wants to start writing it? If I had the time, I'd do it, but I'm busy on other stuff. It could start as a section here, and then get split off when it gets too large for this article. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 08:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
In the Professional Wrestling section, "and a friend of WWE chairman and CEO Vince McMahon's" should be "and a friend of WWE chairman and CEO Vince McMahon". Slightly more formal, which seems appropriate for the current President's article. Apparently I can't edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CouldOughta ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In the last sentence of paragraph 2 it states that "As of 2016, Forbes listed him as the 324th wealthiest person in the world and 113th richest in the United States, with a net worth of $4.5 billion." However, his net worth is now 3.7 billion as of February 20, 2017. Someone please change this. York12321 ( talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC) [1]
The last sentence of the "Re-election campaign" section is missing the month. It currently reads: "Trump marked the official start of the campaign with a campaign rally in Melbourne, Florida on 18, 2017, less than a month after he had taken office" (bold to show location of error). Rjferreiro ( talk) 03:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Businessman Andrew Puzder is still listed as a potential Secretary of Labor in Trumps cabinet @ 'Cabinet-level nominations'. What is the best way to show his withdrawal? Buster Seven Talk 14:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
America's Nehemiah, is it policy-wise worthy for addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.160.219 ( talk) 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm told by Mandruss that my edit adding "Donald Trump (Character) at the Internet Movie Database" that Mandruss and earlier Sundayclose reverted should be discussed on the talk page—so here goes:
That's quite a list that I think adds to the page. If we delete that then perhaps "Donald Trump at the Internet Movie Database" could go as some may not like something someone said etc etc. I've added "... (Character)" references at many pages and don't recall any problems. What say the community? DadaNeem ( talk) 07:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
This is overly redundant. Please clean this mess up. 207.245.44.6 ( talk) 17:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph that discussed President Trump's mental health based on a letter to the editor of the New York Times. [2]. Aside from the HIPAA laws, which would prevent a real doctor from making this claim, if any of that were actually true, making the statement that "Donald Trump is not mentally ill." and then going on to explain that he's a narcissist is still a BLP violation. SW3 5DL ( talk) 07:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Relates to source:
I posted:
[REDACTED]
There is a great deal of scuttlebutt going around about Trump's mental condition. This seems to answer most of that stuff in an authoritative way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
There is NO way we are going to accept sensitive health information based on a letter to the editor for heavens sake, much less from an armchair psychiatrist, that is, someone who is just speculating and has never examined the person. For that matter we would only accept it from someone who HAD examined them if they had the person's permission to reveal it. Don't post this again. (Sorry, folks, I can't do the revdel because I don't have tools on this account.) MelanieN alt ( talk) 21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
A statement that most politicians are narcissistic is so obvious it does not need a reference. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump's mental health has been called into question by psychiatrists and mental health professionals — some going so far as to apply diagnoses such as narcissistic personality disorder. However other professionals contest this, suggesting any such categorization is a violation of the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater rule, and thus would be both unethical as well as incorrect.
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Sources discussion the issues with varying conclusions:
And that is from a 5-minute search and from the first pages of a couple of result-pages. There are far more sources, and likely some that are much more reliable, so don't go around saying that this discussion violates BLP… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless the Vice President & a majority of the cabinet are planning to invoke the 4th section of the 25th Amendment? I don't see any reason for adding such information on mental health speculation. GoodDay ( talk) 19:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
New source just out:
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.
But the attempt to diagnose a condition in President Trump and declare him mentally unfit to serve is misguided for several reasons.Basically, the source you cite tells people to, y'know, sorta kinda knock it off with the Armchair Diagnosing. Absent a document committal to psychiatric evaluation, e.g. Amanda Bynes#Legal issues or Mischa Barton#Psychiatric confinement, this sort of thing has no place in a BLP article. TheValeyard ( talk) 03:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I am proposing that we change the lead sentence to:
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States.
It should mention that he is the current president. It was set up like that for Bush [4] and Obama [5]. It would also eliminate any confusion for people who might think there are 46+ presidents. I do realize that Trump being the current president is pretty much common knowledge, but we should never just assume that the reader knows that. Grapesoda22 23:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, who is serving as the 45th President of the United States.
This sentence is more clear that it he is the current president, it complies with MOS Writing precisely, its not repeated information from the hatnote, and it isn't an akward looking sentence. Grapesoda22 00:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This edit (by an editor who also tried to discuss fascism accusations in the lead) is unwise. None of it is necessary or useful. And, User:Bodhi Peace seems determined to exclude from the lead that neither Trump nor Clinton won a majority of the national popular vote, which I think is essential information that has been included for months (i.e. the lead has indicated for months that Trump won less than Clinton's plurality). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Why do you believe saying 'neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote' is relevant? The average reader probably knows Hillary won the popular vote, so to make this claim will confuse those readers. Doesn't saying, 'Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote,' say the same thing in a concise, not confusing way? Might it be better to say the election was close with Trump winning the electoral vote and Hillary winning a plurality of the popular vote? SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote. Assuming the office on January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest to have done so, and the first without prior military or governmental service.
Agree with Dervorguilla, this is an article about an American president. We cannot use British or Canadian terms. And the 'relative majority' is wide of the mark anyway. As for the edit suggestion, it is not at all clear to the reader that Donald Trump decisively won the presidency with a clear majority of the EC which is the vote that counts. I still say we must use the dreaded word 'plurality' and Anythingyouwant agrees with that. It is the American standard in presidential elections because it goes hand in hand with the EC vote. I also agree with Anytthing that readers can look up the word if they don't know it. We're not here to spoon feed the reader. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the edit as it stands now in the article:
1.
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. At age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or governmental service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.
This is Scjessey's suggestion:
2.
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote. Assuming the office on January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest to have done so, and the first without prior military or governmental service.
The problem with #2 is this sentence: Neither nominee acquired an outright majority of votes, but Trump's victory in the Electoral College easily overcame Clinton's advantage in the national popular vote.
Clinton never had an advantage with the popular vote. Trump broke the blue wall of Democrat states. Trump is the one with advantage with the popular vote. He played Moneyball, and started heavily campaigning in the states that had previously gone Democrat, had the biggest majority of out of work formerly middle class Democrats, and also had enough EC votes to put him over Hillary, no matter what she did in the other states. He won decisively. She won popular votes in heavily populated states like California, a state that holds a super majority of Democrats. She didn't even bother to campaign in California. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Scjessey: Why do you personalize your comments against editors with these personal attacks instead of showing RS to support your claims? I've seen you do this to other editors here. Now, I've taken the time to seek out the RS. Yet, you come back with a personal attack. I don't live in an alternative reality, unless that reality includes CNN, The Washington Post, Forbes, the New York Times, and Investors Business Daily. Where's your RS? SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Just chiming it to say I don't consider this version to be an improvement; quite the contrary. "Easily overcame" is POV and factually inaccurate. ("Squeaked by" would be more accurate.) Also, this version compares apples to oranges by listing the electoral college vote and the popular vote together in the same sentence as if they are comparable in significance; they are not. If you want to put something about the "Blue Wall" in the encyclopedia somewhere, I would suggest the article about the election. MelanieN alt ( talk) 18:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
2 has problematic language. I'm not sure why you prefer "nominee". The use of "easily" and even "overcame" when it's more apples to oranges between the popular vote and the Electoral College. "To have done so" is not a necessary phrase as you can see in some of the rephrasing suggested below. Bod ( talk) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I may suggest
3.
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Trump won the Electoral College, but became only the fifth US president to not get more of the national popular vote than his opponents. On January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest man to assume the presidency, and the only one to have not served in military or government.
\\ Bod ( talk) 19:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
4.
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016 in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Neither had a majority of the popular vote, but Trump won the Electoral College and became the fifth US president to not get a plurality of the national popular vote. On January 20, 2017, Trump became the wealthiest and oldest man to assume the presidency, and the first who had not served in military or government.
Plurality seems unavoidable. \\ Bod ( talk) 19:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
5.
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. On January 20, 2017, at age 70, he became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior government or military service, and the fifth to be elected without winning the national popular vote.
\\ Bod ( talk) 19:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Bodhi, I agree with Anythingyouwant on all those suggestions. SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Bodhi, I appreciate your repeated attempts to meet people's comments by modifying your proposal. It appears we are trying to cover three points here: 1) Trump won the election, 2) Clinton got a larger share of the popular vote than he did, 3) neither of them received an actual majority of the popular vote. (Note: not "popular votes"; the term "popular vote" is collective.) I think we should NOT try to do all that in a single sentence, because a single sentence requires a connecting word like "but" or "despite," which seems to cast doubt on his election. What we need: First sentence in the paragraph says he won. Later we say she received more votes nationwide than he did, but neither received a majority of the popular vote. The current version in the article conveys the first two points well and with appropriate weight but leaves out "neither got a majority". Your version is virtually identical with the current version except it substitutes "not winning" instead of "not a plurality", but we had been trying to avoid the word "win" with regard to the popular vote. Maybe we shouldn't be picky about that; while "win" of the popular vote is not strictly accurate (it's not a contest with a "winner"), maybe it conveys the point better than than "plurality". I would accept either this version #5 or the current version. I'm coming to think we shouldn't try to get "nobody got a majority" into the lede, but leave it for the election section. I think we came to that same conclusion before and I'm getting there again. MelanieN alt ( talk) 19:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
6.
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest, and the wealthiest, person to assume the presidency and the first without prior government or military service. Clinton received a plurality of the national popular vote, making Trump the fifth president elected with less than a plurality since 1824.
\\ Bod ( talk) 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Support status quo which, by the way, is already "rewritten" with just one "plurality". Illustrating my view that at a certain point continued "improvement" creates as many problems as it solves. I see nothing seriously wrong with the current language; let it be. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with @ Mandruss:. We've reached the point where these 'improvements' are beginning to create more problems than they can solve. The text is fine as is and I support ending this. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove "at age 70" again, since nobody has objected. -- Scjessey ( talk) 23:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
There's no real consensus here to make these changes and now you've got it poorly worded. It's a mess and I reverted it. Have a proper consensus but to pick away at it with these small, poorly constructed word changes and then to add in the redundant Clinton bit again is not consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SW3 5DL ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
When the RFC started, the lead used the word "fourth". [13] Where was there consensus to change that? The article body says "fourth", and "fifth" is simply wrong (because the election of 1876 does not count as an instance where the election winner got less than the plurality of the popular vote). If no objection, I will revert to "fourth". Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The article body says "fourth": As a matter of fact, the article text DID say "fifth", until you changed it to "fourth" earlier today. [14] So it is kind of a weak (some would say dishonest) argument for you to point out that the article body says "fourth", don't you think? MelanieN alt ( talk) 17:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, let's talk about Reliable Sources. Here is what they say:
The election of 1876 was sui generis in that the loser got a majority of the popular vote. That's not what happened to Hillary Clinton, because she did not get a majority of the popular vote, so it's fine for us to not lump Clinton and Tilden together as if the same thing happened to them. "Tilden was the only presidential candidate to lose a general election despite securing a popular-vote majority...." [18]
"Tilden was the only loser to win a popular vote majority...." [19] "The election of 1876 is the only election in the history of the United States in which a candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote and did not get to be president...." [20]. I therefore disagree with lumping Clinton and Tilden together. Moreover, if we decide to lump them together in the lead (which we need not do) then it ought to be described correctly instead of falsely implying that Tilden won a plurality of the popular vote. He didn't. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
It is correct that Trump is the fifth person to become president while getting less of the popular vote than someone else.Should we just say that? It is only quibbles about the wording that reduce the number to fourth. -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 20:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Now this sentence is vague and inconsistent.
Trump received a smaller share of the popular vote than Clinton, and he is at least the fourth person to become president in such circumstances.
Bod (
talk) 21:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Since this is so contentious, why not just say " one of few elected with less than the plurality of the national popular vote" instead? -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
"Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the popular vote".And I strongly object to changing "fifth" to "fourth", since "fifth" is used by dozens of Reliable Sources and "fourth" by only a few. (And "fourth" requires explanation as to which one we aren't counting and why.) -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 16:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Anything, I was not happy with your sudden, unilateral revision [21] to the article. Ironically, just a few edits earlier you had reverted a single-word edit of Bodhi’s with the edit summary “Better to keep this stable while it's under discussion”. Now you have put a sentence and a footnote into the article that you never even proposed here before adding it. Where is the supposed consensus for “few”? Scjessey proposed it; you accepted it; I didn’t like it but said I would accept it if there was consensus; The Valeyard didn’t like it; the discussion lasted less than 6 hours. That is not a consensus in anyone’s book. Incidentally, Scjessey proposed “few” because “this is so contentious” but it is really a one-person contention; you are the only person objecting to “fifth”.
However, I see that shortly after inserting the “few” sentence (and without removing it) you indicated you would accept Bodhi’s proposed sentence ‘’“Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, making Trump the fifth person in history to become president after losing the popular vote."’’ Everyone else who saw that sentence accepted it too, so I am going to put in that sentence in place of the “few” version. That still does not make it a permanent, binding consensus because it is based on an informal discussion among a few people. Whatever version we retain as a result of this discussion, we should not list it as a “consensus” version at the top of this talk page unless more people participate over a longer period of time. But it’s enough of a consensus to leave in the article during discussion.
Now let’s discuss your footnote to the text section. I believe we should delete from the footnote the sentence "But, the number five is somewhat uncertain because of claims that Richard Nixon won more of the national popular vote in 1960.[487]" The reference cited does not support such a claim except for the passing comment “if we don’t count 1960”. Official tallies of the 1960 popular vote show Kennedy with a small lead in the popular vote; [22] I have seen nothing to suggest that this outcome is uncertain or seriously challenged. Of the Reliable Sources discussing the 2016 outcome that I have seen, none mentioned 1960. MelanieN alt ( talk) 17:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Update: Both Anything’s revision and mine have been reverted as “no consensus”. I actually agree with that. See the section below “Changes without consensus; time to move on.” Also please see the section “New footnote in article“ to discuss the footnote added to the Election to the presidency section of the article. -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 00:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Theodore Micah Tarter 00:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
These two sections are bare-bones. Like, less than 500 words for the first 22 years of someone who is presently the most powerful person on Earth. Is this era off limits somehow?
Back in the 1960s, being "packed off to military school" was generally a punishment, for incorrigible (unruly, law-breaking, violent, promiscuous, etc.) behaviour, sort of a "last chance" before reform school or prison. (The only other reason to go to military school was with West Point or Annapolis or similar as a goal.)
This is skimmed lightly over by referring to Trump as "energetic" and sorta making his parents sound like hippies wanting him "to channel his energy in a positive manner." But anyone who's actually read The Art of the Deal knows that Trump said when he was in second grade he punched him music teacher, and he has never made a secret of picking fights, intentionally breaking rules, and defying his parents, which would explain how they decided to enroll him sixty miles away at NYMA. When Donald was 17, Fred calls him "rough," and that's where it stops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weeb Dingle ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The section about his Vietnam service does not belong here. It should be a separate section per Bill Clinton's article Gaas99 ( talk) 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I tagged this page with the "Critics of Islam" category. Trump speaks of terrorism and Islam as if they were nearly synonymous. On the record, he has stated that "Islam hates us" and that there is "tremendous hatred" within the religion itself. ( Source). It would be nice to add that somewhere. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 17:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is pretty big and needs to be split or cut immediately. It exceeds the post-expansion include size for templates, and the templates below the "References" section will not display if there is even a single template added to this page. This is not an easy decision, so a discussion on splitting or cutting should be held ASAP. epicgenius ( talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
legitimate use of sub-page. Could you please way in on this discussion? I am not sure about the technical details of transclusion however I assumed that it did affect article size for rendering purposes, but I understand that it obviously doesn't for readability. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
On Feb. 23, 2017, it was revealed he has a $50 million undisclosed loan + at least $713 million additional loan [24]. Create a loan section. Kuioooooo ( talk) 19:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
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.
A new footnote was added to the section “Election to the presidency” with this edit: [25] I believe we should delete from the footnote this sentence "But, the number five is somewhat uncertain because of claims that Richard Nixon won more of the national popular vote in 1960.[487]" The reference cited does not support such a claim, except for the passing comment “if we don’t count 1960”. Official tallies of the 1960 popular vote show Kennedy with a small lead in the popular vote; [26] I have seen nothing to suggest that this outcome is uncertain or seriously challenged. Of the Reliable Sources discussing the 2016 outcome that I have seen, none mentioned 1960. MelanieN alt ( talk) 00:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to remove this sentence from the footnote. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Russia was not sanctioned until 2014. Before that, every American businessman had business ties in Russia. It is a big market. Heck, even today GM and McDonald's have facilities in Russia. Implying that Trump had a special relationship with Russia because Trump had business ties in Russia is a bias that should not be tolerated on wikipedia. 69.166.122.249 ( talk) 04:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I say well done nuking it. It implies Donald Trump was hurting for financing and sold out to the Russian's, in a sort of "deal with the devil." As for rewriting it, it read like one long BLP vio, which says we are to remove any vio. How is he supposed to rewite that? Delete it and start over. So now we can rewrite it with neutral sources and not the weasel POV language that the first sentence starting this off is loaded with [33]. Earlier discussion in another section was to delete it, as I recall. But that could have been something else. SW3 5DL ( talk) 01:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The RS makes the Russians out to be the devil, so I used the comparison. I see problems with sources claiming, ". . .some reports state that the relationship is such that he is beholden to the Russian ruling powers." And therein lies the problem. It's casting aspersions and doing it without facts from a legitimate investigative body, like the Congress, or FBI. That then gets woven into, "The Russians hacked the election." They did no such thing. The integrity of the US election voting process, even according to Obama, was intact. No such hacking occurred. And there appears no evidence to support a claim that Trump owes the Russians so they made him president to remove the sanctions against them, and that is a claim from Rep. Maxine Waters, who did not show any sources or proof for her claim. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
A section about affiliations with Russia raises questions of whether there should be a sections with titles such as "Affiliations with Scotland", "Affiliations with Dubai", "Affiliations with Australia", "Affiliations with Turkey", "Affiliations with Panama", "Affiliations with Canada", "Affiliations with Indonesia" and so on. Why Russia particularly? This doesn't seem to indicate WP:NPOV. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 17:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
"Affiliations with Russia" has some problems. Firstly, it suggests Trump has some connection to the Russian government, which is false. Secondly, at best, he's had business dealings with private citizens, I don't see evidence he's had business dealings with the Russians. Did he build something for the Russian government? The title is problematic and should be put under "International business deals." Given the reporting in the press and the inuendos that he's involved with Putin, the word "Russian" is misleading and should be removed. SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If we decide that "Affiliations with Russia" or even "Business dealings in Russia" are worthy of a special section, should that also apply under "Foreign policy"? Does it follow that there be a sub-sub-section titled "Russia" in the foreign policy sub-section? Jack N. Stock ( talk) 00:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
As Jacknstock mentioned earlier, US opinion of Russia only dropped after the supposed Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. Even though it is very likely that Russia is at fault, I believe that it is not a valid reason to write an entire section/article on Trump and Russia's relationship just because he has a relationship with Putin and a few other people. Trump is a businessman, and businessmen do these things. York12321 ( talk) 18:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
This whole section should be nuked as POV-pushing. The linked article is about Trump's failed business projects in Russia; trying to do business in a country does not make you "affiliated" to its government. The rest of the section consists of hyped-up political allegations about some of Trump's campaign advisers, better covered in other articles. I fail to see why this deserves a level-2 header in the full biography. Delete it or move it to the business section. — JFG talk 22:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be nuked as POV-pushing. I was reading the article today and found this section has at least one serious inaccuracy. The sentence "Moreover, multiple members of his campaign and administration, including Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Michael Flynn, had extensive financial and business ties." It references a Time magazine article (Ref# 344). Donald Trump's Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia This article does not support the statement at all, other than a second-hand quote from an Op-Ed author. Not a good reference. Stackmachine ( talk) 05:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be rough consensus for removing this section, so I did the nuking and added a couple sentences elsewhere to summarize the US accusations of Russian intervention in favor of Trump and his denial thereof. — JFG talk 11:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I would also add that it would be a main section. Subject is important to campaign and presidency. Casprings ( talk) 23:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
This is an article which should be written. It is a very notable and huge topic, with myriad sources. The seriousness of the subject is also of great importance, since it is possibly the greatest threat to America and democracy we have ever witnessed. Here is just one source to whet your apetites:
Who wants to start writing it? If I had the time, I'd do it, but I'm busy on other stuff. It could start as a section here, and then get split off when it gets too large for this article. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 08:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)