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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I wanted to start a discussion based on this RFC (which was FUBAR). Basically, I would like to get consensus when the WP:Weight of the subject of Russian involvement in the election and possiable collusion with Trump or Trump associates. The current text in the article is as follows:
Ties to Russia
Several of Trump's top advisers, including Paul Manafort and Michael T. Flynn, have strong ties to Russia. [1] [2] 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, [3] and that members of Trump's campaign were in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election. [4] Trump has repeatedly praised Russian president Vladimir Putin. [5] 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. [6] Trump has said, "I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don't have any deals in Russia.” [7] Trump hosted the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, in partnership with Russian billionaire Aras Agalarov. On many occasions since 1987, Trump and his children and other associates have traveled to Moscow to explore potential business opportunities, such as a failed attempt to build a Trump Tower Moscow. Between 1996 and 2008 Trump's company submitted at least eight trademark applications for potential real estate development deals in Russia. However, as of 2017 he has no known investments or businesses in Russia. [6] [8] Some of his real estate developments outside Russia have received a large part of their financing from private Russian investors, sometimes referred to as " oligarchs". In 2008 his son Donald Trump Jr. said "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets" and "we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia". [1] [9] [10]
Reference list |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
I think the major means of expanding and providing more WP:weight are:
1. When should this section become a larger percentage of the article?
2. When should it become a major subheading?
3. When should this be in the opening in the article?
Next, I think there are several things we currently know as fact and several directions this could go that would at least force a debate on adding more weight. What I believe are generally accepted facts are below. I will not use cites unless there is debate concerning these statements, but I believe each fact I list can be well sourced.
1. The US Intelligence agencies and most WP:RS accept that the Russian government interfered in the Election.
2. The Trump Administration and some of his advisors and associates have fought for policies (e.g. the GOP platform) or made statements that are friendly to Russia.
3. There was an investigation before the election on conclusion between Trump associates and the Russian government; Multiple sources report that the investigation is ongoing.
4. There were several contacts by Trump associates with Russian officials during the election and transition that the Administration denied and only confirmed after news reports.
I put out those basic facts as someway to frame the debate. I believe all of that is currently well established, but if there is debate, I think that is fine. My basic question is when to get consensus on when to expand the subject's WP:Weight. As I see it, there are the possible options for when to expand the WP:WEIGHT in the article.
1. Expand the WP:WEIGHT now. There is currently enough that Trump's relationship with Russia should be expanded now. This is the option I believe we should take.
2. At some subjective point when RS's continue to report undisclosed meetings, a deeper investigation, etc. This doesn't provide a hard event. Basically, if we continue to have reporting on the subject, at some point there should be a judgment that the subject should be expanded.
3. A special prosecutor or a congressional select committee is appointed to investigate conclusion between Russia and Trump or his associates.
4. Trump's associates are arrested and charged or impeached.
5. Trump's associates are found guilty or removed from office.
6. Impeachment proceedings are started on Trump.
6a. Trump is impeached.
6b. Trump is removed from office.
7. Trump is charged with a crime.
8 Trump is found guilty.
If there are any other major options, please comment. However, big picture those are the things that could happen. So back to the original question but with the other to frame the question, when should the WP:WEIGHT of Russia's election interference and possible conclusion with Trump expand in the article? My own view is that in 50 years to 100 years, this is the thing of historical importance that is most likely to be remembered. However, I don't want to expand the subject without consensus so I wanted to get some editors thoughts. Given the direction this plausible way this may go, it would be good to get consensus now. Casprings ( talk) 02:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The RFC closure suggested opening this conversation.Not to put too fine a point on it, but I did not mean to support this kind of discussion at this time; I merely opined that it didn't belong in that RfC. I actually feel it's sound practice to cross bridges if and when we come to them, not before. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Such a conversation may be interesting but is doomed to veer into WP:FORUM territory. Come back with concrete proposals when something substantial happens (and even then, not too quick because we are supposed to be WP:NOTNEWS ) — JFG talk 06:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a need for this discussion. The section will expand organically and gradually, as new important information comes to light. The material will make it into the lede only when and if it becomes a much bigger story - maybe not until it seriously threatens his presidency. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, apologies for errors - I haven't attempted this before.
The opening line of the page is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States."
"Politician" seems superfluous and inaccurate. Trump is a politician by virtue of being POTUS but has famously held no other political office (for which it seems he is admired and denigrated in equal measure). I feel the addition of the word makes the sentence more inaccurate than if it were omitted. Garnett F ( talk) 12:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what "we" discussed at length if the "our" conclusions were wrong.That's very tangled logic, and not very Wikipedian. Consensus conclusions are "right" by virtue of being consensus conclusions. And we don't spend a large amount of editor time and sweat to form a clear consensus, only to resurrect the issue a couple of months later, starting over from zero, because some editors disagree with the consensus, one even outright declaring it "wrong". Arguments very similar to yours were raised and rejected by the consensus, and your claim about DNC talking points is baseless AGF failure, which is the antithesis of Wikipedian. I wouldn't personally oppose revisiting this in an RfC after more time has passed, as I suggested above; maybe around September. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
He's been active in politics for years, there are plenty of sources describing him as a politician (even before he was elected), and in that long, rambling press conference he gave recently, he said this: "I can't believe I'm saying I'm a politician, but I guess that's what I am now." - Trump refers to himself as a politician, and so it's case closed. -- Scjessey ( talk) 11:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The Trump presidency is only a month old, and we are 3 times over the limit of human readability and are causing WP:CHOKING access and possibly display problems. "intitle:Donald Trump" yielded "311 KB (28,385 words)" at 12:19, 25 February 2017". WP:TOOBIG guidelines say an article > 100 kB should be divided.
Several prominent articles will serve as destinations for bits removed: Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Business career of Donald Trump, The Trump Organization, Donald Trump in popular culture, Political positions of Donald Trump, Miss USA, Miss Universe, Miss Teen USA, Trump Model Management, Trump University, List of things named after Donald Trump, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016, United States presidential election, 2016, United States presidential debates, 2016, Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, Protests against Donald Trump, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020, Presidential transition of Donald Trump, Formation of Donald Trump's cabinet, Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump, Presidency of Donald Trump, First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, Executive Order 13769, Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration, Social policy of the Donald Trump administration, Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration, Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration and Public image of Donald Trump.
Kudos to User:epicgenius for Talk:Donald_Trump#Article_size and to User:Scjessey and User:MelanieN who replied. Deferring to the experienced editors of this article, I propose the following:
- SusanLesch ( talk) 15:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Note for interested editors: Prose size (text only): 78 kB (12729 words) "readable prose size" (which is what WP:TOOBIG refers to) -- NeilN talk to me 15:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: I agree with that. My point is the article is bloated. Susan's well-made point is that Trump is only a month into his presidency and look at the size of the article. It is unreadable. Keeping up with all the bits being added, even stuffing comments into footnotes that have no consensus, requires attention. I support Susan's suggestion to reduce the size of this article. I don't see anyone talking about an RfC. SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@ NeilN: An RfC could be crafted, I see no problem with formulating a NPOV question(s). But asking editors here first to select topics that can go off first, would reduce the bloat and then if problems persist, an RfC could be posted on the most pressing concern. SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Please watch for invalidated refnames when removing content. This is easily done by finding (Ctrl+F) "cite error" on the page. There are currently two invalid refnames, Barbaro8Sept and MiamiH3Mar2016. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we ought to change the header "Other businesses" to "Business career beyond real estate". That matches up better with other headers like "Real estate career" and "Media career" and "Political career". It is also a better standalone header (i.e. "Other businesses" raises the question "other than what?"). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to merge the brief subsections on bankruptcy and legal affairs to "Bankruptcies and other legal affairs", and move the merged subsection so it's next to the subsection on casinos. That's because the bankruptcies and other legal affairs were mostly casino-related. Also, the subheader "Further developments" is ambiguous, and so I suggest "More buildings in New York and worldwide". Additionally, the last paragraph of the "General election campaign" section is about taxes, and I suggest changing that into a subsubsection ("Requests to release tax returns"), and merging into it the pertinent info from the subsection "Income and taxes" (the remaining info in that last subsection is mainly about the 1990s and so can easily fit into the subsection "Bankuptcies and other legal affairs" which could be broadened to "Bankruptcies, taxes, and other legal affairs"). Finally, I suggest moving the "Net worth" subsection to the end of the "Personal life" section, so it's not floating around as a separate section. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The section header "Ties to Russia" seems like it could be improved. The section says "no direct ties were found between Trump or his businesses and the Russian government.[394]" So I changed it to "Indirect ties to Russia" but MelanieN reverted because some investors in some of Trump's businesses are Russian. But isn't the main controversy about alleged ties to the government of Russia rather than private businessmen? Maybe we could say "Indirect ties to the Russian government"? That seems a lot more accurate than what we've got now, which suggests it's been established that Trump and Putin are joined at the hip. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Two of the most ballyhooed Russians Trump is tied to are the former owners of Trump International Hotel and Tower (Toronto). They left Russia around the age of 4, so saying that they are in Russia is misleading. TFD ( talk) 02:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
And now, Anything, you went and changed it again, to "Ties to people in Russia," even though we were discussing it here and you didn't discuss your change before implementing it. I object to that as inaccurate; it is not actually what the section is about. In fact the section mentions only one "person in Russia", namely, his partner in hosting a beauty pageant. Most of that paragraph is about his attempts to set up business dealings there ("there" = in the country, Russia, or the city, Moscow), in addition to hosting the beauty pageant there. The section absolutely is about business dealings and financial connections. It is absolutely not about his links to "people in Russia" - because he really doesn't have any such links that we know of. I am not going to revert it, because I (unlike you, apparently) respect the 1RR rule. Maybe tomorrow, if somebody doesn't revert it first. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Sheesh. Just call it "Ties to Russia." There is no need to modify it or qualify it. This insistence that the heading "ties to Russia" somehow implies he is in Putin's pocket exists only in your mind. Look: If I say someone in another country has "ties to America," people don't think I am saying he is part of the government, or a golfing partner of Trump's. They know it might mean he has relatives in the United States, or maybe went to school here, or has investments here. "Ties" is a neutral word, and it well describes the situation laid out in the section: one paragraph about why this issue comes up at all, and about a couple of associates of his that have connections to Russia; and one paragraph about his attempts (so far unsuccessful) to establish business relationships there and his investments from Russian sources. Leave it as "ties" and let it go. --
MelanieN (
talk) 14:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Wait, I just read the source and am I missing something or is the source being totally misrepresented? There appears to be nothing in the source [2] which says " no direct ties were found between Trump or his businesses and the Russian government." Indeed, the whole freakin' thing is about his ties to Russia, both direct and indirect (though some of them old). Removing this. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Claim 3: Members of Trump’s inner circle were in contact with Russian intelligence officials throughout the campaign. Evidence: The main source for the latest news on this topic is the New York Times, which based its Feb. 14, 2017, report on four unnamed American officials. The officials told New York Times reporters that phone records show Trump associates communicated with senior Russian officials — including Trump’s one-time campaign chair Paul Manafort — but they have not found these calls to be evidence of collusion to disrupt the election.
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials. American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.
"Ties to Russia" You have multiple types of ties. 1. Campaign ties: Russia intervened in the election to support Trump. Multiple people connected with Trump were in contact with Russian connected groups, including Roger Stone,Manfafort, and others. 2. Trump has multiple business ties. 3. His administration and campaign had policy ties, including removing language from the GOP platform, etc. Casprings ( talk) 17:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Do we want this subsection to include not just the actual, confirmed ties, but also the alleged possible ties? If so, the header should reflect both.Answer: the section now includes only "the actual, confirmed ties". Nobody has tried to add "alleged possible ties" at this point, and we certainly will not be adding any "allegations" without strong RS support, per BLP. So the concern about "alleged possible ties" seems irrelevant at this point unless and until strong evidence comes along. But having raised that possibility, all the more reason why the title should be an unqualified "ties" rather than having to keep modifying it constantly ("this kind of ties, oh, and now that kind of ties"). The article now says "Business ties to Russia", a change which was made in the middle of this discussion (there has been way too much of that here). Let's leave it alone until we get consensus here. Shall we choose between "Business ties to Russia" and "Ties to Russia", are those the main candidates now? I'll set up an informal poll below. Discussion can continue here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Informal poll: "Ties to Russia" or "Business ties to Russia" ? Or (newly added third choice) "Relationship to Russia"?
Clearly "Ties to Russia" has consensus. There are definite problems with the placement. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "perminent" to "permanent" to fix typo. This is subsection "Immigration order" of section "7.2 First 100 days". Hddqsb ( talk) 02:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
plz 24.211.226.39 ( talk) 01:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald J. Trump was in the movie the Little Rascals (original one) [1] MikiLeg477 ( talk) 12:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
References
I feel that there should be an infobox stating the time Trump was Chairman, his successor, and his predecessor. -- Figfires ( talk) 10:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The Legal affairs section here has a summary paragraph about his various legal affairs. It also has a link to the main article, Legal affairs of Donald Trump. As the main article details by year the same material here, I removed it here. HaeB reverted my removal here. I reverted him because he's reinstating duplicate material covered elsewhere. MrX, then came along and reverted me here. This is his BLP and every bit cannot be included here especially when the material is already duplicated in a main article elsewwhere. It's not the purpose of a BLP to mention every bit. I support leaving this off the article. If a better summary paragraph is needed, I support a new one, but I think its best to leave off this wall of text when it is well addressed in another article on the identical subject. Thoughts? SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
MOS advises that we
name and order the sections based on the precedent of an article that seems similar.
Here's how we've ordered
Hillary Clinton:
and Barack Obama:
It looks like the "Ties to Russia" section would analogically go under "Real estate career". Clinton's "Email controversy" section goes under Secretarial career, not under "2016 presidential campaign".
The campaign is over. The email controversy may not yet be over. And the ties to Russia are famously not over. --
Dervorguilla (
talk) 05:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
In this edit [10], by reverting, Volunteer Marek misrepresents a source that talks about Trump's business activities in Russia by making out it is talking about Trumps "relationship to Russia", and uses piping to misrepresent the title of the Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia article. He also deletes sourced content that supports Trump's assertion that he hasn't any business interests in Russia. Volunteer Marek also weasely calls Aras Agalarov a "Russian billionare" when the cited source actually describes him as a real estate developer. As to why Volunteer Marek thinks it correct to insert the 2013 Miss Universe pageant content out of chronological order, who knows? VM has got things the wrong way around if he thinks discussion and consensus is required about whether content should be based on what a source actually talks about, or that a wikilink should use the wording of the article title it links to, or whether an individual is called something that the cited source calls him, or if content generally should follow the chronological order of events. It would be required if any of those things were not to be done! The same point applies to Emir of Wikipedia [11] Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 21:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I just finished reorganizing this stuff a bit, see what you think. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we need to re-phrase it. Trump has ties to many countries. For example, his mother was born in Scotland and he owns a golf course and hotel there. That's bigger than the Russia tie. Trump has been invited to a state visit to the UK, where he will be the guest of the Queen. He has never said anything against her. But the Russia tie attracts attention because of the theory that Trump favors the interests of Russia over those of the United States. The title should mention that, perhaps by including "controversy" in the title. TFD ( talk) 06:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
It would help if Anythingyouwant ( talk · contribs) would propose such controversial changes here first, rather than making changes without seeking consensus. When particular content is under discussion, there should be no changes taking place to the article until agreement exists. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I just found a valuable picture of trump's childhood (here: [13]) that is cool to upload for the article. Can anybody do this? Alborzagros ( talk) 11:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove redundant {{pp-blp|small=yes}}.
219.79.127.36 (
talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Done Thanks,
IVORK
Discuss 02:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe one with him smiling, such a this one [14]? It sets a better light for the article, rather than a picture of a guy who looks like he just rolled off the wrong side of the bed. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 01:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This edit was as follows:
“ |
Ukrainian References
|
” |
First of all, as the title of the cited article indicates, Ukraine was indeed interfering in the 2016 election, and the cited article says so repeatedly. With regard to Manafort in particular, the article says Ukraine "disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election." So, I object to erasing all mention of the fact that Ukraine interfered in the election, and all mention that the so-called Ukrainian "evidence" was part of that interference. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I was the one who made that change, but I am open to changing or reverting it per discussion. I thought the thrust of the source article was more about the Russian stuff (despite the title) and I made note of the fact that the section title is "Russian interference in the election". If consensus is to refocus the sentence back to Ukraine, we should probably change the title back to "Foreign interference..." -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
While Anythingyouwant continues to argue against the entire paragraph, can we get back to the subject of this thread: how to deal with Ukraine? Should we revert to the original wording saying that Ukraine intervened in the election, and should we change the section title to "Foreign interference in the election"? -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
References
The prospect of Mr Trump … becoming leader of the country's biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election.
I object to this revert. Contrary to the edit summary, none of these sources, and none of the proposed text, was previously discussed. What was previously discussed was trump's comment praising putin for not retaliating for expulsion of diplomats (which happened much later). Apparently, it's always going to be unacceptable if we say anything about Trump not loving Putin, or Pence agreeing with Trump that Putin is a strong leader but a bully. And why insist on putting this so-called praise toward the end of the paragraph, after the U.S. formally accused Putin of hacking? The sources are in reverse of that order. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant, you have a bad habit of changing sections that are under discussion, and imposing your own version even when discussion at the talk page didn't support it. The main problem I saw with that edit is that you were inserting or implying your own Original Research claim (disproven in a section above) that Trump stopped praising Putin after the hacking was revealed. As for the order of the sentences, I consider that to be in order of importance - with Trump's praise of Putin to be the least important. (As for the claim that Trump "rebuffed" the charges, that mild disclaimer ("I don't love him. I don't hate him" [ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-farmville-idUSKCN1240WJ') was on a par with his rebuttal to Clinton, when she mentioned that he might be considered Putin's "puppet" and he insisted "No puppet. No puppet. You're the puppet.") As for Pence criticizing Putin, put that in Pence's biographical article. This is Trump's biographical article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
This may be a good time for hardworking contributors to reread NPOVFAQ. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree with TFD. And I'd like to point out, though a thorough reading makes it obvious, that Anythingyouwant is driving this nonsense. Again. And I still support a topic ban for him. This is going to become another "neither won a majority of the vote,' obsessive endless arguments. And I oppose that happening again. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree entirely with User:The Four Deuces. Unfortunately, I have been prevented from indenting this comment as a response to TFD, by an editor who apparently wanted this comment to seem like agreement with him instead of with TFD. [20] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Anythingyouwant: Look back over all of MelanieN's comments. And STOP. SW3 5DL ( talk) 18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I have
added "as a strong leader" per this discussion and because I happened to find a source that uses almost identical wording to what we had in the article. I searched for sources that mention Trump praising Putin and limited the search to sources that were published post-election.
This was the first source that included some kind of duration.
This came in search first, but I disqualified it because it says "particularly during the campaign" [emphasis added]
. But the second source happens to have an answer to this question "Shall we put that in the article, to prove he still sees nothing wrong with Putin and will defend him against criticism?"
Politrukki (
talk) 20:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the proposed edit is synthetic. There's no real evidence that Trump's praising of Putin, which amounts to praising someone he recognizes as a strong leader, has legitimately put Trump 'under scrutiny.' As for the 'moral equivalence' of how Putin governs versus the US, well lets take a look at some of our defense of so-called Allies, like the Saudis. They throw acid in women's faces when the women piss them off, and they throw gays off roofs, while at the same time, Saudi men have no problem raping children. They also have no problem murdering female relatives who get raped. But if ISIS invaded The Kingdom, it would be US troops, US air support, that responds. So we would go in and save rapists, pedophiles and murderers, because they're our ally, even though we know the Saudis would make Hitler blush. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
"During the campaign, Trump ... rebuffed claims that he loves Putin." Not the best choice of words. See Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail: "‘Christ, we can’t get away calling him a pigf-cker,’ the campaign manager protested. ‘Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.’ ‘I know,’ Johnson replied. ‘But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.’" -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:54, 15 March 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I wanted to start a discussion based on this RFC (which was FUBAR). Basically, I would like to get consensus when the WP:Weight of the subject of Russian involvement in the election and possiable collusion with Trump or Trump associates. The current text in the article is as follows:
Ties to Russia
Several of Trump's top advisers, including Paul Manafort and Michael T. Flynn, have strong ties to Russia. [1] [2] 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, [3] and that members of Trump's campaign were in contact with Russian government officials both before and after the presidential election. [4] Trump has repeatedly praised Russian president Vladimir Putin. [5] 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. [6] Trump has said, "I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don't have any deals in Russia.” [7] Trump hosted the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, in partnership with Russian billionaire Aras Agalarov. On many occasions since 1987, Trump and his children and other associates have traveled to Moscow to explore potential business opportunities, such as a failed attempt to build a Trump Tower Moscow. Between 1996 and 2008 Trump's company submitted at least eight trademark applications for potential real estate development deals in Russia. However, as of 2017 he has no known investments or businesses in Russia. [6] [8] Some of his real estate developments outside Russia have received a large part of their financing from private Russian investors, sometimes referred to as " oligarchs". In 2008 his son Donald Trump Jr. said "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets" and "we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia". [1] [9] [10]
Reference list |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
I think the major means of expanding and providing more WP:weight are:
1. When should this section become a larger percentage of the article?
2. When should it become a major subheading?
3. When should this be in the opening in the article?
Next, I think there are several things we currently know as fact and several directions this could go that would at least force a debate on adding more weight. What I believe are generally accepted facts are below. I will not use cites unless there is debate concerning these statements, but I believe each fact I list can be well sourced.
1. The US Intelligence agencies and most WP:RS accept that the Russian government interfered in the Election.
2. The Trump Administration and some of his advisors and associates have fought for policies (e.g. the GOP platform) or made statements that are friendly to Russia.
3. There was an investigation before the election on conclusion between Trump associates and the Russian government; Multiple sources report that the investigation is ongoing.
4. There were several contacts by Trump associates with Russian officials during the election and transition that the Administration denied and only confirmed after news reports.
I put out those basic facts as someway to frame the debate. I believe all of that is currently well established, but if there is debate, I think that is fine. My basic question is when to get consensus on when to expand the subject's WP:Weight. As I see it, there are the possible options for when to expand the WP:WEIGHT in the article.
1. Expand the WP:WEIGHT now. There is currently enough that Trump's relationship with Russia should be expanded now. This is the option I believe we should take.
2. At some subjective point when RS's continue to report undisclosed meetings, a deeper investigation, etc. This doesn't provide a hard event. Basically, if we continue to have reporting on the subject, at some point there should be a judgment that the subject should be expanded.
3. A special prosecutor or a congressional select committee is appointed to investigate conclusion between Russia and Trump or his associates.
4. Trump's associates are arrested and charged or impeached.
5. Trump's associates are found guilty or removed from office.
6. Impeachment proceedings are started on Trump.
6a. Trump is impeached.
6b. Trump is removed from office.
7. Trump is charged with a crime.
8 Trump is found guilty.
If there are any other major options, please comment. However, big picture those are the things that could happen. So back to the original question but with the other to frame the question, when should the WP:WEIGHT of Russia's election interference and possible conclusion with Trump expand in the article? My own view is that in 50 years to 100 years, this is the thing of historical importance that is most likely to be remembered. However, I don't want to expand the subject without consensus so I wanted to get some editors thoughts. Given the direction this plausible way this may go, it would be good to get consensus now. Casprings ( talk) 02:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The RFC closure suggested opening this conversation.Not to put too fine a point on it, but I did not mean to support this kind of discussion at this time; I merely opined that it didn't belong in that RfC. I actually feel it's sound practice to cross bridges if and when we come to them, not before. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Such a conversation may be interesting but is doomed to veer into WP:FORUM territory. Come back with concrete proposals when something substantial happens (and even then, not too quick because we are supposed to be WP:NOTNEWS ) — JFG talk 06:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a need for this discussion. The section will expand organically and gradually, as new important information comes to light. The material will make it into the lede only when and if it becomes a much bigger story - maybe not until it seriously threatens his presidency. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, apologies for errors - I haven't attempted this before.
The opening line of the page is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States."
"Politician" seems superfluous and inaccurate. Trump is a politician by virtue of being POTUS but has famously held no other political office (for which it seems he is admired and denigrated in equal measure). I feel the addition of the word makes the sentence more inaccurate than if it were omitted. Garnett F ( talk) 12:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what "we" discussed at length if the "our" conclusions were wrong.That's very tangled logic, and not very Wikipedian. Consensus conclusions are "right" by virtue of being consensus conclusions. And we don't spend a large amount of editor time and sweat to form a clear consensus, only to resurrect the issue a couple of months later, starting over from zero, because some editors disagree with the consensus, one even outright declaring it "wrong". Arguments very similar to yours were raised and rejected by the consensus, and your claim about DNC talking points is baseless AGF failure, which is the antithesis of Wikipedian. I wouldn't personally oppose revisiting this in an RfC after more time has passed, as I suggested above; maybe around September. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
He's been active in politics for years, there are plenty of sources describing him as a politician (even before he was elected), and in that long, rambling press conference he gave recently, he said this: "I can't believe I'm saying I'm a politician, but I guess that's what I am now." - Trump refers to himself as a politician, and so it's case closed. -- Scjessey ( talk) 11:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The Trump presidency is only a month old, and we are 3 times over the limit of human readability and are causing WP:CHOKING access and possibly display problems. "intitle:Donald Trump" yielded "311 KB (28,385 words)" at 12:19, 25 February 2017". WP:TOOBIG guidelines say an article > 100 kB should be divided.
Several prominent articles will serve as destinations for bits removed: Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Business career of Donald Trump, The Trump Organization, Donald Trump in popular culture, Political positions of Donald Trump, Miss USA, Miss Universe, Miss Teen USA, Trump Model Management, Trump University, List of things named after Donald Trump, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016, United States presidential election, 2016, United States presidential debates, 2016, Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, Protests against Donald Trump, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020, Presidential transition of Donald Trump, Formation of Donald Trump's cabinet, Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump, Presidency of Donald Trump, First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, Executive Order 13769, Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration, Social policy of the Donald Trump administration, Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration, Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration and Public image of Donald Trump.
Kudos to User:epicgenius for Talk:Donald_Trump#Article_size and to User:Scjessey and User:MelanieN who replied. Deferring to the experienced editors of this article, I propose the following:
- SusanLesch ( talk) 15:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Note for interested editors: Prose size (text only): 78 kB (12729 words) "readable prose size" (which is what WP:TOOBIG refers to) -- NeilN talk to me 15:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: I agree with that. My point is the article is bloated. Susan's well-made point is that Trump is only a month into his presidency and look at the size of the article. It is unreadable. Keeping up with all the bits being added, even stuffing comments into footnotes that have no consensus, requires attention. I support Susan's suggestion to reduce the size of this article. I don't see anyone talking about an RfC. SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@ NeilN: An RfC could be crafted, I see no problem with formulating a NPOV question(s). But asking editors here first to select topics that can go off first, would reduce the bloat and then if problems persist, an RfC could be posted on the most pressing concern. SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Please watch for invalidated refnames when removing content. This is easily done by finding (Ctrl+F) "cite error" on the page. There are currently two invalid refnames, Barbaro8Sept and MiamiH3Mar2016. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we ought to change the header "Other businesses" to "Business career beyond real estate". That matches up better with other headers like "Real estate career" and "Media career" and "Political career". It is also a better standalone header (i.e. "Other businesses" raises the question "other than what?"). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to merge the brief subsections on bankruptcy and legal affairs to "Bankruptcies and other legal affairs", and move the merged subsection so it's next to the subsection on casinos. That's because the bankruptcies and other legal affairs were mostly casino-related. Also, the subheader "Further developments" is ambiguous, and so I suggest "More buildings in New York and worldwide". Additionally, the last paragraph of the "General election campaign" section is about taxes, and I suggest changing that into a subsubsection ("Requests to release tax returns"), and merging into it the pertinent info from the subsection "Income and taxes" (the remaining info in that last subsection is mainly about the 1990s and so can easily fit into the subsection "Bankuptcies and other legal affairs" which could be broadened to "Bankruptcies, taxes, and other legal affairs"). Finally, I suggest moving the "Net worth" subsection to the end of the "Personal life" section, so it's not floating around as a separate section. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The section header "Ties to Russia" seems like it could be improved. The section says "no direct ties were found between Trump or his businesses and the Russian government.[394]" So I changed it to "Indirect ties to Russia" but MelanieN reverted because some investors in some of Trump's businesses are Russian. But isn't the main controversy about alleged ties to the government of Russia rather than private businessmen? Maybe we could say "Indirect ties to the Russian government"? That seems a lot more accurate than what we've got now, which suggests it's been established that Trump and Putin are joined at the hip. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Two of the most ballyhooed Russians Trump is tied to are the former owners of Trump International Hotel and Tower (Toronto). They left Russia around the age of 4, so saying that they are in Russia is misleading. TFD ( talk) 02:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
And now, Anything, you went and changed it again, to "Ties to people in Russia," even though we were discussing it here and you didn't discuss your change before implementing it. I object to that as inaccurate; it is not actually what the section is about. In fact the section mentions only one "person in Russia", namely, his partner in hosting a beauty pageant. Most of that paragraph is about his attempts to set up business dealings there ("there" = in the country, Russia, or the city, Moscow), in addition to hosting the beauty pageant there. The section absolutely is about business dealings and financial connections. It is absolutely not about his links to "people in Russia" - because he really doesn't have any such links that we know of. I am not going to revert it, because I (unlike you, apparently) respect the 1RR rule. Maybe tomorrow, if somebody doesn't revert it first. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Sheesh. Just call it "Ties to Russia." There is no need to modify it or qualify it. This insistence that the heading "ties to Russia" somehow implies he is in Putin's pocket exists only in your mind. Look: If I say someone in another country has "ties to America," people don't think I am saying he is part of the government, or a golfing partner of Trump's. They know it might mean he has relatives in the United States, or maybe went to school here, or has investments here. "Ties" is a neutral word, and it well describes the situation laid out in the section: one paragraph about why this issue comes up at all, and about a couple of associates of his that have connections to Russia; and one paragraph about his attempts (so far unsuccessful) to establish business relationships there and his investments from Russian sources. Leave it as "ties" and let it go. --
MelanieN (
talk) 14:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Wait, I just read the source and am I missing something or is the source being totally misrepresented? There appears to be nothing in the source [2] which says " no direct ties were found between Trump or his businesses and the Russian government." Indeed, the whole freakin' thing is about his ties to Russia, both direct and indirect (though some of them old). Removing this. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Claim 3: Members of Trump’s inner circle were in contact with Russian intelligence officials throughout the campaign. Evidence: The main source for the latest news on this topic is the New York Times, which based its Feb. 14, 2017, report on four unnamed American officials. The officials told New York Times reporters that phone records show Trump associates communicated with senior Russian officials — including Trump’s one-time campaign chair Paul Manafort — but they have not found these calls to be evidence of collusion to disrupt the election.
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials. American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.
"Ties to Russia" You have multiple types of ties. 1. Campaign ties: Russia intervened in the election to support Trump. Multiple people connected with Trump were in contact with Russian connected groups, including Roger Stone,Manfafort, and others. 2. Trump has multiple business ties. 3. His administration and campaign had policy ties, including removing language from the GOP platform, etc. Casprings ( talk) 17:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Do we want this subsection to include not just the actual, confirmed ties, but also the alleged possible ties? If so, the header should reflect both.Answer: the section now includes only "the actual, confirmed ties". Nobody has tried to add "alleged possible ties" at this point, and we certainly will not be adding any "allegations" without strong RS support, per BLP. So the concern about "alleged possible ties" seems irrelevant at this point unless and until strong evidence comes along. But having raised that possibility, all the more reason why the title should be an unqualified "ties" rather than having to keep modifying it constantly ("this kind of ties, oh, and now that kind of ties"). The article now says "Business ties to Russia", a change which was made in the middle of this discussion (there has been way too much of that here). Let's leave it alone until we get consensus here. Shall we choose between "Business ties to Russia" and "Ties to Russia", are those the main candidates now? I'll set up an informal poll below. Discussion can continue here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Informal poll: "Ties to Russia" or "Business ties to Russia" ? Or (newly added third choice) "Relationship to Russia"?
Clearly "Ties to Russia" has consensus. There are definite problems with the placement. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "perminent" to "permanent" to fix typo. This is subsection "Immigration order" of section "7.2 First 100 days". Hddqsb ( talk) 02:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
plz 24.211.226.39 ( talk) 01:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald J. Trump was in the movie the Little Rascals (original one) [1] MikiLeg477 ( talk) 12:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
References
I feel that there should be an infobox stating the time Trump was Chairman, his successor, and his predecessor. -- Figfires ( talk) 10:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The Legal affairs section here has a summary paragraph about his various legal affairs. It also has a link to the main article, Legal affairs of Donald Trump. As the main article details by year the same material here, I removed it here. HaeB reverted my removal here. I reverted him because he's reinstating duplicate material covered elsewhere. MrX, then came along and reverted me here. This is his BLP and every bit cannot be included here especially when the material is already duplicated in a main article elsewwhere. It's not the purpose of a BLP to mention every bit. I support leaving this off the article. If a better summary paragraph is needed, I support a new one, but I think its best to leave off this wall of text when it is well addressed in another article on the identical subject. Thoughts? SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
MOS advises that we
name and order the sections based on the precedent of an article that seems similar.
Here's how we've ordered
Hillary Clinton:
and Barack Obama:
It looks like the "Ties to Russia" section would analogically go under "Real estate career". Clinton's "Email controversy" section goes under Secretarial career, not under "2016 presidential campaign".
The campaign is over. The email controversy may not yet be over. And the ties to Russia are famously not over. --
Dervorguilla (
talk) 05:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
In this edit [10], by reverting, Volunteer Marek misrepresents a source that talks about Trump's business activities in Russia by making out it is talking about Trumps "relationship to Russia", and uses piping to misrepresent the title of the Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia article. He also deletes sourced content that supports Trump's assertion that he hasn't any business interests in Russia. Volunteer Marek also weasely calls Aras Agalarov a "Russian billionare" when the cited source actually describes him as a real estate developer. As to why Volunteer Marek thinks it correct to insert the 2013 Miss Universe pageant content out of chronological order, who knows? VM has got things the wrong way around if he thinks discussion and consensus is required about whether content should be based on what a source actually talks about, or that a wikilink should use the wording of the article title it links to, or whether an individual is called something that the cited source calls him, or if content generally should follow the chronological order of events. It would be required if any of those things were not to be done! The same point applies to Emir of Wikipedia [11] Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 21:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I just finished reorganizing this stuff a bit, see what you think. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we need to re-phrase it. Trump has ties to many countries. For example, his mother was born in Scotland and he owns a golf course and hotel there. That's bigger than the Russia tie. Trump has been invited to a state visit to the UK, where he will be the guest of the Queen. He has never said anything against her. But the Russia tie attracts attention because of the theory that Trump favors the interests of Russia over those of the United States. The title should mention that, perhaps by including "controversy" in the title. TFD ( talk) 06:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
It would help if Anythingyouwant ( talk · contribs) would propose such controversial changes here first, rather than making changes without seeking consensus. When particular content is under discussion, there should be no changes taking place to the article until agreement exists. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I just found a valuable picture of trump's childhood (here: [13]) that is cool to upload for the article. Can anybody do this? Alborzagros ( talk) 11:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove redundant {{pp-blp|small=yes}}.
219.79.127.36 (
talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Done Thanks,
IVORK
Discuss 02:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe one with him smiling, such a this one [14]? It sets a better light for the article, rather than a picture of a guy who looks like he just rolled off the wrong side of the bed. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 01:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This edit was as follows:
“ |
Ukrainian References
|
” |
First of all, as the title of the cited article indicates, Ukraine was indeed interfering in the 2016 election, and the cited article says so repeatedly. With regard to Manafort in particular, the article says Ukraine "disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election." So, I object to erasing all mention of the fact that Ukraine interfered in the election, and all mention that the so-called Ukrainian "evidence" was part of that interference. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I was the one who made that change, but I am open to changing or reverting it per discussion. I thought the thrust of the source article was more about the Russian stuff (despite the title) and I made note of the fact that the section title is "Russian interference in the election". If consensus is to refocus the sentence back to Ukraine, we should probably change the title back to "Foreign interference..." -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
While Anythingyouwant continues to argue against the entire paragraph, can we get back to the subject of this thread: how to deal with Ukraine? Should we revert to the original wording saying that Ukraine intervened in the election, and should we change the section title to "Foreign interference in the election"? -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
References
The prospect of Mr Trump … becoming leader of the country's biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election.
I object to this revert. Contrary to the edit summary, none of these sources, and none of the proposed text, was previously discussed. What was previously discussed was trump's comment praising putin for not retaliating for expulsion of diplomats (which happened much later). Apparently, it's always going to be unacceptable if we say anything about Trump not loving Putin, or Pence agreeing with Trump that Putin is a strong leader but a bully. And why insist on putting this so-called praise toward the end of the paragraph, after the U.S. formally accused Putin of hacking? The sources are in reverse of that order. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant, you have a bad habit of changing sections that are under discussion, and imposing your own version even when discussion at the talk page didn't support it. The main problem I saw with that edit is that you were inserting or implying your own Original Research claim (disproven in a section above) that Trump stopped praising Putin after the hacking was revealed. As for the order of the sentences, I consider that to be in order of importance - with Trump's praise of Putin to be the least important. (As for the claim that Trump "rebuffed" the charges, that mild disclaimer ("I don't love him. I don't hate him" [ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-farmville-idUSKCN1240WJ') was on a par with his rebuttal to Clinton, when she mentioned that he might be considered Putin's "puppet" and he insisted "No puppet. No puppet. You're the puppet.") As for Pence criticizing Putin, put that in Pence's biographical article. This is Trump's biographical article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
This may be a good time for hardworking contributors to reread NPOVFAQ. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree with TFD. And I'd like to point out, though a thorough reading makes it obvious, that Anythingyouwant is driving this nonsense. Again. And I still support a topic ban for him. This is going to become another "neither won a majority of the vote,' obsessive endless arguments. And I oppose that happening again. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree entirely with User:The Four Deuces. Unfortunately, I have been prevented from indenting this comment as a response to TFD, by an editor who apparently wanted this comment to seem like agreement with him instead of with TFD. [20] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Anythingyouwant: Look back over all of MelanieN's comments. And STOP. SW3 5DL ( talk) 18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I have
added "as a strong leader" per this discussion and because I happened to find a source that uses almost identical wording to what we had in the article. I searched for sources that mention Trump praising Putin and limited the search to sources that were published post-election.
This was the first source that included some kind of duration.
This came in search first, but I disqualified it because it says "particularly during the campaign" [emphasis added]
. But the second source happens to have an answer to this question "Shall we put that in the article, to prove he still sees nothing wrong with Putin and will defend him against criticism?"
Politrukki (
talk) 20:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the proposed edit is synthetic. There's no real evidence that Trump's praising of Putin, which amounts to praising someone he recognizes as a strong leader, has legitimately put Trump 'under scrutiny.' As for the 'moral equivalence' of how Putin governs versus the US, well lets take a look at some of our defense of so-called Allies, like the Saudis. They throw acid in women's faces when the women piss them off, and they throw gays off roofs, while at the same time, Saudi men have no problem raping children. They also have no problem murdering female relatives who get raped. But if ISIS invaded The Kingdom, it would be US troops, US air support, that responds. So we would go in and save rapists, pedophiles and murderers, because they're our ally, even though we know the Saudis would make Hitler blush. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
"During the campaign, Trump ... rebuffed claims that he loves Putin." Not the best choice of words. See Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail: "‘Christ, we can’t get away calling him a pigf-cker,’ the campaign manager protested. ‘Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.’ ‘I know,’ Johnson replied. ‘But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.’" -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)