Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:07, 16 March 2018

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Presidency of Donald Trump Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q1 List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections Donald Trump on social media …or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

Other talk page banners

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LittleRobbinBird (article contribs).

	Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot.

This was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of December 6–12, 2015; January 31–February 6, February 21–27, February 28–March 5, March 6–12, March 13–19, October 9–15, October 16–22, November 6–12, and November 13–19, 2016; January 15–21 and January 22–28, 2017, according to the Top 25 Report.

Open RfCs and surveys

• #RfC: "useful fool"
• #RfC: Position statements regarding Women's Rights

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watering of ODNI

This revert waters down the statement in the ODNI (p.11) by placing "high confidence" as an afterthought in a separate sentence of the article text. @Prodego: has appeared at JFG's talk page asking him to undo his revert. . Are we all in agreement that the revert should be undone? SPECIFICO talk 04:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean this. Prodego obviously missed the later page number correction, so their comment is not support for your position. They are simply saying that the |quote= does not match the text on page 11. I'm an abstain. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is the complaint here that one citation quote was chosen over another? I don't see that any article text was changed.- MrX 🖋 17:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Is the complaint here that one citation quote was chosen over another? - Yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Good grief. Can't we just put both, or neither, quotes in the citation? Should we even be selectively quoting it since it's a primary source? The only thing that matters is if the reference support the article text.- MrX 🖋 17:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Not both, since they have about 80% overlap. Either or neither would work for me. I think it's a nit. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss is correct – I did not see the later edit to correct the page number. Thank you for pointing that out. Assuming the page number agrees with the quote, whichever quote has consensus is fine. Alternately, I don't see any problem with citing both quotes in the article if that is for some reason preferred. Prodego 00:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

After I reverted Mandruss's edit, we discussed the issue at User talk:JFG#Trump revert, and settled by adjusting the page number for the longstanding quote. Case closed. — JFG 01:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I changed |page=7 to |page=ii. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: "useful fool"

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should Trump's main biography include the phrase:

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

References

1. Hayden, Michael (3 November 2016). "Former CIA chief: Trump is Russia's useful fool". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 July 2017.

For context, please see the above discussion, whereby this phrase was recently added, removed and inserted again. — JFG 10:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose – Calling the President of the United States a "useful fool" and an "unwitting agent of Russia" is a BLP smear. The sentence reports opinions by two former intelligence officers, expressed in November 2016, shortly after before Trump's election. There is no particular notability for those opinions today. They are appropriate to cite, in context, in the article on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (they are in the section about reactions of the intelligence community), but they have WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in the subject's main biography. — JFG 10:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's not name calling, but an intelligence-based "benign" description of the factual state of affairs. See the full quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BLP, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SPECIFICO – Op-ed pieces are not subject to normal fact-checking or editorial oversight. If it is uncontested that Trump is an "unwitting agent", it should be easy to find multiple reliable, secondary sources to support the claim. In the material, it is not clear from the context that Hayden is citing Morell and it is not even verifiable that Hayden and Morell have used both expressions. Politrukki (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the same reasons; you've said it best. This content runs contrary to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is not being said in Misplaced Pages's voice, it is an opinion properly attributed to respected intelligence veterans, a former director of the NSA and a former deputy director of the CIA, respectively. This was discussed above at Talk:Donald_Trump#Removal_of_RS_content, where consensus was found to restore the material reverted by JFG. TheValeyard (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. They are highly significant opinions by two men who know more about this than anyone, and their veracity is borne out by recent events: Trump refuses to criticize Putin or Russia, admit that Russia interfered in the election, refuses to take action to protect the American election system from ongoing Russian hacking and meddling, even not using the money assigned by Congress for the State Dept. to use for that purpose, and does not enforce the sanctions against Russian (the sanctions he is allegedly promised $11 billion for lifting). (As noted on the news, we now have two people whom Trump will not criticize: Putin and Stormy Daniels.) Suspicions regarding the veracity of allegations that he is being blackmailed by Russia are strengthened by all these events. For full context and an improved version, see this section above: Talk:Donald Trump#Removal of RS content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Largely undue for main BLP. Two former Obama officials opinion on an opposition candidate days before the election does not help it's weight either. Also since all the cool kids are doing it, Talk:Donald Trump#Removal of RS content. Good luck finding anything useful in that mess of a thread. PackMecEng (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BLP. Both Hayden and Morell have a dubious reputation. Hayden lied under oath to Congress about torture , Morell lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq , . @BullRangifer: Trump's anti-Russian remarks – , , , , , , , , , , , . -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As per all the above reasons given. Sad that we had to resort to an RfC for this when I thought it should be pretty obvious. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as the opinion of a few people; not sufficiently mainstream or widely held enough to include in this BLP. I notice that these two people are quoted with their opinion at the article Useful idiot which may be a better place for it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Just two old guys sittin' on a park bench? Who could have a more informed and considered and stonefaced an evaluation of the situation? SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's not name calling, but an intelligence-based "benign" description of the factual state of affairs. See the full quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• We could fill many books with analyses and descriptions, by various experts, of the factual state of affairs about Donald Trump. In this biography we need to focus on the ones that have gotten heavy, longstanding, significant coverage from multiple sources. There is such coverage about his relationship with Russia, and that issue is included in this biography. The particular analysis being discussed here - this particular name for his relationship to Russia - has not gotten that kind of coverage and should be excluded per WP:WEIGHT. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

But isn't this comment by intelligence experts (and there have also been others more recently) who have deep professional understanding of the nature Russian tactics to compromise "useful idiot" actors, a noteworthy indicator of the very widespread public discussion of the likelihood that Trump has been compromised by the Russians? It may turn out that there are more specific explanations of his behavior, but this is one that has been consistent and widespread for the past 20+ months. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If this particular "useful fool" tag actually was "very widespread" I would support including it. But it isn't. Once in a while someone brings it up, that's all. That specific "useful fool" tag, proposed for inclusion here, is a different matter from the more widespread speculation about why he is so deferential to the Russians - although I wouldn't support including that either, because speculation is just what it is. Nobody really knows why he acts as he does toward Russia: as an innocent dupe, or out of fear of something they "have on him", or as a conscious agent of their policies. The intelligence officers quoted here are part of that speculation, and their view has not become widely accepted. Maybe someday Robert Mueller will explain his motives to us with evidence; until then, educated guesses have no place here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN hit the nail on the head. Undue weight indeed 16 months later. — JFG 22:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Everyone seems to forget:

• BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE: They don't get much protection: "Allegation...belongs in the article."

Use attribution.

• NPOV: Biased sources and opinions can be used. Failure to do so is censorship, also not allowed.

Personal opinions of editors has no bearing on this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because they have an opinion does not make that opinion notable. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Content does not have to be notable, but since who said it are very notable, that counts FOR inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The notability, or not, of the people who said it is irrelevant. What matters is the WP:WEIGHT of coverage given to their comments by sources. That WEIGHT is lacking; they said it and pretty much nobody responded or commented. If this had become a widespread opinion, a "meme", a commonly expressed opinion, I would favor including it. That hasn't happened; they said it and that was pretty much the end of it. That's why I favor leaving it out. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support with additional context and addition of recent opinions of other national security professionals of both political parties who say the same thing. It is unprecedented for national security chiefs of any free country to make such a statement about a candidate or sitting head of state. These comments come from two men whose level of knowledge -- of Russian methods and of surrounding recent history -- is matched only by a handful of current officials who, as such, cannot publicly comment. There is no BLP policy concern and it's laughable to suggest that these comments are dishonest or politically motivated. All editors who !vote here should review the previous thread that overwhelmingly favored this text. Both the text and the references should be expanded after we wrap up this RfC next month. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons that should be obvious, but apparently aren't. It's not entirely clear that it's illegal for Trump to be a "useful fool", but the BLPCRIME guidelines regarding alleged crimes should still apply; accusations, even if the accusation is made by a notable person, generally shouldn't be included. Also there's never any shortage of people making allegations against high-profile political figures, these are generally excluded. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• On the contrary. Per BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE we are supposed to include such allegations. They don't get much protection: "Allegation...belongs in the article." Just attribute them and label them as allegations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• If an allegation or incident is noteworthy - "the Russia thing" is noteworthy as a whole, but why are these noteworthy? We don't include Mitt Romney calling Donald Trump "a fraud" . These are people acting as pundits (read: people who say outrageous things for publicity), not as representatives of the intelligence community. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• That's absurd. They are highly informed and "benign" (see full quote) descriptions of real danger. They aren't name calling either. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BLPCRIME is about a person who is involuntarily preyed upon and becomes known for a crime that had nothing to do with their own actions. That simply doesn't apply here. Could you explain the details as to how Trump's accomodating stance wrt Russia comports with the details of BLPCRIME? SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• You're right that BLPCRIME isn't relevant. I definitely recall some guideline regarding including accusations of this general type in biographies, I'll try to find it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• The policy is BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which says such allegations "should" be included. Public persons are not spared, and rarely a president. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• In general, most of these pages are about "notability", which isn't really relevant; the high-level topic of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is obviously not going to be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose — election period Opinion piece that is mis-paraphrased. Not noted then, Opinion piece is not acceptable RS, and the cite simply does not contain Morell saying anything about fool, so lacks WP:V. Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Both these men are career officials whose voices carry a lot of weight. They're both politically independent, they've served in various capacities under presidents of both main parties, and their resumes indicate they are supremely qualified to make this kind of determination. "Useful fool" (or "useful idiot"), while somewhat derogatory, is a well-used term in the security services for people who are unwittingly manipulated. In the context of the section it is contained in, it makes perfect sense to include this properly attributed content. That said, if it turns out that Trump has knowingly collaborated with the Russians (rather than being unwittingly manipulated), "useful fool" would be inaccurate and we could revisit this again. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – Until the outcome of this RfC, I have edited the text to mention that Hayden and Morell are former intelligence officials. Doesn't mean I condone the inclusion of their dated opinion, but at least it informs the reader. — JFG 17:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - NPOV applies here. This Russia thing is a major topic in the current administration. The sources are informed and reliable. The phrase itself refers to a specific character in an intelligence situation. It was not coined specifically for the current president, apt though it is. There is a long history of such characters being used in statecraft. --Pete (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Note, for editors coming to this discussion the 1st time, see the previous discussion where consensus supported the restoration, Talk:Donald_Trump#Removal_of_RS_content. TheValeyard (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to support this material with more than one source? Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the section referenced immediately above by TheValeyard contains a better version using two sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. They list Washinton Post opinion section as the primary and NY Times opinion section as the only sources listed in the section discussing Michael Hayden or Michael Morell. With the pieces in question written by those two rather than reported on by others. PackMecEng (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Perfectly good sources for opinions by notable persons. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Pack, this is beyond noteworthy. It was historic. There has never been such a statement of concern by such senior national security or intelligence officials. This isn't Fox&Friends or Rachel Maddow speaking. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

But it is two people that worked in the Obama administration that just so happened to make these wild claims days before the election. Makes it hard to take their comments as anything past partisan. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

They also worked for previous GOP administrations. There is no evidence they were politically motivated. Context counts. They were receiving multiple intelligence reports from allied (even east bloc) nations warning that Trump's people were plotting with Russians to steal the election. There was also the active election interference, which Trump refused to acknowledge. So nothing political. They were patriotically warning of an unprecedented danger. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Pack, that's highly personal conclusion. But we can certainly add more recent statements by the many national security pro's -- including in sworn congressional testimony -- who express the same and related concerns. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Specifico. “Historic” claims call for support. Put up a couple cites SAYING that is historic to support that argument. How many said that word is how historic it is. Or accept that few or none in RS felt that it was historic. Markbassett (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Google "useful fool trump". I didn't say to put historic in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 04:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I was calling overblown the arguing of it as “historic”. Googling useful fool +historic see ... Zero RS say this opinion piece was historic, and without +historic seems not seen as very noteworthy either. Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah but we could google "bunion historic" and it wouldn't come up either but we still have an article about bunions. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I got my first bunion last year. It was unprecedented, but that didn't make it historic. Hey, you started with the bunions. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think it should be temporarily removed while we discuss it. I was about to boldly do that, but I can't just yet, per the DS. As per discussion above I do intend to move the "Russia" section (where these quotes are cited) from the "Campaign" section to the "Presidency" section, because it cites some of his actions during his presidency, and I will do that now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If Russia plays a big enough part in the life of Trump to have a paragraph in the lead, then I think Russia ought to be in the TOC. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

All that is really under #investigations section Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Position statements regarding Women's Rights

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should Trump's main biography include a section documenting his record on Women's Rights? Only current discussion is with regards to sexual misconduct allegations.

For context, please see discussion at archive, whereby content was recently added, Domestic policy: Social issues (para. 3), then reverted for stated reasons of synthesis.

Seeking contributions circumventing issue of synthesis. — algocu (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No — UNDUE for his WP:BLP, this is not a big part of his life story. Anything of his Presidency belongs in that article, not here, and I doubt there was enough attention / mention there to be DUE coverage. Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  I believe you mean "Anything of his Presidency belongs in that section ...", not article? algocu (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Algocu: Markbassett is likely referring to Presidency of Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  Correct - if it is something significant about his Presidency it belongs there; if it is about things significant to his life it belongs here. Nothing specific was mentioned, so unclear where it should go. It does not seem he has significant amounts either way, but for Presidency there are noted reactions on the topic. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  Just to clarify - there seems significant coverage re sexual misconduct in private life and women’s movements against his Presidency, but I am not aware of significant coverage of his life having participation in women’s rights. Markbassett (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Need more research on significance of conduct/policy between life and presidency. In the same vein, assuming reference to Presidency of Donald Trump, and weight of life significance to a WP:BLP, then is not the current Presidency section in Donald Trump too long and detailed? Is it not overly subjective to include (or omit) a topic from this section? algocu (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  I haven't !voted here, and I doubt I will as I don't have much of an opinion on the issue. Did you mean to address Markbassett instead? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Algocu: Assuming you meant that for me, then: (a) yes the current Presidency section at ~13 screens seems long. One could contrast the length to Barak Obama having 5 screens for similar section; and (b) most things will not be subjective as most of his life was before 2015, and cites before then can be relied on to not be about his Presidency, while things after 2015 usually are about his Presidency -- and if it still seems subjective or one is unsure then one throws it into TALK.. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• No. This is not something he has paid a lot of attention to, nor have the media. There are many, many issues of potential interest to a politician; in a biography we should only include the main/definitional issues. We do not make that decision subjectively, but rather based on the WP:WEIGHT of coverage an issue has received in Reliable Sources. In other words we only report on what Reliable Sources report, not on what we think they should be reporting more of. RE "need more research" - maybe so, but it is not up to us to do that research. See WP:OR. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• No – Can't find much sourced content about this topic, and it would be undue for the main bio. Better address this in Presidency of Donald Trump if/when something notable happens on this front. — JFG 17:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Two edit requests

There should be two corrections made to this article, can someone please edit and correct them as I cannot due to the article being locked:

1 - The word "potential" should be used in the lead before the word "links" (no concrete links have been proven so far)

2 - Trump grew up in Jamaica Estates, Queens (not Jamaica, Queens) 158.222.189.226 (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Stormy Daniels

I agree that as of right now the info does not belong in the lede. It surely belongs in the article however.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

JFG clearly disagrees with what I added on Daniels - if it's not due here, where is it due then? starship.paint ~ KO 08:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: They use this little tactic, where if you put it into one article (say Donald Trump) they claim that it doesn't belong in that article but some other article. Then when you try to put it into another related article (say Donald Trump sexual allegations) they say it doesn't belong in that article but another, unspecified, article. It's like a little shell game. Anything controversial to do with Trump, we have to go through this inane process to get some actual info in. It's a way obstruct inclusion of reliably sourced text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the last discussion though, the White House via press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has admitted that there was an arbitration case won "in the President's favor" - which points to certainly something going on between Daniels and Trump, otherwise there would be nothing to arbitrate. Also a new development, Daniels is suing over the non-disclosure agreement, if there wasn't one, there would be nothing to sue about. Finally, remember the first smoking gun, Trump's lawyer admitted he paid $130,000 to Daniels but refused to say why. starship.paint ~ KO 08:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"The Stormy Daniels Affair" has been receiving significant and continuous coverage in the mainstream media (both old and new media) for quite a while now. The internet is littered with cast iron reliable sources discussing the matter. All are basically saying the same thing:

1. Trump probably had an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford).
2. Fearing the news would come out at a critical time of the election, he had his lawyer pay hush money to keep Clifford quiet.
3. Seeing an opportunity to raise her profile and make a bit of extra cabbage, Clifford drizzled a spoonful of detail over some eager media outlets.
4. Mainstream media got wind of Cohen's payment, forcing Cohen to contort himself into a ludicrous shape in order to try to protect his client (Trump).
5. Trump orders his Press Secretary to lie to the White House Press Corps (what else is new?) about a ridiculous "win" in arbitration.
6. Clifford's lawyer is on cable TV almost continuously.
7. As usual, it's no longer about the affair, but rather it is about the lying.

We can no longer pretend this isn't getting significant play in the mainstream media, so it absolutely belongs in this BLP in some form or another. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should refrain from reporting recentist gossip, especially in high-profile articles on living persons. — JFG 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The ship sailed on "recentist gossip" years ago, it is verifiable (that's not to say the affair is true, per se, just that sources are covering it) and is a prominent section of Ms. Daniels' article, Stormy_Daniels#Alleged_affair_with_Donald_Trump. Dismissing it as a base conspiracy theory is beyond the pale. ValarianB (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Noting coverage on the current home page of that notorious gossip rag, The New York Times. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Still recentism, and yes still sensationalist gossip, no matter who prints it. And I said nothing about conspiracy theories. I would definitely support inclusion if/when something more tangible appears. WP:There is no deadline. — JFG 22:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we'd all be interested in a credible argument to keep this kind of stuff out of the article, JFG, but that ain't it. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have zero interest in getting involved in this article or talkpage, but I will make a general comment about site policy. WP:BLP specifically addresses this situation, in its section on "Public figures". The policy states: "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." It goes on to say, by way of example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, 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 the affair actually occurred." (emphasis mine).

  So this sort of material is described as appropriate for inclusion—in fact, it's a canonical example of appropriate material—in the WP:BLP policy. It's arguably a BLP violation to remove this material, since fundamental site policy so clearly supports inclusion. I'm concerned by the lack of policy awareness in some of the arguments here; among other basic matters, essays on recentism and deadlines don't supplant WP:BLP, which is a fundamental and non-negotiable site policy. MastCell  22:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You are right that the BLP policy does not prevent us from mentioning these allegations, but it also does not obligate us to mention them. We still have to consider due weight in Trump's overall life story, and that can't be established as of yet. — JFG 22:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Please respond to the points MastCell made above. You've just repeated your POV. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JFG: the policy is hardly agnostic on the subject. It literally says that such material "belongs in the biography". (Where, and how broadly, to cover it are questions of WP:WEIGHT). You're contravening a clear statement of fundamental site policy, and it's not a good look. MastCell  22:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A large number of sexual or "groping" affairs have been considered for inclusion in this bio and a consensus of editors has agreed to just briefly summarize them, while pointing to the main article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Some more serious allegations such as a rape case have been fully rejected from this article after extensive debate. So there is not hard and fast obligation for the biography to include an allegation just because it exists, nor to immediately reflect the latest scandal à la mode. That's why we are all here to discuss the case and make a collective determination, and I will most certainly respect any consensus that emerges. — JFG 23:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

So... you're saying we should include the Stormy Daniels stuff in the "sexual misconduct allegations" article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That would make sense. Strange it's not in there yet. — JFG 15:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get sucked in any further here, but I'm concerned that moving the material to the "sexual misconduct allegations" article is inappropriate, and potentially a BLP issue. After all, there is no allegation of actual misconduct in this case—right? (I can't say I've followed the sources or editing here closely, so correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think anyone has suggested that anything non-consensual occurred, and the non-disclosure agreement was apparently legally dubious but not a form of "sexual misconduct". MastCell  15:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, there was no sexual misconduct, just alleged adultery. starship.paint ~ KO 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Adultery is considered misconduct by a rather large proportion of society. The alleged misdeeds are not misconduct by Trump against the porn actress, but misconduct by both of them against Melania. — JFG 11:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• @JFG: - I agree with you. Adultery is misconduct, against Melania. But there was no sexual misconduct against Melania. University of Iowa: "Sexual misconduct is a broad term encompassing any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that is committed without consent or by force, intimidation, coercion, or manipulation." It's maritial misconduct so it can't go in the sexual misconduct article. Unless you name that article to "sexual + marital" or "all misconduct". starship.paint ~ KO 13:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a valid reason not to include it there, ok. So where to put it? That story is currently in both articles Stormy Daniels and Trump's lawyer Michael Dean Cohen, plus briefly at Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti, looks good enough in the current state of reporting. Might also deserve a mention in Legal affairs of Donald Trump, given the recently opened suit and counter-suit. — JFG 13:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The whole detailed story can go to Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The allegation of the affair should go into Donald Trump, that's one sentence. Maybe another sentence of the $130,000 payment and non-disclosure agreement, that would make it two sentences in the main article. starship.paint ~ KO 03:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The significant factor is that POTUS and his counsel apparently believed that Trump was compromised by some aspect of this incident. The significance is that a candidate and now elected official apparently was vulnerable to blackmail. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with others that this material should be included in the article, but not the lead (not yet; possibly later). This is well-publicised matter that is directly relevant to Trump's bio. In fact, to leave this material out would tend to tilt the article's neutral stance. Casually dismissing it as "sensationalist gossip" is not much different that declaring IDONTLIKEIT.- MrX 🖋 23:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it belongs in the lede unless it actually sinks his Presidency (just don't see that happening). He's had an affair with Marples before and none of his family are in the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• At this point, one just ignores the editor who's entry into the discussion is directly contradicted by policy, as shown above. We should work out a paragraph here before inclusion. TheValeyard (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Somebody should just go ahead and be WP:BOLD.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

For a controversial issue at an article under the ArbCom remedies, there is little point. After the one inevitable revert, we're back here seeking consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is, we already had it, two more supports below to pile on as well. If the holdout reverts, you send them to the enforcement page. TheValeyard (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I was reading too precisely. An edit with consensus is not a BOLD, by definition of BOLD. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per MastCell's clear analysis. I too am reluctant to delve deeply into the 24/7/365 Trump world on Misplaced Pages, but the policy based reasons for including this content are so strong at this point that I must comment in favor. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. There are no BLP problems nor would it being a BLP mean we reduce or remove that coverage, as pointed out above, because of how public a figure Trump is. This is has been coverage extensively, far more than say the rape case. NPOV doesn't have a thou can ignore WEIGHT in highly reliable sources if what they print is "gossip". I think there is consensus to at-least restore this, though I'll wait. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment In this case, where we have a single editor denying WP site policy and deflecting any attempts to engage in discussion, there is clearly consensus to include. So if any text is reverted, it can immediately be reinstated per current consensus. I don't believe the DS are intended to prevent reinserting evident consensus that a single editor chooses to deny. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  Don't edit war though. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Galobtter and others, but I don't see any reason to push something this controversial to the article after only 36 hours of discussion. One or two editors need to chill and stop picking fights.
  I would be more likely to Oppose in this article if there were another article where this would fit. It has already been established by clear consensus that it doesn't belong in an article titled "sexual misconduct allegations" because no sexual misconduct is alleged.
  I'll also comment that I find the phrase "pornographic actress" linguistically offensive, as it says she is an actress who is pornographic. The better phrase would be "pornography actress", but I guess we're stuck with the bad one since it's all over Misplaced Pages content and even some reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: - how about "porn actress" starship.paint ~ KO 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Too slangy for Misplaced Pages, imo. Actually my first choice would be adult film actress, as it avoids some stigma without violating MOS:EUPHEMISM in my view. Readers who are unfamiliar with the term "adult film" would have to remain uninformed about the nature of her films (which is of secondary importance) or be enlightened by the wikilink, and I could live with either.
  But pornography actress would be an improvement over pornographic actress—it's the films that are pornographic, not the actors in them. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Does the label matter really? What about "nude model" or just "actress"? The issue is blackmail -- not her profession. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  RS say it matters. Find me one source that doesn't mention that she's a porn star. "Nude model" is more often code for prostitute than for porn star, and we should avoid codes anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Code? OMG how do you know all these twists and turns of phrase? I guess we'll have to take your word for it. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Obviously a fine upstanding gentleman such as myself doesn't have any firsthand experience in these areas. I read a lot. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This is just more of the depraved Hollywood media culture. The Americans get what they deserve, both the good and the bad, but mercy on their souls in the hereafter. (Just thinking of Rex and Hope Hicks today.) SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include, briefly. The suggestion to put it in the "Legal issues" section is a good one - even though that is a subsection of Business activities. As pointed out, it doesn't belong under "Sexual misconduct"; there is no sexual misconduct on his part alleged here, since she says the affair was consensual. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Especially on his part, according to her. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:WEIGHT. It should be included, briefly, in the "Legal issues" section. As far as terminology goes, pornographic film actress (article) or adult film actress (redirect to the same article) would work. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  "adult film actress" is okay with me, that's what Mandruss proposed also. starship.paint ~ KO 03:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Gossip and partisan character-assassination has 0 place in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Zigzig20s: Not in the lede, but in the body. Presence of a lawsuit rules out gossip, Trump's lawyer admitting he paid $130,000 rules out partisan character assassination, also there was an arbitration case supposedly resolved "in the President’s favor", so there is definitely something going on. Read Stormy Daniels for the details. starship.paint ~ KO 03:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: Don't bother, we've seen this before. To a few editors, anything Trump-negative short of a court conviction is gossip and partisan character-assassination. It matters not to these editors that that is clearly inconsistent with Misplaced Pages content policy, so you're wasting your "breath". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ping didn't work, if something is clearly inconsistent with Misplaced Pages content policy, it should be easily refuted though. starship.paint ~ KO 09:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose-ish - not really a RFC here, but until debate turns from what was "apparently believed" or "apparently blackmail" to actual article text proposals based on cites, I'll suggest restraint is in order. BLP lead says it "must" be written conservatively and WP:PUBLICFIGURE says avoid inflammatory labels, so caution or restraint on sexy sensationalism seems in order rather than a stampede to insert something instantly. Asking for carte blanche to insert unknown text seems likely to lead to a revert and coming back for a RFC. Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: - this is the most basic detail. It is conservative. Would you agree with this? starship.paint ~ KO 03:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint Thanks, glad to discuss actual proposal. The line "Trump is alleged to have had a extramarital affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in 2006, months after Barron was born." with cites to BBC and CBB seems close textually, though the Family section seems not the right place and it still faces the JFG objection of Undue in his BLP. (I take that to mean he sees it as it happened 12 years ago and made no noticeable effect on his life. This compares to the Marla Maples affair got less text although it led to a divorce, marriage, and daughter -- and that the Access Hollywood tapes got a couple mentions for the role that played in the debate and the sexual misconduct allegations.) Markbassett (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Does it need a divorce, marriage or daughter to be relevant? Under WP:BLP there is WP:PUBLICFIGURE, with a clear example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. There is a public scandal, multiple major newspapers publish the allegations. This man is the most public figure in the world. starship.paint ~ KO 06:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That does not actually establish weight though. Though at this point I think coverage has gone far enough that it might be warranted, just not with the current phrasing or location as cited above. PackMecEng (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Any of those life events would make it biographically significant -- something this story lacks. As to the example you state, note the guidance is actually the line above -- first it has to get past "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented". And whether this is actually what JFG mean by UNDUE is just my speculation. He may instead have meant that it's not accumulated a lot of weight as compared to items such as the tapes during the campaign or the Russian bits ... it's a 2011 story about 2006 that resurfaced in 2018 and is getting coverage this month but "covfefe' got more than that ... a month in the news is not a lot for this individual. Or JFG may have meant that it's got it's own article and is involved in two others and so it is already covered in those breakouts from his bio, or that this really isn't the bin for it. If it is to go here, does that mean a merge and delete there ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• We have consensus among both talk page regulars, article newcomers, and two respected uninvolved WP veterans. Now, let's put the "JFG objection" in the thankyouverymuch file and go ahead with the article text on this. Not in the lead yet, but clearly in the BLP. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Bad count, bad idea - your accuracy misses four editors saying against or maybe later, and shouting 'I am right' 'onlyone' 'nownownow' seems unlikely to be helpful. So I think we can ignore that last and hopefully focus more on what words and where and maybe somebody will actually discuss with JFG et al the objections and ways to address them instead of shouting them down ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

. Half a dozen folks have tried to discuss with JFG, but from all indications, he just repeats no. Surely you don't think citing policy to him on a talk page is shouting him down. It would be his choice whether to engage. Otherwise, we move on. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per User:MastCell and others. Our BLP policy requires inclusion: "The allegation belongs in the biography." As the most WP:PUBLICFIGURE, he gets the least protection, not just in real life, but also according to our BLP policy. There are abundant very RS which cover this. The allegation doesn't have to be true. It exists and is documented. We are obligated to include it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: User:Mandruss is a prophet -- "After the one inevitable revert, we're back here" -- someone ran and made an edit (not the previously shown language) into the Legal affairs section and... I just reverted it as a topic with TALK in progress and not a clear consensus on what to do as yet. We're back here, for the moment, will see if the text is brought in for discussion. Markbassett (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

11 in favor with 2 opposing looks like a pretty clear consensus to me. It seems to me that your revert was against consensus, but let see what others have to say.- MrX 🖋 00:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

user:MrX Thank you for a vote count that at least was not voicing "just one", and I note your count is of editors other than the original Starship and JFG. I'll also note four were reluctant or for going slow/brief (Cullen, Mandruss, Melanie, KE) and one was for single line (Galob) so note this was indicating more discussion. Also see the text put in discussion was a single line -- which was not what appeared. Feels like there is approval for at least one line, text TBD, not yet out of discussion and now into next section. (Which would be great except its already OBE edits in the article ...) Markbassett (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per everyone above ...... the whole thing has been well documented not only by well respected news sources but also well respected tv stations around the globe, Regardless of what one thinks about it all as I said it's well documented and as such should be in the article. –Davey2010 00:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Bold, but beautiful

Welp, I made an edit in accord with what I thought was consensus and I was reverted. I propose this wording which briefly covers the key points:

Trump allegedly had an extramarital affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in 2006, months after Barron was born. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Trump's attorney Michael Cohen just before the 2016 presidential election. Jill Martin, a Trump Organization lawyer, is counsel in an arbitration demand involving Essential Consultants LLC, a company formed by Cohen to pay Daniels the $130,000 as part of a confidentiality agreement. Daniels is suing Trump to be released from the agreement so that she can speak about the affair.

Please indicate support or opposition below.- MrX 🖋 00:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

May I offer an alternate version - maybe with clearer timeline? Call it Option 2. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. On checking the sources I cited, "Adult film star" is used twice, "porn star" once, so I'm going with "adult film". I'm not going to say "star" because, hey, puffery. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Pornographic actress Adult film actress Stormy Daniels has alleged that she and Trump had an extramarital affair in 2006, shortly after Barron was born. Just before the 2016 presidential election Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Trump's attorney Michael Cohen as part of a confidentiality agreement. The money was paid through an LLC set up by Cohen; he says he used his own personal money for the payment. In February 2018 Daniels filed suit against the LLC asking to be released from the agreement so that she can tell her story. Cohen reportedly filed a private arbitration proceeding and obtained a restraining order to keep her from discussing the case. Jill Martin, a Trump Organization lawyer, is counsel in the arbitration case.

• Original text To add the text that was in the RFC question above was/is (lthough it is reverted again in the article) -- what people in the RFC may have thought was under discussion. Markbassett (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"Trump is alleged to have had a extramarital affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in 2006, months after Barron was born.

FTR, there has been no RfC on this question. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - agreed this is not the RFC question, which is why I reverted the edit in the article which claimed consensus for a paragraph that was not the text in the RFC -- and MrX got things back here for th BRD discussion apparently in the same 14 minutes while Davey2010 was undoing my revert. I did add the original text to the list above, FWIW. I think that RFC could be closed as moot / OBE / tangled because the proposal was not done or conclusion stated before things moved to different material. Meanwhile, I'll try and add in as able and note it is technically in the space of the RFC if not on topic -- considering it a subsection for more detailed side exploration of text mentions in the above. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: There has been no RfC about inclusion of any Stormy Daniels content in this article (or any other article). See WP:RFC for explanation of what an RfC is. It's important to use Misplaced Pages terms correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss -- oops, you are correct, it is not a formal RFC, it was just an informal call for voting that looked like RFC -- I will strike/correct my saying RFC in the post of original text above. Markbassett (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose as written, support in principle. 1. Change "pornographic actress" to "adult film actress", per discussion, as actresses are never pornographic. 2. Trim excessive detail from the Jill Martin sentence, just conveying the confidentiality agreement. 3. Change "Daniel's" to "Daniels". ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Trump Organization lawyer involvement is important because Trump's lawyer has claimed that Trump never paid off Stormy. I'm indifferent to how we describe Ms. Daniels' profession. (Removed apostrophe)- MrX 🖋 01:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fairly useless to a reader if you don't explain why the details are important. Add the necessary detail and you're UNDUE for his biography (in my opinion). Names of lawyers (except Cohen) and companies are already UNDUE for his biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. That's the dilemma.- MrX 🖋 01:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it as a dilemma if you start with the assumption that it's not our purpose in this particular article to fully explain the issue. He's accused of having an affair. He denies it. They paid her 130K. She wants out of the agreement so she can talk. End. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Option 2 not perfect but it reads better than option 1. Once the lawsuits are settled and the details are public it will have to be re-written anyhow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• No pride of authorship here. I would support option 2 as well, but two highly-reputable sources have seen the arbitration document, so I'm not sure we need the word "reportedly". - MrX 🖋 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Needs to state what was agreed not to disclose. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm, seems pretty obvious. It's no secret that she alleges there was an affair. Obviously that's what she isn't supposed to talk about - or at least any details beyond that. (Although details are getting out; she talked to 60 Minutes and reportedly the interview was so hot CBS was considering not airing it. But now they say they will. ) --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support 2 as acceptable compromise. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 as well-written and more complete. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Changes -- Umm ... User:MelanieN -- should mention denial by Trump, and seems iffy to be dragging Barron into it in line 1 ? To a lesser extent, the Jill Martin line at the end does not seem very relevant by the text stated, so it could go. Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

1) I actually agree about Barron but most sources mention that for time context. I would be OK with removing it. 2) We could leave out her name, but the fact that she's a Trump Organization lawyer could be highly significant, since Cohen keeps insisting that the Trump Organization is and always has been totally arms-length from this situation. 3) Trump's denials are always kind of half hearted, and are kind of irrelevant anyhow since this is going to be put in the "legal affairs" section, not the "sex allegations" section. This item isn't about "did they or didn't they?" It's about the legal stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Without the Barron mention, it's unclear whether it was "extramarital" with respect to Trump or Daniels. If it's deemed significant that it was extramarital with respect to Trump, we shouldn't ask readers to go research his dates of marriage and divorce, even if that could be easily done on the same page. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

About the "Presidency" section

There is a problem with the Presidency section of this article. A lot of the material in the Domestic policy subsection is actually from 2016 or even earlier, quoting what he said on the campaign trail rather than what he has done as president. That stuff belongs in the Campaign section, if anywhere - probably under Political positions. Meanwhile significant things that he has done during his presidency are not included anywhere.

Under Domestic policy, the Economy and trade section should now be OK; I added the withdrawal from TPP and the new tariffs, and deleted as obsolete a paragraph about a tax plan he proposed during the campaign. The Education section is entirely from the campaign and says nothing at all about his presidency; IMO it should be deleted, maybe summarized briefly in the Campaign section. Energy and climate: again, all the content is from 2016, except for a single sentence about withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. Government size and deregulation is OK; it actually focuses on his actions as president. Health care is OK. Immigration has way too much detail about the various iterations of his proposed "Muslim ban", while it doesn't even mention DACA. Social issues is entirely about things he said during the campaign, which IMO should be moved or deleted, while things he has actually done like the transgender military ban need to be added.

Under Foreign policy, the introductory three paragraphs are entirely about what he said during the campaign, except for a sentence about NATO and a sentence about a Syrian missile strike. But the subsections under Foreign policy are pretty much current and OK. We might want to add a subsection on the general subject of "Europe" or "European relations".

I encourage everyone who has a little time, to work on this problem. IMO the material in the Presidency section should actually be about his presidency. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for these useful updates, MelanieN. I agree with your assessment and will take a look at what can be improved. Probably the "First 100 days" subsection should be removed, as an arbitrary breakpoint which has vanishingly little significance. Relevant events from that period can be integrated in the appropriate policy sections. — JFG 22:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the "First 100 days" section. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG 00:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have now trimmed the travel ban section and added a new section on DACA. What do you think? We need to find a citation for the current lack of DACA legislation after delay expired, even though that's somehow rendered moot by the legal blocks. — JFG 00:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:JFG - much press attention seems to have gone onto other topics, so there's not much in Google for the short time since 5 March. Excluding bits speculating (unusable) where a deal might be inserted or next event might occur (e.g. 23 March budget), the emotion (unusable) pieces on feelings of a DACA individual, or the analytical pieces on the political mechanisms re actions by Democrats (offtopic), Google is showing me a few story lines in off track places. Here are some examples in case they help:

• DACA Limbo Creates Anxiety, Skepticism
• Asian DACA recipients, in limbo, await congressional action
• Dreams Deferred: A Look at DACA Renewals and Losses Post-March 5 - interesting link to uscis.gov on DACA renewals declined sharply in 2017
• Third federal judge rules on ending DACA; he says Trump acted legally

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Revolving door news

Just hours after Rex Tillerson said Russia was involved in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Trump has fired him (I'm sure it is a TOTAL COINCIDENCE). Mike Pompeo will run the State Department, and the tape-destroying queen of torture Gina Haspel will run the CIA. I guess all this will need to be added to this article and the presidency article. The internet is already littered with all the sources we could possibly need. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Not much surprises me about the reign of Trump, but this one is pretty shocking. Yes, this will need to be added here.- MrX 🖋 13:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that was out of the blue, any word on the official reason he was fired? I heard Tillerson was not even told a reason yet. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The firing within hours of his "Russia did it" comment is suggestive - scary even - but may mean nothing. Several sources are saying that he was told on March 9 that he would be fired; that that is why he cut short his Russia trip; and that Trump wanted to wait until he was home (by just a few hours as it turned out) before announcing it (via Twitter, what a mensch). --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

We should mention that the presidency has been characterized by high turnover. I don't think though it is helpful to suggest that he was fired on the orders of the Kremlin. Tillerson's departure has been rumored for months and Trump claimed there were policy differences, which observers had noticed. TFD (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point. That he was hired on orders from the Kremlin is pretty solid, but, until we have RS which show that his firing was also dictated by the Kremlin, we shouldn't state it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted) עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Which RS claim that Tillerson was "hired on orders from the Kremlin"? Sounds pretty speculative and conspirationist to me… — JFG 15:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if we are going to go with an assumption Trump is influenced by Russia, there is not going to be any reliable source to say he was hired on orders lol. At best hired on recommendation or suggestion is the furthest I think any credible source will say, but this doesn't translate to on orders. WikiVirusC 15:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

JFG and WikiVirusC, in a sense you're both right. I may be reading more into events than warranted. That Putin actually blocked Trump from choosing Romney as Secretary of State is reported by numerous RS, while Putin's "favoring" Tillerson is reported by fewer. Here's one: Report: Russia vetoed Romney, favored Tillerson for State Dept.. Tillerson is a real BFF with Putin, and both Trump and Tillerson are willing to help Putin by lifting the sanctions, IOW reward him for hacking us and invading Ukraine. Putin does pull Trump's strings. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe

Also significant is the firing of Trump's personal assistant John McEntee, for an unspecified security issue. He was unceremoniously escorted out of the White House by security. As has been said earlier, the level of turnover in this administration is unprecedented. There are many reliable sources available that make this particular point, so perhaps our coverage of these hirings and firings should be presented in this context. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted)עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a good place in this article to add Tillerson's firing; it's not "foreign policy", and the Cabinet is mentioned only in its formation. But it strikes me that one of the most notable features of Trump's presidency - the unprecedented turnover and departure of staff, especially within the White House - is not mentioned anywhere. Should we add a paragraph about that to the Presidency section? --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

At this point I think there is a solid case to be made to add the high turnover in the Presidency article with a mention here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I was actually thinking that a section titled "administration" in the presidency section would be useful, mention this and about his cabinet. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I think there should be a section about the turnover because it is an important aspect of his leadership style discussed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll work on some wording for this. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and a whole article on the subject. Seriously. It's notable enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

More on John McEntee. Apparently, he was booted out of the White House because the Department of Homeland Security is investigating him for "serious financial crimes". Despite this, he was immediately re-hired by the Trump reelection campaign as a "senior advisor". Apparently, "serious financial crimes" are no barrier to working for the Trump campaign, but then we already knew that because of Manafort and Gates. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between being investigated for something and being found guilty of it. Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush had a high number of indictments in their administrations. 00:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

One of the undersecretaries of state, Steve Goldstein, has been dismissed too, after 3 months on the job. TFD (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Those sources are reporting that Steele says that Kremlin/Putin blocked Romney, they aren't stating it as facts themselves. Steel has said a lot of things and RS's have reported what he has says, that doesn't mean if we can say Putin blocked Romney, it would have to be "according to Steele....", not just "Kremlin vetoed Romney" by itself. WikiVirusC 11:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course attribution is necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Organisation of the page

Not sure about the way this article is organised. Most biographical articles are organised in chronological order, which seems to be a great way of summarising what a person has done over their life. It seems a bit disjointed being this way. Would be very interested to hear other editors thoughts. Mike Hocks Hucker (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The main sections are, in order:

1. Family and personal life
2. Business career
3. Media career
4. Public profile
5. Political career and affiliations up to 2015
6. 2016 presidential campaign
7. Presidency

Which re-ordering would you suggest? Everything is actually in chronological order except "Public profile", which could go to the end. "Family and personal life" could be split into younger years and family events, but that would dilute the information too much. Better keep it all together at the beginning of the article or push it all to the end. Is that what you had in mind, or do you have other suggestions? — JFG 15:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It's true that the sections are not in chronological order, but that's because his various activities (business, media, politics) overlap so much. IMO it makes more sense to organize his adult life by subject as we do (not just in this article, but in many other biographies). I agree that "Public profile" is a bit of an anomaly and we never did figure out the best place to put that. Possibly at the end, as we do "Popular culture" sections? For one thing, I'm not convinced that "Public profile" needs a Level 2 heading, but we couldn't figure out any larger section to put it under. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the current order is just fine. We have discussed this at length recently, and no one has made a compelling case for moving the public profile content to the bottom, or for changing the order of major sections in the article. Trump's public profile began in the early 1970s, so keeping it where it is makes quite a bit of sense.- MrX 🖋 16:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• High-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment