Talk:Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?

Notable film. Per WP:GNG. And per WP:NFILM.

Notable film. Per WP:GNG. And per WP:NFILM.

1. WP:GNG: topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
2. WP:NFILM: widely distributed. historically notable. screened in a festival.

Sagecandor (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

GAR and B class?

Frankly the article does not merit B-class at this time, let alone GA. I'd do an immediate GA fail if I hadn't edited some of it. Reasons: syntax is akward, article is instable in terms of edits, POV is inplay do 2 links to other problematic and contentious Trump-related articles, contains unsourced/OR such as "Due to questioning from Sweeney, Trump abruptly ended his interview with the journalist." und so weiter – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

User appears to display transparent agenda, lamenting efforts to improve articles on Wikipedia that might have some criticism of Donald Trump. See case studies: [1] [2] [3]. Sagecandor (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

GA notice

To anyone watching this article, I have begun a review of this for GA, but unfortunately the reviewer Sagecandor is experiencing some health issues and has not been able to respond so far. I would prefer for this review to not be open indefinitely, so if anyone else who is familiar with this article is able to take part in the GA process and get this review through then that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have had to fail this article due to the lack of attention. If anyone comes across this notice, there are issues listed in the GA review above that should be addressed before the article is nominated for GA again. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"The same day"

The articles mentions twice that various Russian news sources put out statements on "the same day", implying some form of coordination. The fact that "the same day" is the day after the screening seems to be rather relevant. For comparison, check any Wikipedia article on the timing of media responses to the releases of other movies.

I question the neutrality of the phrasing.

Mueller report

There should be a mention of the Mueller Report, that concluded, after more than 2 years of inquiry and more than 1.5 million documents examined, that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia: this proves that the content of this film was integrally wrong. 92.157.215.55 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Not true. He was unable to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination" but found plenty of cooperation. Mueller specifically addresses the word "collusion" but never says he found no collusion. Search the report for the word and you'll discover you have been lied to. Even many reliable sources make that mistake, so you must search the report itself.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/18/mueller-report-pdf-download-text-file-1280891 -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

1) Even the most anti-Trump American media have reported that "Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion" (Politico, NPR, NY Times, Wash Post, etc.).

2) Mueller speaks of "contacts", not "coordination": Obama had many contacts with Russia too, and Hillary Clinton campaign too. It's normal to have contacts with foreign countries.

3) Trump's foreign politics has been anti-Russia from the beginning (January 21st, 2017). He opposed the Nordstream pipeline; he denounced Russia in his Warsaw speech (July 6, 2017) and afterwards; he opposed Russian support to the Syrian dictator and sent the US special forces to kill the head of the Islamic State, who was living in an area controlled by Russia (October 26-27, 2019); he sent weapons to Ukraine (hundreds of anti-tank missiles Javelin), whereas Obama and Biden didn't send any weapons to this country invaded by Russia ("The missiles were the first lethal military assistance provided to Ukraine by the United States in its fight against Russian-supported separatists in eastern Ukraine since that fighting began in 2014.") (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/javelin-missiles-ukraine/story?id=65855233), etc., etc.

These facts (and many others) prove that the film "Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?" was filled with inaccuracies (to put it mildly) that have been disproved by facts. 2A01:CB14:8414:9700:6988:A5AB:C68F:232B (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You made a claim that the Mueller Report "concluded...there was no collusion between Trump and Russia". I made it clear to you that "many reliable sources make that mistake" you are making. The Mueller Report makes no such claim. You and those sources are wrong. Even if every RS made that claim, they would be wrong and all we could do is document that they got it wrong.

Regarding "contacts", the nature of the contacts between Russians and Trump's campaign and contacts between others and Russians are very different. Trump's contacts were largely secret and lied about, and they were often related to aiding the illegal election interference by Russia, an enemy power. They damaged national security. Read Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies. We have never had a presidential candidate do anything like this before. Trump showed a clear bias toward Russian propaganda and lies over the facts presented by American intelligence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Read this section: Mueller report#False "no collusion" claims -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of 'collusion'. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word 'collud[e]' was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law." Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2 -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2024

• Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? → The Kremlin Candidate?
• Trump: The Art of the Comeback → The Art of the Comeback
• Trump: Surviving at the Top → Surviving at the Top
• Trump: How to Get Rich → How to Get Rich
• Trump: The Criminal Conspiracy Case → The Criminal Conspiracy Case

– Based on the discussion on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal#Requested move 3 December 2024. The titles are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME and only topic with the titles. The "Trump:" in the title is not necessary. Based on WP:CRITERIA: concision and naturalness. Theparties (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose this mass page move, attempting to combine Trump's books with documentary films that were produced by third-parties independently from Trump. The other RM discussion that the OP cited only pertain to one of Trump's books. But the documentary films need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, the majority of citations currently listed on Trump: The Criminal Conspiracy Case § References list the full "Trump:" in the title. And although per WP:RS/IMDB it is not considered a reliable source to directly cite, it sometimes considered a tertiary source per WP:CITEIMDB that may suggest that most reliable source may in fact include "Trump:" in the titles of these documentary films.[4] Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Zzyzx. These are wildly different topics that should not be considered together. And, unlike The Art of the Deal, there is no credible COMMONNAME argument for any of these. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)