Talk:Donald Trump

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Trump's claim about president's grandmother

Consensus reached, "birther" paragraph fully rewritten (section from "For six weeks" to "Ivy League school")
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For a long time (more than a month) this article said "Trump's claim was based upon an incomplete transcript filed years earlier in a court case".[1] That was removed today by a bold edit without prior talk page discussion.[2] I objected at the talk page: "Regarding his [Trump's] statement about the grandmother, I likewise think that useful content was removed; we make it sound like he made up a story out of thin air but that's not so."[3] No one replied, so I restored the same basic material, though edited somewhat: "a claim that others had previously made based upon an incomplete court transcript of what the grandmother said."[4] This edit of mine was then reverted, and the material was removed, with edit summary "i don't see consensus on talk for restoring this text".[5] I have several objections to the last removal: (1) no one replied at the talk page when I said the material should be restored; (2) it's rarely appropriate to remove content with a bare assertion of "no consensus" without giving any substantive reason, see WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"; (3) longstanding content like this requires a consensus for removal, not consensus for restoration per discussion at Melanie's talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Is this addressed to me or is it about one of CFredkin's edits? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC) I don't think CFredkin was involved in this. My objection is to this removal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC) I removed that sentence because it added too much detail with no biographical value. The point is that Trump's statement about Obama's grandmother was wrong. There is no benefit to describing in depth how this fallacy arose before Trump repeated it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Do you think there is value in saying that he repeated it instead of made it up himself?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC) The article neither says nor implies that Trump made it up himself. There would be more value in saying that the falsehood was debunked long before Trump repeated it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC) something like that might work. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC) I also agree with DrFleischman's proposal.- MrX 12:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Proposed rewrite I propose a partial rewrite of that section, as below. I have simply left out the stuff about his grandmother as TMI (Trump didn't invent that anyhow, he was just repeating conspiracy-buff claims). I added his often-touted claim that he "sent investigators to Hawaii". And in addition to "he rarely mentioned it again" I believe we should add that when he is asked about it, he defends raising the issue to this day. Here is my proposal to replace the current "birther" paragraph which is in the "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015" section of this article. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC) For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship, reviving the longstanding controversy about Obama's eligibility to serve as president. He repeatedly demanded that Obama show his birth certificate (Obama had already released his birth certificate in 2008, but "birthers" demanded a more detailed document called the "long form birth certificate") and said "I'm starting to think that he was not born here." Trump also claimed to have sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to research the question, saying "They cannot believe what they are finding"; however, there is no evidence that he actually sent representatives to Hawaii. In April 2011, the White House sought to put the longstanding matter to rest by releasing the long form birth certificate. Trump took credit for getting the document released and said he hoped it "checks out". He rarely mentioned the matter again, although he continued to defend his pursuit of the issue when asked. In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular." When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump said, "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it". Trump has also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his Ivy League schools, and called for release of school records. References It could use some tweaks here and there, but overall it's a major improvement so I support implementing this now and we can make further edits later. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC) I'll give it until tomorrow. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC) @Dervorguilla and MrX: I see that you have both been tweaking this paragraph in the article. Would you be OK with replacing it with this version? --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC) No; it's a good-faith edit, but not a particularly good edit. To illustrate: Huffington Post and Salon do at first look like reputable sources. But a more experienced contributor would likely hesitate to use them in an ideologically contentious article. Why not substitute a more mainstream source? Also, three very mainstream sources -- BBC News, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal -- actually contradict the NYTimes article's statement that the subject "rarely mentioned the matter again". (And the subject continues to openly brag in his biography page that he "single-handedly forced" Obama to release the document.) As one of the non-sysop contributors here, I ought to tell you, MelanieN, that I think we're capable of dealing with this issue on our own. Before you spend additional time spelling out your views, could you address a more administrative-level question? I need to find out whether there's a guideline somewhere about reverting "longstanding" material. If you come up with a definitive answer, you'll help contributors resolve disputes not just here but throughout Wikipedia. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Dervorguilla, I agree that HuffPost and Salon aren't the most reliable sources out there, but they're used throughout Wikipedia and the community has consistently considered them sufficiently reliable in response to many, many challenges. I do not think it's fair for you to continue making these sorts of objections without recommending alternate sources. I asked you for this twice in another discussion (here, here) and you have ignored me. Please engage in consensus building, not gridlock. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Time, Wall Street Journal, BBC News. Posted 06:54, 25 August 2016. BBC News, USA Today, Wall Street Journal. Posted 09:15, 25 August 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Dervorguilla, I think you know that I am here as an ordinary editor and have been actively participating for months. So I am as entitled as anyone to propose wording. I appreciate your constructive criticism of this proposal, and I will work on incorporating your suggestions into my draft. As for the definition of "longstanding", I know that you have seen the discussion about it on my talk page, where it became clear that there is no firm definition. I was a "learner" myself at that discussion, where more experienced admins explained that the wording of DS is meant to stabilize the article and to favor the status quo - so that a bold edit which removes longstanding material may be considered as "contentious" and can be challenged by reverting. One admin at that discussion suggested that something which has been in a very active article for a month or six weeks could be considered as "longstanding". But as I said, I am speaking here as an ordinary editor, not an admin, and am merely quoting what others have said. --MelanieN (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC) @MelanieN: I think it's pretty good, but the parenthetical should be revised into a sentence. I also think there should be some mention of Trump incorrectly stating that Obama's grandmother had said she had witnesses Obama's birth in Kenya. Dervorguilla Makes valid point about using better source.- MrX 12:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your input. How about these changes? I can leave out the Salon source. There are already other links that cover the information. I will also leave out the Politico source, it's redundant. I don't see a problem with the Huffpost source, but I can replace it with a NYT link [6] if you want. I was going to leave out the grandmother as TMI, but if consensus is to include it, how about a single sentence, with a source that includes both his assertion and the debunking? Dr.Fleischman's PolitiFact source does both very nicely. Also a good suggestion to rewrite the information about Obama's earlier release of his birth certificate so it isn't parenthetical. How about something like this: Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008,[7] Trump echoed a "birther" demand that Obama release a "long form" birth certificate as well.[8][9] He also repeated a debunked claim that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya.[10] Dervorguilla, your three references all date from April 2011; they don't disprove that he "rarely mentioned the matter again", i.e., after March-April 2011. How about this: Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, he brags about it in his biography,[11] and he defends his pursuit of the issue when asked about it. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC) It seems a bit long. I'm wondering if one of Trump's quotes could/should be trimmed.CFredkin (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC) It sounds good to me.- MrX 16:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC) I'm in rural Maine for a few days so won't say much. I am skeptical about this article saying Trump "revived" the issue, since it was already raging just before he got involved. See Wikipedia's birther article from 28 February 2011 just before he got involved (I see "2011" appearing 58 times on that archived page). I also think this material is a tad long, and since there appears to be no evidence that he didn't send reps to Hawaii I'd zap the stuff about it ("Trump also claimed to have sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to research the question, saying 'They cannot believe what they are finding'; however, there is no evidence that he actually sent representatives to Hawaii"). Back in April 2011, Salon Magazine stated "If media organizations must report Trump’s claim about sending investigators to Hawaii , they should make it very clear that he has offered no evidence". I don't think we "must" report this claim by Trump; why report stuff if there's no evidence either way? Postscript: Per WP:Preserve, the investigator info would be more appropriate at [[12]].Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC) I tentatively agree with the preceding three comments, but they shouldn't hold up implementing Melanie's proposal in the article. It's more efficient to let the iterative BRD process work. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC) I seem to recall reading somewhere ("Is it in that stack of magazines over there?") that the Bureau of Records in Hawaii had verified that "Not a single representative of Donald Trumps has come forward to investigate our records". Not sure how to Google the right question to find the source but it was reliable... Buster Seven Talk 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Found it. NYT. The very last sentence states: Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii state registrar who handled queries about Mr. Obama, said recently through a spokeswoman that he had no evidence or recollection of Mr. Trump or any of his representatives ever requesting the records from the Hawaii State Department of Health. Buster Seven Talk 07:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC) About "revived", most sources indicate that it was Trump's "megaphone" that took this from an under-the-radar, conspiracy-buff issue to a front page issue. But I mainly wanted to make clear that he did not invent this stuff, just took existing claims and brought them to prominence, so we could use a different word than "revived". I do think we should include his repeated claim that he sent representatives to Hawaii (we could leave out "and you won't believe what they're finding!") along with the fact that there's no evidence he actually did so (if he did send them, they seem to have left no traces in Hawaii and produced no information that Trump ever used). I will go ahead and post the paragraph with the changes already indicated. Thanks, all, for your input. I have always found it's better to hammer out a consensus wording on the talk page rather than to tweak and revert each other at the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC) OK, done. I did cut or paraphrase some of the Trump quotes as CFredkin suggested. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Revision added to the article 8-25-16 This version of the "birther" paragraph, based on the above discussion, was added to the article on 8-25-16: For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship, reviving the longstanding controversy about Obama's eligibility to serve as president. Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008, Trump echoed a "birther" demand that Obama release a "long form" birth certificate as well. He also repeated a debunked claim that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya. Trump claimed he had sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but there is no evidence that he actually did so. In April 2011, the White House sought to put the longstanding matter to rest by releasing the long form birth certificate. Trump took credit for getting the document released and said he hoped it "checks out". Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, he brags about it in his online biography, and he defends his pursuit of the issue when asked about it. In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular." When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump said he didn't know and didn't "want to get into it". Trump has also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his Ivy League schools, and called for release of school records. That addition was reverted, so this is what is in the article now: For six weeks in Spring 2011, Trump repeatedly and publicly questioned President Barack Obama's citizenship and thus joined the longstanding controversy about Obama's eligibility to serve as president. In an interview on The Today Show, Trump incorrectly stated that Obama's grandmother had said she had witnesses Obama's birth in Kenya. Trump also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his Ivy League schools, and called for release of school records, plus release of a long form birth certificate. In April 2011, the White House sought to put the longstanding matter to rest with release of the long form. Trump said he hoped it "checks out", and expressed pride about his role, and then rarely mentioned the matter again. When asked years later where Obama was born, Trump said: "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it". Please discuss any suggested changes, or your preference for one version or the other, in the section below. MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Addition was reverted; further discussion needed I oppose per User:Anythingyouwant's (and User:DrFleischman's) unaddressed concerns and for contradiction and confusion. The independent clause ("he brags about it in his online biography") contradicts the subordinate clause ("he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC) MelanieN: Please establish an actual consensus before making a disputed edit. You seem to be claiming here that you've identified a "consensus wording" after giving the other editors 25 hrs for discussion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Fair enough, Dervorguilla. I added it because I was being urged (by Dr. Fleischman) to implement it immediately and amend it later. Six people had commented, and I took all of their suggestions, including yours (replacing two sources and rewriting the "rarely" sentence). Anything didn't like the "investigators" sentence but Buster supported it, so I rewrote it but left it in; that can be discussed further, one sentence doesn't need to delay implementation. Please lay out what your additional concerns are, and let's establish a clearer consensus so we can restore this version (or are you suggesting that the previous version, which you restored to the article, is preferable?). Specifically, what were the unaddressed concerns of User:Anythingyouwant and User:DrFleischman? Let's fix them. As for the "not mentioned again" sentence which you found contradictory, IMO "although" and "rarely" in the subordinate clause do set up the sentence to describe the times when he HAS brought it up again. But how would you suggest the sentence should read so as not to be contradictory? (For reference, the sentence I proposed is "Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, he brags about it in his online biography,[275] and he defends his pursuit of the issue when asked about it." Do others find this to be contradictory?) BTW I did hesitate over the word "brags" and would welcome a more neutral suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC) I think we have consensus. If Dervorguilla doesn't like something in the re-write then they can change it in the article space. But reverting the whole thing saying there's no consensus is obstructionist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC) I agree. There's been quite a bit of compromise on the wording. Dervorguilla, what is your specific remaining concern(s) that you believe must be addressed before implementing this edit? How about if we remove the phrase "he brags about it in his online biography,[275]", which is original research anyway and the apparent source of concern about contradiction? - MrX 17:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC) @MelanieN: Suggestion to avoid "he brags": Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, this is still mentioned in his online biography. — JFG talk 17:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks, JFG. I will make the change. Do you have an opinion about whether you prefer the revised paragraph that was recently added and deleted, or the original version which is in the article now? --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC) I hadn't paid attention before, but I'm happy to weigh in. Your proposed version above flows well and sounds much easier to understand from a reader's standpoint. It's still a bit overloaded with direct transcripts from Trump's rambling speech style, which is harder to follow in writing than when listening, so I'd advise further summarizing what he said rather than quoting him verbatim. — JFG talk 17:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Concretely, I suggest: replacing and said "I'm starting to think that he was not born here." with and expressed doubts about his place of birth. keeping the direct quote In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular." replacing the last rather unreadable 2015 direct quote with When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump opined that the situation wasn't crystal clear but dismissed the need for further discussion. Regards, — JFG talk 17:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your input. I'm sorry, I didn't make clear what version I was talking about. You were looking at my original proposal, before I modified it according to everybody's suggestions. You are right about the quotes, and in fact they already have been cut or paraphrased as you suggest. I'll put the article's original version of the "birther" paragraph (that is the version currently in the article), and the proposed revision (which was added and reverted), on this page right above this discussion, so people can see what we are talking about. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC) No problem at all; it's easy to get confused with these live mega-threads… So, here's what I would suggest, based on your draft above (proposed changes bolded, removals struck out). — JFG talk 20:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC) For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship, reviving the longstanding controversy about Obama's eligibility to serve as president.[1] Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008,[2] Trump echoed a "birther" demand that Obama release a "long form" birth certificate as well.[1][3] He also repeated a debunked claim that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya.[4] Trump claimed he had sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but there is no evidence that he actually did so.[1] In April 2011, When the White House sought to put the longstanding matter to rest by releasing Obama's long-form birth certificate,[2] Trump immediately took credit for getting the document released and said he hoped it "checks out".[5] Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, To this day, Trump's purported role in forcing Obama's hand is still mentioned in his online biography,[6] and he defends his pursuit of the issue when prompted. In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular."[7] When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump opined that the situation wasn't crystal clear but dismissed the need for further discussion.[8][9] Trump has also called for Obama to release his school records, questioning whether his grades alone warranted entry into an Ivy League schools, and he called for release of school records.[10] Personally, I don't see this as an improvement over the current wording.CFredkin (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Thank you, JFG. I think most of these changes are positive and I will be happy to do them (unless people disagree). However, I don't think "opined that the situation wasn't crystal clear but dismissed the need for further discussion" is an improvement over "said he didn't know and didn't "want to get into it"". 0'-D We could remove the quotes from "didn't want to get into it" if you prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC) "To this day..." doesn't seem like encyclopedic language. Also, are there reliable secondary sources that reference the fact that the birther thing appears in Trump's web site?CFredkin (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC) I haven't found one yet, CFredkin. I agree about the language not being encyclopedic. MOS:DATED says editors usually avoid using phrases like to date. To me, the phrase "to this date" sounds even less appropriate. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Was the previously proposed language ("this is still mentioned in his online biography") more encyclopedic or more to your liking? About the reference, it is the website itself. That is a primary source; does that make it unacceptable? If we can't find a third party source that mentions this, are you recommending we should leave out the "biography" part of the sentence? --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC) JFG: I can't tell which source you're using to support the information that someone debunked the erroneous claim about what Sarah Obama said. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC) MelanieN: We can use the passage from the Trump Organization website per BLPSELFPUB. Proposed language: By August 2015 he was claiming on his business Biography page that he had "single handedly" compelled the president to release it. (Alternatively, "...that he had 'single handedly forced' the president to release it".) Compare Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., ¶ 14.245 ('Citations of website content'): "As of July 18, 2008, Hefferman was claiming on her Facebook page that ..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC) MelanieN: Please delete the language about "a 'birther' demand". The term "birther" isn't in the dictionary. See Merriam-Webster Unabridged and Dictionary.com. Worse, some readers may believe that it is in the dictionary and may misinterpret the quotation marks as scare quotes. So they may well come to think that Wikipedia is trying to smear an opposing candidate. And according to a BBC News Analysis, many people supported that demand. The BBC's North America editor noted: "I ... rushed to find a diner with a TV to watch what the president said. As I talked to people afterwards, it was very clear many had doubts about the president's birth certificate and wondered why something hadn't been said more clearly much earlier." This eminently reputable source says "many people", not "many 'birthers'". (Many journalists and transparency advocates wondered why, too.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your suggestions, Dervorguilla. 1) The source for the debunking of the grandmother claim is the same as the source for Trump making the claim: Politifact. 2) Re the biography page, I'd rather use "As of" instead of "By", and I don't like the POV word "claim". And I'd rather "his page was saying" instead of "he was saying". How about this: "As of August 2016 his business Biography page was still saying that he had "single handedly forced" the president to release the long form birth certificate." (P.S. We don't need to use an archived 2015 version of the web page; the page still says it.) 3) Although two of the three sources do use the word "birther", in quotes, I agree it is not ideal. The problem is getting three ideas into the article: 1) Obama had released his birth certificate, 2) some people were calling for a long form birth certificate, 3) Trump was repeating that demand. (I don't want to just say "Trump demanded" without the context that others had demanded it before him.) How about these possibilities: "Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008,[2] Trump joined in the call for Obama to release a "long form" birth certificate as well." or "Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008,[2] some people had been asking for a "long form" birth certificate as well, a demand that Trump echoed." Thoughts? MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Proposed final version New version taking the latest remarks into account. Replaced "birthers" with "activists", simplified mention of his biography, adding a quote of it, unified citation format and removed a redundant one. Also clarified the question asked of him by Anderson Cooper in 2015, from the transcript. For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship, amplifying the longstanding controversy about Obama's eligibility to serve as president. Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008, Trump echoed activists' demand that Obama disclose a "long form" certificate as well. Trump said that he had sent investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but he did not follow up with any findings. He also repeated a debunked allegation that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya. When the White House sought to put the matter to rest by releasing Obama's long-form birth certificate, Trump immediately took credit for obtaining the document, saying "I hope it's the right deal." His official biography mentions his purported role in forcing Obama's hand, and he defends his pursuit of the issue when prompted. In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular." When asked in 2015 whether Obama was born in the United States, Trump said he didn't know and didn't want to discuss it further. Trump has also called for Obama to release his school records, questioning whether his grades warranted entry into an Ivy League school. Consensus yet? — JFG talk 16:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC) References It looks good to me.- MrX 16:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks MrX. @MelanieN, Anythingyouwant, CFredkin, Dervorguilla, and DrFleischman: Does this look like a consensus version, so we could close the matter? — JFG talk 01:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Looks good to me. Nice work. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC) No, my objections remain. I thought people were going to come up with another word for "reviving". Trump did not revive the controversy in 2011, as it was already going gangbusters. Amplified perhaps, but not revived. Also, is there any evidence that Trump did not send investigators? I think that whole sentence ought to be dropped. Detectives typically don't wear a sign that says their occupation and employer, after all. Also, per WP:Claim, "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Moreover, please explain why you want to remove that "Trump said he hoped it 'checks out'". Is that because we believe that Trump hoped the opposite?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: OK, replaced "reviving" with "amplifying" as suggested. Regarding investigators, I have no clue, we are just citing the source, but I agree that the whole sentence could be dropped as this assertion is not particularly notable. Do our fellow editors agree that we could strike this out? For the "I hope it checks out" comment, it looked superfluous to me; the operative statement is that Trump took credit for getting Obama to release the document. — JFG talk 04:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks User:JFG. I would also change "repeated" to "echoed" because the present language suggests that maybe Trump is the one that initially made the grandmother claim, then it was debunked, and then he repeated it. As for Trump's statement that he hopes it checks out, let's suppose for the sake of argument that he was telling the truth; then that would be a really extraordinary statement, indicating that Trump hoped Obama would legitimately remain in office and the nation would be spared a constitutional crisis, which runs counter to the whole narrative that Trump was stooping to birtherism in order to kick Obama out by any dubious means. So I'd include it for NPOV, and let readers decide if Trump really meant it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC) We're already using "echoed" in the previous sentence, "repeated" is a fine sysnonym, it's a stretch of the imagination that readers would think he originated the grandmother claim rather than merely repeating it. On the "I hope it checks out" part, I get your point but I still think that's too much detail at this point in the biography; readers who do want more detail can read the sources. — JFG talk 17:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC) "Reviving" is debatable, but I don't think "amplified" is quite right. As MelanieN put it "About "revived", most sources indicate that it was Trump's "megaphone" that took this from an under-the-radar, conspiracy-buff issue to a front page issue. But I mainly wanted to make clear that he did not invent this stuff, just took existing claims and brought them to prominence, so we could use a different word than "revived"." It might be better to say "exploiting" or "co-opting".- MrX 12:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC) "Amplifying" is exactly what a megaphone does, so it sounds about right to me if we want to take MelanieN's comment into account here. — JFG talk 17:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC) @JFG: The sentence should not be dropped. If anything, we should make it clear that Trump repeated his claim that sending investigators to Hawaii, as noted in NYT. Other sources have covered this [13] [14] [15] so I believe it's noteworthy.- MrX 12:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC) User:MrX, given all the false things that Trump has said, why not use those things instead of this thing about which there's no significant evidence of falsity? Let's put the falsity label on things that are actually known to be false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC) None of the proposed text says anything about the claim being false; only that there is not evidence that he actually sent investigators to Hawaii. Let's read what some source says: "In the run-up to the 2012 election, Trump, who in the early part of that race flirted with launching his own campaign, repeatedly claimed he had sent investigators to Hawaii, Obama’s birth place, and that it was “absolutely unbelievable” what they were finding. He never released any information to back up those claims, but his focus on the issue made him a favorite of grassroots conservatives and helped pave the way for his success in the 2016 election." — Time "He even said he had sent investigators to Hawaii, the president’s birthplace, to seek the truth. Trump never walked back those claims and even mentioned them again in 2015 at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington." — 'CBS News " Ignoring the evidence of Obama’s Hawaiian birth, he claimed that his investigators found that he was not born in the United States. He never produced evidence, just headlines. When proven false, rather than acknowledge his wrongness, he talked about the “service” he provided by keeping the issue in the news." — 'Huffington Post Trump claimed it's “absolutely unbelievable” what they were finding. Does anyone actually think that if Trump had unbelievable information about Obama that he would not shout it from the rooftops? That's why this is so noteworthy.- MrX 13:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Did any of the sources speculate about what Trump would have said if he had found absolutely unbelievable stuff in his investigation? Such an investigation likely touched upon personal and private information, which would be ample reason to keep it under wraps. Another reason is that Obama released the form, so there was no longer any need for publicizing private information. (One piece of privacy-related info was a video recorded in the State of Washington about a transcontinental visit just a few days after Obama's birth by the baby and his mother, and the interviewed friend talks about how Obama's mother didn't even know yet how to change the diaper and the poop got all over and the whole thing was yucky.). Anyway, tons of stuff was published about Trump that's reliably sourced, but we ought to be discerning. It's transparently partisan to say there's no evidence Trump sent investigators without also saying there's no evidence the other way either (which there isn't AFAIK).Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC) I haven't heard the baby poop story before, but then again, I don't follow conspiracy theories. We're staring to venture into the OR zone and we probably shouldn't speculate about what happen or should have happened. All we know is that Trump made a claim and didn't follow through. Our sources are pretty consistent about saying this without making any other conclusions. I think the question that remains is one of weight. I've shown roughly a half a dozen sources. Perhaps other editors can weight in about whether they think this material is important or not. I would be OK with changing "...but there is no evidence that he actually did so" to "...but it's unknown whether he actually did so". - MrX 14:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC) I just want to point out that we don't actually know he didn't follow through. He could very well have hired some expensive private investigators to go investigate it, engaged in hyperbole about what he thought they would find, then stopped talking about it when they found nothing. Anythingyouwant is making a good point here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC) To clarify, when I wrote " didn't follow through", I wasn't referring to the investigation; I was referring to the revelation that would have presumably come after finding absolutely unbelievable information.- MrX 14:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC) That's fine, but one could argue that he couldn't follow through because the investigators found nothing. I know it's not a very good argument, but Trump is campaigning for president, not writing a work of investigative journalism. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Alright, seems there is no consensus to remove this sentence. Adding it back in a slightly altered formulation taking your remarks into account: Trump claimed that he had sent investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but he did not follow up with any findings. This version doesn't try to prove or disprove that he did what he said, we just report that he offered no results (which is true despite his bombastic claim of finding extraordinary stuff), so readers can draw their own conclusions. Is this acceptable? I'd really like to close this now, we're spending too much time discussing the fine details of one single paragraph in a long biography article. Let's keep it as simple as possible (but no simpler). In my opinion, the entire paragraph as massaged above is ready to go into the article. I'll leave it one more day open for comments, then I'll publish it. — JFG talk 17:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC) I'm good with that wording. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC) I think we should keep the sentence about investigators in the article; he asserted it repeatedly, and boasted that the supposed investigators were finding unbelievable stuff - stuff which for some reason he never used. We also have the Hawaii health department registrar saying they were never contacted by any Trump investigators, which would seem like a basic starting point for any investigation. However, I would not say he "claimed" he had sent them, since "claimed" is a bit NPOV and implies disbelief. A simple "said" would work. I actually prefer the original version saying there is no evidence he sent them, but will accept the "never released any findings" if consensus favors it. (Has any Reliable Source ever put it that way, that he never released any findings? or is it WP:OR? We DO have a reliable source saying that he never provided any evidence that he sent them.) As for the other issues raised by Anythingyouwant, I am fine with replacing "revived" with "amplified" or any other synonym people prefer, and with either "echoed" or "repeated". I have no opinion about "hope it checks out", which may be superfluous; one of the complaints about the original draft was that it contained too many direct quotes from Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC) From the New York Times The very last sentence states: Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii state registrar who handled queries about Mr. Obama, said recently through a spokeswoman that he had no evidence or recollection of Mr. Trump or any of his representatives ever requesting the records from the Hawaii State Department of Health. Buster Seven Talk 18:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Allright, JFG, I think it's time to add this to the article. You have pretty well responded to everyone's suggestions. If anyone wants to make further suggestions, they should make them here, and if agreed to they can be added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC) I am concerned that JFG said above "Alright, seems there is no consensus to remove this sentence...." That is not the appropriate standard. The real question is whether there is "firm consensus" to insert it. And likewise whether there is "firm consensus" to remove that Trump hopes the certificate "checks out". I have no objection paraphrasing the latter instead of quoting. Can we please see the revised draft?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC) 1) RE the "investigators" sentence, we have three peoole (JFG, MrX, and me) who want it in the paragraph in the original version. We have MJolnirPants, who wants it in the article but modified. And we have you, who wants to leave it out. Consensus must be "firm" but it does not have to be unanimous. 2) If the "hope it checks out" bit is all that important to you, I will go along and say it should be included, preferably with the direct quote. (You seem to think that comment provides balance, i.e., makes Trump look like he really does hope it proves Obama was born here; but it can equally or more likely be read as expressing skepticism on the subject, "sure, he gave us a document, but it might be phony".) Anyhow, go ahead and include it and let's get this thing posted. --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC) MelanieN makes a good point about the "I hope it checks out" quote, which can be interpreted both ways depending on the reader's opinion of Trump: sincerity or sarcasm. Indeed, going back to the source it's quoted from, their article title says Trump takes credit for Obama birth certificate release, but wonders "is it real?" (editorially choosing to emphasize doubt) and in the text we have several verbatim quotes of Trump saying We have to look at it, we have to see is it real, is it proper, what's on it, but I hope it checks out beautifully and It is rather amazing that all the sudden it materializes, but I hope it's the right deal. So, if we must insert a quote, rather than "I hope it checks out" I would suggest using "I hope it's the right deal", which still leaves the reader free to interpret it as sincere relief or lingering doubt, but is a bit less colloquial. I have amended the proposed paragraph accordingly, and will publish it now. — JFG talk 05:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC) JFG said about the investigator sentence: "I agree that the whole sentence could be dropped as this assertion is not particularly notable". MJolnirPants said, "Anythingyouwant is making a good point here".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: I still think the sentence is superfluous but considering other editors' remarks I'm happy to keep it in the shortened and neutral form as amended after discussion. In the same spirit, taking your concerns into account, I am adding back a direct Trump quote expressing hope that Obama's certificate was legit. — JFG talk 05:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Does Trump have a new immigration stance?

[16], etc. How are we gonna deal with that? Man, this guy makes the life of a Wikipedia editor hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Oy. But fortunately we don't have to do anything yet, since at this point Trump is merely weighing changing his stance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

As usual it's impossible to tease out what he really means by these hints, so we should hold off. Interesting side note: Trump has cancelled three appearances this week.[17] They were supposed to be all about laying out or clarifying his new (?) policy on immigration; in fact this was supposed to be "immigration week". The campaign has not explained why they called off the appearances, but one possible reason is that he and his campaign advisors have not agreed what his immigration policy should be. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to post something about Trump's Stunning Flip-Flop on Immigration, or business as usual. It absolutely should be added, and I don't think we need to wait an indefinite period for details which may or may not ever emerge. It already has historical significance, if for no other reason than the ambiguity about his actual position this close to the election.- MrX 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely that he knows his position at the moment. But, it makes no sense for the article to say: "Day 1 of my presidency, illegal immigrants are getting out and getting out fast" when his position appears to be an unknown. There should, at least, be a follow-up statement that his position is in flux. Objective3000 (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't even know if it is in flux. His campaign manager says his position is "to be determined", suggesting flux. Trump himself says "I'm not flip flopping," suggesting no flux. [18] MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

He's not flipflopping. But he knows America is not a dictatorship. There are checks and balances and he'll have to govern with Congress, the Senate and the judiciary. That's all he's been saying. If anything, he has said he would work with the courts, proving that he wants to honor the constitution.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you speak for him? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"He hasn't changed his position on immigration. He's changed the words that he is saying." You know, the words about his position. This waffling doesn't belong on Trump's bio page, at least not yet. MrX is right about its importance, though, and I believe it should already be on the campaign page. When he and his team decide what he's proposing, we can clarify. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Just the other day Trump announced his revision of his revision of his original Immigration Policy. At the thread "Immigration policies" all the sources are from June. Would a re-write of the section be better than just adding each revision as it is announced? (which hasn't happened as of yet) Or just change the section each time? Buster Seven Talk 15:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not yet. All we could say is that he may be waffling, or then again maybe he isn't. When he comes out with an actual policy, something he will stand behind and stick to, we should revise it then. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wishful thinking that. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe after tonight? --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Based on what I'm seeing on Twitter, there is no change in policy or softening. Ann Coulter is happy. She can still pimp out that book. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements

Should the lead section, which currently says:

"His statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, ..."

be changed to read (changes in bold):

"Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false,[1][2] ..."

The proposed sources are:

• "The 'King of Whoppers': Donald Trump". FactCheck.org. December 21, 2015.
• Holan, Angie Drobnic; Qiu, Linda (December 21, 2015). "2015 Lie of the Year: the campaign misstatements of Donald Trump". PolitiFact.

Prior talk page discussion here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

References

notes added by Anythingyouwant

NOTE: Dr. Fleischman has acknowledged that both sources above are rather old now (from 2015), and he points to the following two additional sources (though it is still unclear whether Dr. Fleischman objects to omitting footnotes from this lead which has thus far omitted them per WP:LEADCITE): Gregory, Sean. "Bob Knight Explains Why He Endorsed Donald Trump", Time Magazine (April 29, 2016). Lippman, Daniel et al. "Trump's Week of Errors, Exaggerations and Flat-out Falsehoods", Politico (March 13, 2016). Please also note that this RFC about the lead is followed later in this talk page by a similar discussion about the body of this BLP (see Talk:Donald Trump#Working draft of a section about Trump's false statements).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support - His frequent false statements, as noted by Pulitzer Prize winning sources, have become a staple of his campaign [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28].- MrX 18:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support for adding "or false"- His covert, coded and often repeated rhetoric is most often deceitful and without specific regret afterwards. Examples are abundant and can be found with very little effort. Buster Seven Talk 18:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Fact checking organizations are often controversial. Indeed, I've seen accusations of a liberal bias many MANY times, and I've seen precious little refuting those accusations (except memes with pithy little comments like "The facts have a liberal bias"). That being said, I'm not at all convinced that those accusations are true. Politifact has given every candidate this season except Sanders at least one "Pants on Fire" rating. Factcheck.org has slammed Clinton, Sanders, Stein, Johnson and Trump.

That being said, I don't like using those sites as a source. They are too controversial, and there's not enough evidence that the criticisms of them are unfounded (I believe they are, but I can't prove it with reliable sources). In this case, I've read articles from CNN, PBS and NPR about Trump's numerous untrue statements. a quick google search shows many sources that could be significantly less controversial. I'm sure anyone willing (not me, nope nope nope nope) to put more effort into finding a reliable source for these statements will find some pretty good ones. So I'm okay with the proposal, but not okay with the proposed sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think your position on the reliability of these fact checkers is consistent with WP:RS, which focuses on the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy rather than bias or controversy, but if this objection picks up steam, I agree, it could be easily remedied by adding additional sources such as the ones MrX has proposed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

FactCheck.org is often cited by other reliable sources, and even The Federalist. One indication of reliability is WP:USEBYOTHERS. Of course, PolitiFact is one of the Pulitzer Prize winners, which suggests a degree of reliability.- MrX 18:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, how about this TIME Magazine source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:, @MrX: I don't think you understood what I was saying. I personally feel that the fact checking sites do a wonderful job and are free from any meaningful bias. If there was an RfC on whether or not we can use fact checking sites, I'd !vote Yes in big, bold letters. But I can't prove it, because there are lots of other sources complaining about them, and few other sources defending them (it seems to be so widely held in journalistic circles that they are accurate that few journalists feel the need to defend them). So I don't like using them simply because doing so provides an excuse for editors who disagree with them to complain about how unreliable they are, and start a big stink about it. Given that the fact checking sources often cover the same material as other, less controversial sources, I will (until there is a clear consensus that questioning the reliability of fact checkers is pointless) always elect to use the less controversial sources. So that time magazine source is absolutely perfect, from where I sit. however, whenever there is no other good source for a claim, I say go with the fact checkers and be ready to defend oneself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha. FWIW here's another strong source, this time from Politico. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I see your point MjolnirPants. It never hurts to have more and better sources.- MrX 21:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

MrX: The Wall Street Journal has won seven Pullet Surprises — and it one of its editorial-board members characterizes PolitiFact as "fundamentally dishonest" for mislabeling opinion pieces as 'fact checks'. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is paywalled, but judging from it's lead, I'm doubtful that is makes such a sweeping generalization. Nor does it matter, given the abundance of sources at our disposal.- MrX 11:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: It looks like the Journal's editorial-board member does make the "sweeping generalization" that PolitiFact is selling mislabeled opinion pieces:

The Site Once Vouched for Its “Lie of the Year”

PolitiFact.com ... is out with its “Lie of the Year”...

We cannot fault PolitiFact for the lie it chose...

Which isn’t to say PolitiFact doesn’t function as a state propaganda agency. For in the past — when it actually mattered, before ObamaCare became a law — PolitiFact vouched for Barack Obama’s “Big Lie”...

PolitiFact ... includes the following acknowledgment: “In 2009 and again in 2012, PolitiFact rated Obama’s statement Half True”...

As the Washington Examiner noted last month, in October 2008 PolitiFact rated the same statement ... as flatly “true”...

Its past evaluations of the statement were not “fact checks” at all, merely opinion pieces endorsing ObamaCare...

But selling opinion pieces by labeling them “fact checks” is fundamentally dishonest.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess that's their opinion. Other publication see it differently. The Washington Examiner not a source I would rely on for "noting" anything concerning president Obama or Obama Care.- MrX 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

MrX: No need to. The Journal is the largest reputable newspaper in the country. Both the Journal and a columnist at Time -- the largest reputable newsmagazine in the world -- see PolitiFact as "spreading false impressions" or worse. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla: I'm sure you noticed that in the same Time article, the following was stated(referring to Politifact): "they’re generally doing a hard, important thing well. They often do it better than the rest of the political media, and the political press owes them for doing it." Gaas99 (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gaas99: Note the limiting adverbs and the adversative conjunction. (Emphasis added.) "They’re generally doing [it] well. They often do it better than the rest... But..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Politicians make false statements. That's not exactly relevant to the lead of their bios.Eeyoresdream (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support - per MrX - this has received extremely wide and deep coverage from multiple high-quality journalistic sources. Neutrality^talk 19:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support I originally opposed, but given the discussion above and the strength of the sources, I think this two-word addition is justified. Yes, many politicians shade the truth or even outright lie on occasion, but Trump has carried it to a whole new level, as has been well documented by neutral reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's called politics. It is also my impression that it would be false to say that. If anything, he's been too honest for his own good. By the way, I also object to the use of the word "controversial" as it is POV. Instead, we should say, "politically incorrect".Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Zigzig20s: Can you cite some reliable sources that support your reasoning, especially " he's been too honest for his own good"? It strikes me as very odd that you seem to think your "impression" should receive more consideration than Pulitzer Prize winning sources.- MrX 21:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. The argument that Trump's falsehoods are politics as usual has no basis in our policies and guidelines and is directly contradicted by the cited reliable sources, among many others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support The frequency and severity of the falsehoods stated by the Trump campaign have been the subject of discussion from numerous secondary sources. Sources appear to treat this as above-and-beyond the typical political truth spinning. NPOV directs us to reflect the sources in a neutral manner and the proposed wording does that. DUE directs us to mention it because it's been so widely and extensively covered. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? It seems to me it would be false; he's been more truthful than most politicians.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources MrX provided above are a good starting point. Some others: [29] [30] [31] [32]. I know of no reliable source suggesting that Trump is more truthful (or even equally as truthful) than other politicians. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Those sound like opinion pieces. The Guardian is left-wing; could we cite Breitbart then?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

They aren't categorized as opinion pieces by the outlets. We cannot assume they are. Guardian is more leftwing, but it's RS. Breitbart generally is not because of its history of factual errors. (See RSN discussion archives). We are required to accurately and neutrally reflect RS, even if we don't agree with what they say. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The tone of this specific Guardian article certainly sounds like an opinion piece. My worry is not that we can't cite them, but that citing them would make Wikipedia look bad/biased.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A few more links: PolitiFact's Lie of the Year was covered by other sources ([33]). "Donald Trump attempted to relaunch his troubled campaign Wednesday with a scripted speech fusing his anti-trade economic message with a series of attacks on Hillary Clinton that ran the gamut from harsh, to unprovable to false.". EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this sounds POV. Are we going to say that Clinton lies a lot in her lede? (Just google it.) That's what politicians do.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources are allowed to be POVish (see WP:BIASED). It seems that sources have covered Trumps falsehoods more and say that he has more of them than Clinton. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Google "Clinton pinocchio". There's even a t-shirt. My point is that you're free to say Trump is the worst person in the entire universe by citing it, but ultimately that makes Wikipedia look bad. This should not be used as a political platform.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

We're not talking about a handful of falsehoods. We're talking about so many that it's become a regular subject of media coverage by reliable sources--not just a specific falsehood, but the overall pattern. A t-shirt isn't a reliable source. In any case, if you see the same thing about Clinton then you are more than welcome to propose a similar addition at Talk:Hillary Clinton. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig, give it up. You are apparently repeating the Trump campaign line that he "tells it like it is". But the reliable sources are pointing out things he says that are FACTUALLY FALSE. And it's not just lies about his opponent, like "Hillary wants to create totally open borders" or she want to "abolish the Second Amendment". It's lies about simple, verifiable facts, like "We're the highest taxed nation in the world" or "GDP was essentially zero in the last two quarters" or "Americans are the only country that has birthright citizenship" or "South Korea doesn't pay the U.S. for our troops there protecting their country". It's lies about his own biography, like "Trump University has a "A" from the Better Business Bureau" or "The Art of the Deal is the best selling business book of all time" or "I got to know Putin very well when we were both on 60 minutes" or …. shall I go on? The Washington Post's "Fact checker" has awarded Trump their highest rating, "Four Pinocchios" (meaning a flat lie), on 65% of the statements they tested, and most of the rest are Three Pinocchios. In contrast, most politicians earn Four Pinocchios 10-20% of the time. [34] This is NOT a case of "all politicians lie". Trump has set a new standard, according to everybody who rates this kind of thing. --MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's called hyperbole. It's political speech. Perhaps this could go in the body of the text, but not in the lede. It is too POV and makes Wikipedia look biased. I want Wikipedia to remain neutral, and this would look bad in my opinion. But I've made my point--hopefully you will listen.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's way beyond hyperbole. According to Google, "hyperbole" is "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally". His comments are meant to be taken literally. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's political speech. Obama said he would close Gitmo. He hasn't, as it's the next best thing to keep America safe. But I bet voters believed him. This is what politicians do.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Obama hasn't closed Gitmo because Congressional Republicans blocked all of his attempts to do so. It's a broken promise, but again, it was meant literally. Like Trump's statements. (And lol to Gitmo keeping America "safe".) – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Obama was being "hyperbolic"? If not, I fail to see the relevance. Graham (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and since you keep bringing up Clinton, here is a head-to-head comparison from the Washington Post, as of July: For Trump: 52 claims were rated. 63% were Four Pinocchios, 21% 3, 10% 2, 2% 1, 4 % truthful. For Clinton: 36 claims were rated. 14% were Four Pinocchios, 36% 3, 30.5% 2, 5.5% 1, 14% truthful. [35] --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post has been at loggerheads with Trump. Of course they would publish anti-Trump pieces now.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

… are you seriously citing a t-shirt as a reliable source? Graham (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Lügenpresse. Zaostao (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you point to some policy to support your position? Just saying the press is lying isn't sufficient as it is your personal opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd also suggest avoiding Nazi terminology if you'd like your opinion to be taken more seriously. This is a Donald Trump RfC, not a Donald Trump campaign rally, after all. MastCell ^Talk 00:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's German terminology, unless everything used by the National Socialists becomes "Nazi" related, in which case universal healthcare is Nazi ideology. Zaostao (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. False is false, and this is very well documented in sources above. That is what multiple reliable sources tell. Very simple. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support When something is demonstrably false (like the NFL letter he claimed to receive, or the "very top" Chicago PD people he claims to have spoken with, both of which have been disconfirmed), it's demonstrably false. Politicians obfuscate and tell half-truths, but totally false statements are another level. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Trump has indeed made false statements. That's true of all politicians. He's told some whoppers. That's true of other politicians as well (e.g. Hillary's "I remember landing under sniper fire....") I don't see how that's ledeworthy. In fact, I would argue that 2 factors mitigate in Trump's favor in this regard: 1) He's not a politician, so when it comes to policy or political issues, he may not have as firm a grasp on those facts as someone who has spent his/her career in politics, and 2) he responds to questions from journalists more frequently than some other politicians (when Hillary made her "short circuit" comment on 8/5/16, that was the first time she had taken questions from journalists in 244 days) and you're definitely more likely to make mistakes when not reading from a script.CFredkin (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The significance isn't the falsehoods themselves; rather, the significance as stated in all of the sources is the quantity of the falsehoods. The rest of your comment is irrelevant. The proposed content doesn't say or imply that Trump lied, and any argument along the lines of "cut him a break" has no place in our policies or guidelines. The quantity of falsehoods has received enormous press coverage, and that should pretty much cover it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The volume of false statements as documented by reliable sources is remarkable, and therefore clearly relevant. This is not "spin". These are outright inventions.Objective3000 (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support The high number of false statements is well document in diverse reliable sources. Those opposing this above have very weak and unconvincing cases with little substantiation. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong supportThe proposed change is strongly supported by reliable sources, most importantly by the reliable sources who specialize in fact-checking. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose – For all the complaints about Trump's tone during the primaries, we shouldn't let Wikipedia get infected by blanket generalizations and allow our lead section to attack the candidate's probity. Same goes for Clinton, naturally. What's next? "Donald John Trump is a notorious racist bigot child molester who is very likely to start World War III over a tweet." All this could be easily sourced, and still be utterly unencyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 03:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Your logical fallacy is... Nobody is suggesting any of that stuff, and none of it could be sourced. This is also not about his "tone". Let's please stick to discussing the actual suggestion here (to add the two words "and false" to the uncontested statement that a lot of what he says is controversial). --MelanieN (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not seriously suggesting that editors would follow this particular slope (although we were almost there with prior discussions on alleged racism). I'm using hyperbole to outline that we should not let Wikipedia's tone get infected by a candidate's hyperbole or his opponents' rhetoric. To the point being discussed here stricto sensu, I maintain my strong opposition. — JFG ^talk 08:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

JFG's argument is expressly contradicted by our BLP policy, which says that in the case of public figures, "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." The reason we don't have that parade of horribles in our lead section is because, as extensively hashed out on this talk page, there aren't reliable sources to support any of it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully we agree about avoiding such bolsterous statements per BLP and common decency. And the issue of Trump's tendency to blanket his discourse with dubious or misinformed statements should be soberly addressed in the article, in the same way that Clinton's apparent obfuscation and contradictions should be covered as neutrally as possible. I still object to defining any candidate as a liar in the lead section. — JFG ^talk 20:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Your logical fallacy is... No one has proposed adding any definitions or anything about lies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. The lede is supposed to be a summation of the text of the article. So far as I could tell, the falseness or veracity of Mr. Trump's statements in interviews/speeches/on Twitter is not directly addressed in the text of the article (though two references include in their quotes some false/erroneous/hyperbolic statements Mr. Trump has made). Shearonink (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this issue was raised in a previous discussion. Editors are invited to fill out the article body with this material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Aarrrgh!. Per Shearonink above, the lede is supposed to summarized sourced content in the article. The body of the article does not establish that Trump's false campaign statements are a significant issue in his candidacy. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but the place to develop that content is in the article itself, not by proposing wording tweaks in the lede. Additionally, there is no doubt that Trump's campaign has made many false statements, but that is a different issue than his making controversial statements. This should be explained, cautiously and with careful support, with respect to the nature of the campaign and what it has to do with Trump, the election, and American politics, not just adding the invective "false" to a throw-away sentence in the lede. In other words, if editors are willing to say this, they should be ready to do so as sourced content. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but this shouldn't hold up development of the lead section. FWIW I believe there has been longstanding consensus to use the "controversial" language in the lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Shearonink and Wikidemon. If it is well sourced it should be included in the body of the article along with any existing opposing views (justification, replies etc) if they are also properly sourced so the final text has a NPOV. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  I read the previous three comments from Shearonink, Crystallizedcarbon, and Wikidemon as not objecting to the RfC proposal provided that we also add (a few paragraphs?) of sourced detail to the body of the article. - MrX 11:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: In my opinion, if the information is added to the body of the article, consensus should probably be reached on whether it should also be included on the lead following WP:LEAD, and if so, how to include it in a brief and neutral way. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That is the purpose of this RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose -> Strong oppose per WP:PSTS policy, which cautions against basing large passages on opinion pieces. The A Wall Street Journal editorial board member has characterized PolitiFact as "fundamentally dishonest" for calling its opinion pieces 'fact checks'. Also, a Time columnist says it may be "spreading false impressions". --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  The vast majority of available sources are not primary sources by any definition, and only a couple are opinion sources. You have found one article in one source that impugns a statement in another source, but that doesn't negate the plethora of other sources that prominently state that Trump frequently makes false statements.- MrX 11:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a third article, which says, "PolitiFact ... has marketed itself ... on the pretense of impartiality." (And this one's a news story by the Journal's editorial board.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• The Time piece only objects to Politifact's simplified rating system, not its veracity, diligence or accuracy - Gaas99 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Time: "Inaccurate-but-catchy language ... can create false impressions and misinform people." The Time columnist appears to be questioning the accuracy of PolitiFact's language. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources Dervorguilla is linking to are opinion sources. All reliable news outlets get criticized from time to time by people who don't like their conclusions. Moreover, you believe TIME is reliable, and TIME wrote: "Throughout the campaign, however, professional fact checkers have had a field day singling out Trump’s false statements. Politifact has posted a running tally, now at 57, of Trump’s inaccuracies: after Trump’s sweep of five primary states on Tuesday and speech on foreign policy on Wednesday, the Washington Post found Trump uttered eight falsehoods in sixteen hours." Would you flip your !vote if we added that source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Time columnist is saying that PolitiFact and the Post had "a field day" — meaning, "an occasion marked usually by extreme fun or hilarity; an occasion or opportunity for unrestrained ridicule". "Oppose" -> "Strong oppose". --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Dervorguilla, I'm having a hard time maintaining the assumption good faith. Please help me out here and explain how TIME's use of "field day" has any bearing on what we're trying to decide, beyond emphasizing how many of Trump's statements have been false. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on "field day" def. 2 & def. 3 ("a period when full opportunity ... finally appears to unleash and satisfy ... restrained desire"), the Time columnist appears to be saying that PolitiFact may sometimes have a "desire" to sell unrestrained ridicule. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And... what does that have to do with either PolitiFact or TIME's reputation for accuracy and fact checking, paying particular attention to WP:BIASED? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I do agree with those who say this should be in the body of the text (whether or not it is in the lede). Does someone want to undertake to write a few sentences to go in the "2016 campaign" section? IMO the item should be worked out here at the talk page, not just boldly stuck into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. A couple of sentences that look perfectly acceptable to me have been added to the text. IMO the "two words" can now be added to the lede without the objection that it isn't mentioned in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a couple of minor edits in order to hew more closely to the proposed version for the lede and to adhere to the sources.CFredkin (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur with your edits. They improved the sentence. (I wish we had a more definite statement than "more than his opponents" - the sources actually say things like "we've never seen anything like it" - but I think we can go with what we've got.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support It's a simple factual statement that is well-proven and easily verifiable. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say "most", rather than just "many". Centerone (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that would be verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a simple not factual statement that is not well-proven and not easily verifiable. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say "some", rather than just "many". --Malerooster (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  Is that your opinion, or can you point to some reliable sources that refute the reliable sources already presented?- MrX 20:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Malerooster, please read the sources. No one is talking about adding unverified content to the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Wait a second, don't all politicians lie? Donald Trump obviously has said things that may not have been accurate, but Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders, and all the rest are the same way. Why should we single Trump out and ignore Sanders, Cruz, Clinton, and the others? That is blatant POV. We should be beyond this, especially in such an election year. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  No, all politicians don't lie, and we're not discussing a comparison of politicians or other biographies. If you have a policy-based argument for your strong oppose, I would love to hear it.- MrX 20:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere in this RfC, yes, other politicians lie, but no one has uttered as many falsehoods as Trump and no one has received as much coverage in the reliable sources for it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Trump has lied more than anyone else? Seriously!? What about Clinton, who has a pretty bad reputation (even among centrists and others) for dishonesty? To say that Trump has said more lies than anyone else sounds like POV to me. MrX, sure there may be politicians who are honest, but it is not uncommon to have politicians or people involved in politics to say things that are not true (whether intentionally or not). Also, if you want a policy, I'll cite WP:SYNTH. I don't like the phrase "controversial or false". I think we should keep the "false" part out, but if we are going to include this, we should split the sentence up to say something like "...controversial. Additionally, his statements have been criticized as being false." Have his statements been controversial because they were false, or is there a difference between the controversial statements and the false ones?--1990'sguy (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. Have you not read any of the discussion here, read any of the links? This is not POV or partisanship, this is solid neutral reporting. The people whose business it is to evaluate the truth or falsity of politicians say they have "never seen anything like it" - the way Trump will say things that are factually untrue, and continue to say them after being shown they are not true. If you read through this thread you will find that 65% of Trump's statements that have been evaluated turned out to be flat lies; the comparable number for Clinton was 14%. In fact Trump would probably not even mind being characterized as untruthful; in his book he touts exaggeration and hyperbole as essential business tools. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

1990'sguy, evidently you haven't checked the sources. Please read the sources before questioning my seriousness. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Trump and his campaign are immersed in falseness. The continuing campaign to sanitize any and every thing that may be derogatory to some editors preferred candidate is hurtful to the article and to Wikipedia's position as a place of reliable information. His doctor who mis-states his credentials, Menlania's educational and green card status, the letter from the NFL,"I sent agents to Hawaii", "I don't know anything about David Duke", "I can't provide my taxes 'cause I'm being audited", "I might lie to you like Hillary does all the time", "I was being sarcastic", "I'll pay your legal fees", "I have personally interviewed all the instructors" and so much more I can't even remember. This sanitizing effort requires 60% of the RFC editors to suspend their capacity to see and hear what they (and reliable sources) know to be lies and pretend they never happened. Buster Seven Talk 22:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but I wouldn't race to assume that everyone who opposes inclusion is a Trump POV pusher. Some of these people don't like seeing controversial but verifiable facts about public figures and don't seem to realize that omitting such facts is in violation of our BLP policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment 1990's guy makes a good point about not conflating "controversial" with "false". Maybe we should say "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and many have been rated as false." Or maybe a simple "and/or". --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Not every controversial statement is false, and we don't know if every false statement is controversial. - MrX 23:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with splitting it out like that, but I don't like "rated as." Various highly reliable sources have said many of Trump's statements have been false. That's all we need to say that many of Trump's statements have been false. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I missed that. How about: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and many are false." - MrX 23:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I support..."Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and many are false." Buster Seven Talk 01:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment In cases like this it is best to stick as closely to the sources as possible. So, I would suggest something like this: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies that have been check by fact checking organizations have been found to be mostly false or false." --I am One of Many (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the sources make broader statements than that. They don't say that many of his statements they checked were false; rather, they say that many of his statements have been false. The Politico source in particular talks about how many of his statements have been false in general, and Poiltico isn't traditionally known as a fact checker. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Needs attribution: I've been watching this proposal since it started and have had a hard time being comfortable with the proposed sentence. It rubs me as being WP:WEASEL-ish for lack of a better term. While I agree that the linked sources support the claim I wonder if you can't find a better way of saying it. I also don't like the way it's crammed into the sentence talking about unrelated protests and riots. I can't think of a specific wording, but it might be able to be worked into the previous sentence...maybe something about him receiving tons of free media attention in part because of outrageous claims and appeals to fringe theories (supported in the body and by this source). Or you could take an "attribution" route and work in something along the lines of "..and political fact checking organizations have singled him out as having made record numbers of false statements during his campaign." These are really rough examples, obviously inappropriate for a copy/paste into the article, but I hope they might lead to something more nuanced than just adding the words "and false" into an existing sentence. ~Awilley (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I like that wording and I have put it into the article text sentence, in place of the namby-pamby "more than other candidates". --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

While I'm opposed to calling Trump (or Clinton) a liar in Wikpedia's voice, I would approve Awilley's suggestion: Political fact checking organizations have singled him out as having made record numbers of false statements during his campaign. This states the facts unambiguously while maintaining a detached point of view. — JFG ^talk 06:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, no one is proposing calling Trump a liar; were simply saying that many of his statement are false. Maybe he actually believes what he says. Awilley , I can't support any wording that would obscure the simple fact that many of Trump's statements are false. Attribution is not needed because it is a widely-accepted, provable conclusion. Yes, he makes outrageous claims: some are hyperbole and others are blatantly false. He sometimes makes further false statements when called to account for previous false statements. If there is a better way to work this material into the lead, I'm fine with that, but we don't need to use more words when fewer will do.- MrX 11:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that many of the RfC respondents have looked at how "or false" will fit into the whole sentence.

Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false, and some of the rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots.

Are the protests and riots related the the false statements, because the proximity in the sentence suggests that. Fewer words is good, but I think you'll need more than two. ~Awilley (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a proposal a few lines up that seems to have some support: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and many are false." The sentence stands on its own as a summary. The rally protests and riots should definitely be kept separate.- MrX 15:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Still it wouldn't hurt to have some attribution. "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and a significant number of them have been debunked by fact checking organizations." It changes it from something that will smack many readers as biased writing to something even Trump supporters can agree with and verify. See WP:PEACOCK for an example of what I'm talking about. ~Awilley (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but if we're going to include attribution, it needs to encompass to full range of debunkers: fact checking organizations; major newspapers, magazines and news programs; professors; and his friend, Mark Cuban.[36][37]- MrX 16:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note: See the thread Working draft of a section about Trump's false statements below and collaborate on a draft to insert this topic into the article Buster Seven Talk 16:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - the predominance of prominence and so due WP:WEIGHT is 'controversial', so just follow the cites and stick with just that, this just isn't what's out there to the point of deserving of LEAD prominence. I'm also reluctant to do any edits at this time with judgemental bits as they are just going to be suspect anyway of being corrupt WP:POLITICS and PR efforts rather than conveying external encyclopedic info. Finally, it looks bad because 'trustworthiness' is more noted on the Hillary side along with money topics, while Donald is more about controversies or offensiveness, and a bit on the 'crazy' tone. So just let it be. Markbassett (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support per MrX, Neutrality, and EvergreenFir, among others. The falsity of so many of Trump's statements has been a hallmark of his campaign, as demonstrated by a preponderance of reliable sources. While I respect Wikidemon's argument that the lede is supposed to be based on the body of the article (

  the place to develop that content is in the article itself, not by proposing wording tweaks in the lede

  ), I must agree with DrFleischman that the fact that this information should be included in the body is no reason to hold up it's insertion in the lede, provided that it should be in both. Graham (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose and proposing a compromise. WP:LEADCITE says: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." There are no footnotes in the lead of Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, et cetera. I don't favor modifying the lead of this article to include footnotes either. The best way to proceed is to edit the main body of the article, including footnotes as appropriate. Then summarize in the lead. Moreover, I oppose making general statements about Trump's campaign based on sources that pre-date 2016.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: The point about being in the lead is a good one. But didn't his campaign start in Summer 2015? I'd thing sources after that would be fine. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources dated 2015 are insufficient sources for making statements about what his campaign has been like in both 2015 and 2016.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I see your point now. If the sources were only or mostly 2015, I'd be opposed to that. But having a few 2015 sources with more/mostly 2016 ones is fine be me as it shows a pattern. Don't think we need to summarily exclude the 2015 sources if there are recent ones to support/corroborate them. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This RFC is asking about inserting material into the lead based upon two proposed sources that are both dated 2015.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see the ones added by MrX too. With those, I'm not worried about the content itself. The lead part might be an issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

People are !voting on the RFC statement by Dr. Fleischman, not other material mentioned by MrX.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

AYW tends to abandon common sense when interpreting procedural rules. As mentioned in various other comments, the problem he/she complains of is easily remedied by adding 2016 sources that have already been linked to and discussed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Common sense is in force in the leads of Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, et cetera where there are no footnotes in the lead. I don't favor modifying the lead of this article to include footnotes either. Moreover, if you want people to consider other sources than those in the RFC statement, then you can modify the RFC statement, but whatever new footnotes you propose should not go in the lead. Why mention two sources in the RFC statement while asking editors to hunt through the discussion for other sources that you think are also necessary? This discussion ought to be based on sources, not kneejerk opinions of editors, so please clarify the proposed sources in the RFC statement. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: The proposed sources are whatever sources the community finds that might support the proposed content, including but not limited to those discussed in this RfC. How they are included in the article depends on how the content in the body of the article develops while this RfC is ongoing. No offense, but you are smarter than this, so yes I am accusing you of game-playing (again). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not playing any games, I'm flatly opposing the notion of putting footnotes in the lead, because it's better to first put all the relevant footnotes in the body of the article. There's no gaming about it. Moreover, you've made it difficult for editors to respond to this RFC because you've given a couple sources in the RFC statement, you've later acknowledged they're insufficient, but you won't supplement the two in the RFC statement (you even have hidden such supplementation). Anyway, I hope to soon have time to substantively address the central RFC question. (And if I were you, I wouldn't start accusing other editors of gaming when you yourself just tried to get this RFC closed after a mere four days.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Compromise: I do not yet see a firm consensus to put the proposed language into the lead (as required by the notice atop this talk page), but still a lot of editors support it, and it's undeniable that the mainstream media has very widely written about this. So I suggest a compromise. I suggest editing the lead like this: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or hyperbolic, and some of the rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots from both sides of the political spectrum." This is based on the sources cited above as well as the following insightful article: Flitter, Emily and Oliphant, James. "Best president ever! How Trump's love of hyperbole could backfire", Reuters (August 28, 2015): "Trump's penchant for exaggeration could backfire - he risks promising voters more than he can deliver....Optimistic exaggeration...is a hallmark of the cutthroat New York real estate world where many developers, accustomed to ramming their way into deals, puff up their portfolios. 'A little hyperbole never hurts,' he wrote....For Trump, exaggerating has always been a frequent impulse, especially when the value of his Trump brand is disputed." This proposed compromise does not include putting any footnotes into the lead. I strongly oppose using the word "false" because it (like a sledge hammer) lacks all nuance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Reject so-called "compromise." You are suggesting ignoring various extremely reliable sources with a single source that acknowledges the term "hyperbole" comes from Trump's book The Art of the Deal, whose own ghostwriter now acknowledges was a euphemism for lying. As for the footnotes, you and I both know that they aren't necessary once content about Trump's false statements has been added to the article body. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, if the blunt and disparaging word "false" is put into the lead without elaboration, then it requires both in-text attribution as well as citations, regardless of what's in the article body, and no such proposals have been clearly stated in this RFC, much less received any consensus in this RFC.

• WP:LEADCITE: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus".
• WP:LEADCITE: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."
• WP:BLP: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."
• WP:Citing sources: "In-text attribution involves adding the source of a statement to the article text, such as Rawls argues that X.[5] This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact."
  

Footnotes plus in-text attribution in the lead for this item would thus be required, but the footnotes would cause lots of problems. Readers will start putting other footnotes into the lead, thinking they are necessary throughout, and the lead would indeed look weird with only one sentence footnoted. With footnotes throughout the lead, editors would then feel entitled to stick stuff into the lead regardless of what's in the article body, and so the lead and body would fall out of sync, while the lead becomes unstable. The whole thing is a mess, IMO. I've tried to compromise by putting his self-identified tendency to exaggerate into the lead, instead of a bald insinuation of being a serial liar; the latter stuff needs context and nuance which can only be done in the article body (as it is done for just about every other candidate who prevaricates).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The RfC proposer knows better. He wants Wikipedia to take sides and become an arbiter or truth. This flies in the face of core policy. The proposed statement could not be allowed to remain in the article regardless of the outcome of this RfC, if the article is to comply with Wikipedia standards. Eclipsoid (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Eclipsoid What policy does this fly in the face of and why? Also, what policy allows you to abandon the assumption of good faith after apparently reading DrFleischman's mind?- MrX 16:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support Via Mother Jones: "You can call Trump's statements lies or fabrications or even falsehoods if you insist on being delicate about it. But you can't call them questionable or controversial or salesmanlike or disputed or even faulty." ~ Fiachaire (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The complete paragraph from Mother Jones in Nov 24, 2015: It's way past time for this stuff. You can call Trump's statements lies or fabrications or even falsehoods if you insist on being delicate about it. But you can't call them questionable or controversial or salesmanlike or disputed or even faulty. The man is a serial, pathological liar. Isn't it about time for the journalistic community to work up the courage to report this with clear eyes? Buster Seven Talk 18:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Support The addition of the two words doesn't imply a majority of his statements are false or even more than one. Does anyone really doubt that he has made false statements? Like "Clinton and Obama were the founders of ISIS". And for those editors who excuse this kind of thing as something said in the "fog of battle (political)", he maintained the same wording for days even when pressed by conservative Hugh Hewitt to retract them Gaas99 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose-Numerous statements made by Hillary Clinton, particularly on matters of national security, have been proven false, and yet there is no mention of any of any false statements, or scandal of any sort, in the lead section of her biography, nor any active discussion on the talk page of adding such information. I would add it myself but I'm certain that it would soon get reverted. It is therefore inappropriate to include such language in the Trump article at least until the lead of the Clinton article begins to acknowledge some of the major scandals surrounding her that have taken place. Display name 99 (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  Hillary's false statements have absolutely no bearing on what we do in this article. Your reason for opposing doesn't seem to be grounded in any Wikipedia policy or guideline.- MrX 01:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Sorry, MrX is correct about the statements having no bearing. (Unless reputable mainstream sources say they do. For an example, see US election: Why is Clinton's foundation so controversial?, at BBC News.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment what does "many" mean? The majority? A few? Most? I understand it's reliably sourced but I don't know if it makes sense for Wikipedia to use ambiguous language. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Mr Ernie: In ascending order of magnitude:

none ➜ one/a/an ➜ a couple ➜ a few ➜ some ➜ many ➜ most/a majority ➜ all

- MrX 18:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ernie "many" is how the reliable sources describe Trump's falsehoods, so there is no reason why we shouldn't either. "Many" and similar terms are used all over Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose That sort of wording would violate npov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support Trump has made an overwhelming number of completely false statements that have a large impact on perceptions of him and the race, and this has been to a much greater extent than Clinton or any other politician. This is abnormal behavior that has been covered extensively in the media well beyond just the fact-checkers that have given him many more pants on fire ratings than anyone else. Reywas92^Talk 06:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support: Trump's false statements are frequently mentioned in reliable sorces, enough that it is approprate for the inclusion in this article. --Proud User (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, "it's politics"; yes, all politicians lie. And if there's a huge number of sources which place their use of false statements as a major talking point of their campaign (not coverage of specific lies, but the use of false statements as a general) such that it constituted WP:WEIGHT to include it in a summary about the campaign, then I would support adding such a statement there, too. The sources look to support it here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - False is objective, there are no reliable sources that can prove he has said false statements. His statements can be perceived and interpreted as reflecting false information, but nothing he says in exact words can be proved to false. Chase (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Chase:

  nothing he says in exact words can be proved to false.

  Please tell me you're kidding. Assuming you're not, let's look at a few examples:

  • Trump said "I don't know anything about David Duke" (and various variations thereof) four times on February 28 on CNN. This is despite the fact that the man with the "world's greatest memory" (his words) referenced Duke in a press conference a couple days earlier. He also mentioned Duke in an interview with Bloomberg the year previous and thrice during his 2000 presidential campaign, describing him as a "racist". Was his statement true or false?
  • In a speech in June, Trump said, "For the amount of money Hillary Clinton would like to spend on refugees, we could rebuild every inner city in America." Politifact wrote, "There is no comprehensive tally of what it would take to deal with substandard housing and infrastructure, but we quickly found a backlog of about $225 billion in projects [emphasis added]." Was his statement true or false?
  • In a CNN interview in May, Trump "Frankly, [Hillary Clinton] doesn't do very well with women." Clinton has consistently being polling at historically high levels with women during the campaign. Was his statement true or false?
  • Just a few days ago, Trump gave a speech in which he said (not for the first time) that the number of illegal immigrants in the US "could be 3 million. It could be 30 million." There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the US (plus or minus 1 million). I have seen no one make the argument that 20 million illegal immigrants have somehow escaped detection. Was his statement true or false?

  Just to clarify, those questions are not rhetorical. Graham (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Graham, a lot of this is indeed rhetorical. Fact-checking organizations ought to fact-check statements that have a clear meaning, but instead they often focus on snippets that have an ambiguous meaning, or they take statements literally that are obviously not meant to be taken literally. I'll just address your first example. In context, Trump said this about David Duke: "[D]id he endorse me, or what's going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists."[38] So, in context, he was saying that he didn't know anything about David Duke endorsing him. You seriously think Trump expected anyone to believe that he did not know what a white supremacist is? Sheesh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"nothing he says in exact words can be proved to false". Sorry, CCamp. Sorry, Anythingyouwant. Even if you think Graham's examples are possibly open to interpretation, there are many, many things he says that are simply, objectively false: 1) at least 17 times (and counting) he has insisted he never said something that he documentedly did say.[39] 2) "South Korea doesn't pay the U.S. anything for out troops there." WRONG. 3) "The U.S. is the only country in the world that has birthright citizenship." WRONG. 4) "Illegal immigration is at an all time high." (It's actually the lowest since 2003, and the lowest from Mexico since the 1940s.)[40] There are dozens and dozens of these things that are simply, factually wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he's said a lot of inaccurate stuff. But a huge portion of it has been exaggeration, which he's flatly said he engages in. For example, per our Wikipedia article about jus soli, "A study in 2010 found that only 30 of the world's 194 countries grant citizenship at birth to the children of undocumented foreign residents, although definitive information was not available from 19 countries."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my point. Saying "the U.S. is the only one" when there are actually 29 others is not an "exaggeration"; it is simply false. It would be as if I said "I am the only person contributing to this discussion." That would not be an exaggeration; it would be a lie. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, was it a lie when you quoted Trump as saying "The U.S. is the only country in the world that has birthright citizenship"? I can't seem to find that quote on google.[41] If you consider the percentage of humans who live in countries that have birthright citizenship, omitting the United States, the percentage is miniscule. AFAIK, the actual honest quote from Trump is this: "almost every other country anywhere in the world doesn't have that". Which is true, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Full quote: "Mexico and almost every other country anywhere in the world doesn't have that. We're the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it.” (Emphasis added.) —CBS News reporting Trump at a Republican candidates debate; dateline 9/17/15. Writegeist (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that is an actual, honest quote, and it includes the word "almost". So I wouldn't even say it's an exaggeration, much less a lie. Thank you for digging that up, User:Writegeist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

And guess what - Mexico IS one of the countries that has birthright citizenship. So yes, his statement (even with the later added qualifier "almost") is false. [42] --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I have replied at your user talk page.[43]Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

CCamp2013, please review our verifiability policy. Various sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking have said that many of Trump's statements have been false. That's all that's required. We can discuss the precise nature of Trump's falsehoods/exaggerations/whatevers ad nauseum but doesn't affect whether "false" is verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support - not much to add to some of the above comments, just to note that there's plenty of sources to support the text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose POV, subjective, and biased. Will the same addition be made to the Hillary Clinton article? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, Clinton has been proven to say false statements also. Like for instance, she said her email had no classified information had the time, but the FBI found that it did. Should we state that she lied about this? Chase (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

So make that proposal at the Hillary Clinton article. It has no bearing whatsoever on this article. WP:V and WP:NPOV require us to plainly reflect what is in the sources, without filtering through our own biases and perceptions. If something is factually stated in multiple sources, we are obligated to treat it as a fact, rather than ignore WP:NPOV and substitute our own views. Claiming that something is biased is meaningless since there is not universally agreed upon standard of what unbiased would look like. Claiming that it's subjective is unfounded, unless of course you really believe that President Obama founded ISIS under the pseudonym Abu Musab al-Zarqawi while pretending to be state senator. - MrX 14:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Don't all politicians lie and create false statements?, Anyway we can't have leads like this for one article and not the rest and I'm not entirely happy with the false bit at the end anyway, As noted above IMHO the wording does seem biased (and no I'm not a Trump supporter before anyone uses that! - I just believe everything should be neutral as possible). –Davey2010^Talk 01:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support - As I've seen with other pages, such as scandals and controversial events, we've added information that was accurate and relieved to the story. To leave out "false" in the article asserts a notion that Trump is running on a campaign of honesty, and without bias, independent fact checkers, repeatedly claims times after times—as a repeat habitual offender, claiming his statements are false. I think it's justifiable and appropriate to add in "false."Nick2crosby (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support given the coverage in reliable sources. The "all politicians lie" argument given by some of those opposing doesn't carry much weight, because Trump's lies are perhaps the most egregious of any candidate I can recall. Calidum ¤ 03:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support If we are to avoid POV, adding the many is the best way, even if it is a bit of a weasel word. Iazyges (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per voluminous reliable sources, but with the caveat that the same characterizations be encyclopedically covered in the body of the article. Consideration might also be given to adding "exaggerated" to the sentence, next to the abundantly sourced "controversial" and "false" descriptors. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support for 2nd option It is logically impossible to show that all his statements have some specific attribute, e.g. are controversial. Therefore the word "many" is mandatory. As to "falsehoods," describing one specific politician as a liar should normally invite strong objections on the grounds of the stereotype that "all politicians lie." However, the case of presidential candidate Donald Trump is actually exceptional in that a significant portion of his public statements have been shown (per sources) to be factually incorrect, often preposterous. Therefore, the sentence should read, "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or shown to be false," etc. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support for the "many of" language/weak oppose to the "or false" wording. Look, whatever one's disposition to the man or devotion to WP:NPOV, there is no getting around the fact that WP:reliable sources beyond counting have labelled this man controversial and pointed to his willingness to make salacious accusations, many of which do unravel in the light of even basic fact-checking; I don't view it as particularly partisan or political that a lot of editors find it appropriate to represent those sources. And yet, when we are talking about a subject like this--who gains a great deal of constant media exposure because, A) the general scale of attention one gets when running for the office he seeks, 2) he is an idealogue/lightning rod, and 3) he openly courts this kind of attention--it becomes a difficult balancing act in judging the WP:WEIGHT of what reliable sources are saying.

I think most educated people agree that this man likes to tell some whoppers (and also, as has been noted above, that on other occasions he is bluntly honest, though frankly that is incidental to how we characterize the mistruths). But I think the "or false" addition, as proposed, is just too broad and prejudicial for the lead, where providing the level of additional information necessary to contextualize this statement is infeasible. As a global citizen, I would like to see many of the falsehoods and misrepresentations the man promotes challenged, but as a Wikipedian, having that phrase end that statement just feels like it lacks nuance, neutrality, and encyclopedic tone--even if I do think it is a factual and accurate description of the man that I would not challenge another person for endorsing, outside an editorial context. However, there is no doubt that the weight of sources can support the statement that many of his statements have been controversial. Indeed, it seems as if very few of his public statements have not raised immense controversy. I would even support language to the effect that his campaign has been characterized by controversy. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. There is sufficient reliable sourcing to place this in the realm of simply calling a spade a spade, and it is verifiably different than pretty much any other major party nominee in recent history. Wikipedia should not refrain from plain statements of sourced fact because of false claims of neutrality. But I agree that it should be attributed in some way, and I also strongly agree that it needs to be developed further in the main text outside of the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Do we outright make unqualified assertions such as "[X] has made many statements that are false" in the ledes of BLPs for other controversial figures just because a large number of reliable (yet in many cases biased) sources might have declared so? I'd hope not. What we instead might state in this case — is that many of Trump's statements have been "characterized as false by a number of sources", which is exactly the truth and is what I expect would be done in other circumstances. We should not as an encyclopedia collectively state outright that these statements are objectively "false" any more than we should do so in the cases of other controversial figures, especially in the lede, and especially in this case where we're dealing with a present-day, highly divisive, polarizing figure, as well as sources that are potentially politically biased. I think some of you might have trouble seeing this from an objective standpoint because of strong political biases. Imagine outright stating, with no clarification or qualification, in a matter-of-fact sense that "Many of Richard Dawkins' statements are controversial or false" in his lede just because a significant number of reliable sources (most of which would happen to be religiously-biased) might claim so. It would be ridiculous, and this is the same thing. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 19:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a very valuable distinction that I think is vital to the issue being examined here; any statement judging Trump to have a proclivity to make "false" statements must be properly attributed. And I just can't see how we can feasibly parse who is undertaking these evaluations, nor summarize the context in which they are making them, in the limited space available in the lead. Sometimes the weight of sources, no matter how great, is just not enough to justify placing something in the lead, if doing so would create a situation where (because the necessity for brevity above the fold) that information would have to be presented in an inelegant or potentially misleading manner. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Snow, what would be inelegant or misleading about simply saying "or false" without in-text attribution? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The complete lack of necessary context to keep such a statement neutral in any real sense. We're talking about highly politicized topics here; treating each possible case that might be used under the "well, it's sourced..." argument as if they were all instances where truth and falsehood was a clear binary, or areas where reasonable people couldn't disagree does not accurately reflect the complexity of these stories. I agree that aggregating them together to make such a broad and non-contextualized statement as proposed is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS; even to the extent that we have sources suggesting his untrustworthiness in broad terms, there remain significant issues with WP:WEIGHT (and WP:NEUTRALITY broadly in using them as the basis for such a broad and critical language in such a factual way, despite the variety of opinions that exist amongst reliable sources (which, realistically, all the editors who have ever edited this page (or ever will!) can only check a fraction of, leaving our source selection vulnerable to confirmation bias. We simply cannot treat what amounts to a judgement of character as if it were some sort of long-established empirical fact; I join others here who have pointed out that, at the very least, NPOV requires that we say something to the effect that "many of his critiques have claimed that...", and even that has it's issues.

Look, I'm going to be real for a moment here: most Wikipedians are fairly educated individuals, and polling has shown a pretty stark rejection of Trump by those with a high degree of education. Ergo, I take it for a given that a statistically significant number of editors here have a dim view of the man and his positions. Indeed, I'll go further and bring it to point in question here: I think most of us probably view this man as a manipulative and polemic ideologue, willing to say anything to stir people up or otherwise serve his political agenda and, above all, an obsessive need for self-aggrandizement. Additionally, most of us probably have the impression that the man is so simple-minded that he fails to understand when and where he lacks even a basic understanding of topics upon which he often makes divisive, emotional statements. I'm sure there are Trump supporters amongst us, but I'd be surprised if that didn't basically summarize what most of us think of the man. So of course, when there is a wealth of sourcing out there of people saying basically the same thing, or debunking specific statements made by Trump, there is an urge to embrace what we view to be the obvious truth and say "Hey, look, we're just relaying the facts, and we have the sourcing to support it." Or, to put it as people often do in these situations, to say we are just calling a spade for a spade.

But Wikipedia's voice is not for stating our own perspectives, no matter how confident we are in them, and I'd argue that the stronger our certainty on a particular topic, the greater our editorial duty to make sure that certitude does not bleed into the language of our encyclopedic prose. We can (and should) raise those instances where the factual veracity of Trump's statements have been challenged, where those challenges have been discussed in reliable sources. We can even discuss those who have criticized Trump's relationship with the truth in broader terms--and again, should, where acceptable sourcing exists. What we cannot do is lend our voice to discuss these stances as unqualifiable and empirical fact. Any statements regarding challenges to Trump's assertions must be clearly attributed and contextualized. And because, in this instance, we can not efficiently do that in the lead, a broad claim that he has a proclivity towards telling falsehoods simply should not be placed there, in my opinion. Those who would like Trump's statements to be treated with the utmost scrutiny (and believe me, I'm amongst them) will just have to be content with the language that his statements are often "controversial" and hope that this is an instance where readers will diligently research the facts (either here or elsewhere) to gain a complete understanding of the arguments.

And honestly, given the political nature of this topic, and the entrenched opinions people have on the man (one way or the other), I don't think you're going to serve the average reader of this article by calling this man a liar in essentially outright terms. You're either preaching to the choir when you do that or convincing someone to take an adversarial view of the article. I say lay out the specific facts in the main body of the article and let people utilize their own critical thinking skills to come to their own conclusions. We're much more likely to educate our readers, in the aggregate, with that approach than adopting polemic language, no matter how convinced we are that it reflects reality.

TLDR: Encyclopedic tone. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Your arguments are well taken but they seem to run in direct conflict with WP:PUBLICFIGURE. There is nothing polemic or un-encyclopedic about the word "false" when it's simply relaying various highly reliable sources. We aren't calling him a liar or untrustworthy or anything like that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support with attribution per WP:NPOV. EllenCT (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support, in order to sound neutral. Pwolit iets (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't throw out BLP just because the person is generally reviled. By all means expand on the idea in the main body using attribution and the reliable sources, but it doesn't fit in the lead under this formation. It is to vague to have any real encyclopedic benefit (how many are many, who are the many, how have they been shown to be false etc). I also dislike the use of controversial in any BLPs, much better to say what they did and the reactions than to tell us it was controversial. Hell isn't everything a politician does controversial to one person or the other. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. First: It fails for attribution and "false" is often an opinion as is "controversial." Hyperbole and false may be close cousins but not the same. Some may consider a statement that blames the rise of ISIS on Obama/Clinton as false, some may call it hyperbole but not false. Who says they are false and who says they are controversial is required. Second: It fails for synthesis (WP:SYNTH) by lumping controversial and false into a single statement even though sources do not. Being controversial and being false are not similar things and it is synthesizing negative connotations of both into one statement. As an example, Colin Kaepernik's actions regarding the national anthem may be controversial. He also may have made statements regarding police violence that are false. We cannot lump them together together into "Many .. have said his actions and statements are controversial and false." It's classic synthesis and not allowed. Third: This is his biographical article. Broad statements in the lead about his campaign that cannot be fleshed out properly should be put in the campaign article. In short, it's unattributed and synthesized statement about a living person in their biography. Policy keeps it out. --DHeyward (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Re your second point, this RfC is for "controversial or false," not "controversial and false." (The first and third issues have probably been bludgeoned to death.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support with attribution and citations within the text. But that said, I'm aware of efforts to excuse and/or excise Trump's factual failings when there is an attempt to include them within the text, often on the grounds that this is his biography, not his campaign article. Yet his mendacity does seem to be on another level, going well beyond the bounds of that "all politicians lie" chestnut, which to my mind is an inadequate rebuttal. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Responding to a note from a few days ago on my talk page. It's not clear to me if this is moot at the moment as it seems to have been closed. I oppose this kind of language, but would prefer a sentence saying that "the truthfulness of many of his comments has been widely disputed since the commencement of his campaign," or something to that effect. I don't believe Wikipedia should make such statements in its own voice in situations such as this, even though I personally believe that indeed he has lied extravagantly and often. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support The language used by a preponderance of reliable sources about the remarkable number of outright falsehoods is striking, and bears note. The language proposed here reflects, partisan politics aside, the uniqueness of the situation here. Parabolist (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Objection to closing this RFC after only four days

I have objected to a proposal to close this RFC after a mere four days.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Four days may be too soon, but 30 days would be way too long to wait given that there are 458 editors watching this article and the RfC has been pretty widely publicized.- MrX 23:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It depends when the discussion peters out, I suppose. BLPN has 2,691 page watchers so publicizing this RFC might well get a lot more participation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Already done. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@MrX and DrFleischman: The currently expected closure date is September 24. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

From WP:RFCEND: "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." - MrX 11:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The related RSN is now publicized at PolitiFact.com Talk. Here's an old version of the article; it's somewhat more concise than the current version. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The version you linked contains severe WP:NPOV issues, which appear to have been corrected in this more current version: PolitiFact.com. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Notes to closer

It seems to me that an ordinary consensus (based in policy and guidelines) would be needed to insert the word "false" into the lead as proposed. However, if it is then reverted, anyone putting it back would need "firm" consensus per discretionary sanctions ("All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)"). So, when closing, please include a statement about whether there is "firm" consensus. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:GAME.- MrX 19:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow policy, not thwart it. The word "firm" is worth recognizing, that's all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If possible, I would appreciate if the closer would say whether the following paragraph (which I put into the lead today but which may or may not remain) would be consistent with the outcome of this RFC:

“ Trump's 2016 presidential campaign has received extensive media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial. Several of those rallies have been disrupted by protests or riots. Fact-checking organizations like Politifact as well as other news sources like Politico have deemed many of Trump's statements to be exaggerations, mischaracterizations, or simply false, whereas Trump himself says that the media often attributes to him meanings that he never intended. In August 2016, The New York Times reported that non-opinion journalists would understandably move towards oppositional coverage against a purportedly abnormal presidential campaign like his. ”

Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

How could it be? It's completely different wording with completely different meaning than the wording proposed in this RfC. It would completely dilute the simple, factual statement proposed by DrFleischman with euphemisms and Trumpisms. It's remarkably similar to the RfC you proposed below. Asking the closer to consider it is very improper.- MrX 14:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The proposal by AYW is totally inappropriate. It sidesteps the RfC and puts reliable sources on a par with Trump's own, unreliable backpedaling statements in contravention of our neutrality guideline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether it's appropriate or not (I think it is), I would still like to know whether this RFC rules it out. If this RFC rules it out, then there's no reason for me to propose it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note that an uninvolved administrator has offered to close this RFC at an appropriate time in September.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to look at this situation

This discussion was closed by User:Tazerdadog on September 2 at 08:59.[44] A few hours later, User:DHeyward decided the close was "improper" so she reverted it, simultaneously expressing an opinion/!vote contrary to the closer's result.[45] Neither Tazerdadog nor DHeyward are admins. Tazerdadog is previously uninvolved at this article; DHeyward has rarely posted here (last edit prior to today was July 3). What is the procedure here? Can we please get an uninvolved admin to come and look at this situation? I am involved at this article and cannot make the call. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: while I was posting the above, the close was reinstated by a third editor. Also, it looks as if Closure Review has already been requested; Here is the link which was accidentally deleted when the close was reinstated. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A clarification, what you are calling an "unclose" was a revert without consensus in apparent violation of relevant policies and guidelines (WP:CLOSE#Challenging other closures and WP:TALKDONTREVERT). I urge other editors not to follow DHeyward's lead. At this point the appropriate place to discuss this matter is at WP:AN#Closure review requested: Trump. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The correct process is to first appeal to the closer then start a close review at WP:AN.- MrX 16:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Bad close - This is clearly a bad closure, for reasons which include: 1. It is ridiculously early; there is not sufficient concensus to support a WP:SNOW closure, which would, in any case, need to be in favour of not including the text (we don't WP:SYESW); 2. The closing statement explicitly states that it was based on the number of !votes, despite WP:NOTVOTE; 3. The closing statement states that oppose votes were discounted, but does not explain why; 4. The closing statement fails to discount WP:TRUTH based support votes; 5. The closure seeks to establish a local consensus in contravention of WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV and WP:BLP, neither of which are subvertable in this way. The reversion by DHeyward is the clearest case of an appropriate use of WP:IAR that I have seen. NOTE: I am not a US citizen or resident; nor am I particularly interested or affected by the US Presidential election. I consider myself as uninvolved in this matter as it is possible to be. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Ryk72, the most appropriate venue for objecting would apparently be at the request for Closure Review.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This RFC was not listed under BLP bio, but only under BLP pol. It ought to be listed under both, though I'm not sure how to do it. I've asked an uninvolved admin about it.[46]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears from this discussion that the automatic feedback request service is temporarily busted. However, there is a manual alternative, which I will implement later today, so that we can get biography-related feedback to this RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Closure review

I have requested closure review here.User:MrX, please do not delete this notification again.[47]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's an archived copy of the closure review that resulted in reopening today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Working draft of a section about Trump's false statements

Here is a start of working draft to address concerns that we should cover Trump's false statements in the body of the article. I propose that this would be inserted in the Presidential campaign, 2016 section before Primaries. There seem to be plenty of material to work with, so this could easily be expanded.

Material that would be moved from other sections is shown in orange. - MrX 16:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

False statements

Trump's campaign received significant media coverage beginning with his announcement that he was running for President. Many of the statements Trump has made during his presidential campaign have been controversial, and many are false. Fact checking organizations such as PolitiFact and FactCheck.org have noted that, based on the statements they have analyzed, Trump has made more false statements than his opponents. Trump's made various false claims over several months that President Obama and Secretary Clinton fostered, and even founded ISIS. After insisting that he meant that Obama literally founded ISIS, Trump eventually capitulated and said he was being sarcastic. Similarly, Trump has made false statements associating Mexican immigrants with criminal activity, claiming that the U.S. is the "highest taxed nation in the world",, and falsely stating that the U.S. unemployment rate "anywhere from 18 to 20 percent", and two months later saying "Our real unemployment rate is 42 percent".

According to The Washington Post, 65 percent of Trump's statements fact checked as of August 18, 2015 received the newspaper's worst rating for falsity, far exceeding that of most politicians. Trump has been promoted as being a "straight-talker", and more authentic than typical politicians. Florida A&M University Professor Michael LaBossiere commented that Trump "perfected the outrageous untruth as a campaign tool," adding, "He makes a clearly false or even absurdly false claim, which draws the attention of the media. He then rides that wave until it comes time to call up another one." According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire. In its 2016 mid -year report, PolitiFact found 60 percent of Trump's claims to be false.

References
References

MrX, thanks for your work on this, but I think this is WP:UNDUE. We had to have a long discussion to even get the current two sentences into the article; I don't think there would ever be consensus for a whole section like this. I for one wouldn't support it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think two sentences are not enough to capture the over-riding negative effect that Trump's “truthful hyperbole,” or “innocent exaggeration” have on the whole elective process--primary campaign promises, voting populace, trustworthy-ness. As with so many other issues we as editors face this is one that will certainly grow and expand. Trying to squeeze the impact of falseness into two "easy to swallow" pills is not what the Doctor ordered. Granted, Trump's relationship with the truth is hard to capture in a way that can be understood by our future reader doing a high school term paper in 2025. But let's not mislead her into thinking that it was a momentary lapse. Buster Seven Talk 16:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

OK MelanieN, your opinion is noted. Obviously, I contend that a mere two sentences are WP:UNDUE given the extensive and enduring coverage this has received.- MrX 16:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Trump's numerous falsehoods and his refusal to accept correction have been a major focus of media coverage of his campaign. I don't think that a section like this is undue, although two long paragraphs about it might be overkill. Specifically, I think the examples given don't need to be included, or if they are, they should be trimmed to one (probably long, but still) sentence. Also, I think there needs to be a citation to the statement that he's promoted as being a straight talker. I know it's true, but it should be sourced.

Here's an example (borrowing the formatting from above), absent citations of what I think would be appropriate.

False statements

Much of the media attention on Trump's campaign has been focused on allegations that many statements made by Trump during the campaign are misleading or untrue. Various claims include that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are the founders of ISIS, that the majority of Mexican immigrants are violent criminals, that the US is the highest taxed nation on the world and that the unemployment rate is as high as 42%.

Trump has been promoted as being a "straight-talker", and more authentic than typical politicians. However, according to The Washington Post, 65 percent of Trump's statements fact checked as of August 18, 2015 received the newspaper's worst rating for falsity, far exceeding that of most politicians. According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I could live with that abridged version.- MrX 17:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I just modified the opening sentence of my proposal. It should (slightly) tighten it up a bit, and cut down the focus to the specific subject of the section title. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That's good also. I think the word "such" should be inserted between 'various' and 'claims', for clarity.- MrX 17:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I Like it! I would suggest changing "during the campaign' to "throughout the campaign" to clarify that it wasn't a few isolated incidents. It implies to the reader that further investigation on their part might be required. Buster Seven Talk 17:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I like it except for the 'straight talker' bit. That seems more to do with the claim of his going against political correctness. Also, it seems like a bit of synth. But the rest seems fine. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

'straight talker' = "He tells it like it is." which is not true. In fact you may have touched on the longest untruth of the last year and a half...that he tells it like it is...which anyone that is listening knows to be "not true". Buster Seven Talk 18:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

"He tells it like it is". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not suggesting that he is a straight talker, but he is often claimed to be such by his supporters. It's not contentious that his supporters claim this, and it's very germane to the subject of this proposed section. It should be trivial to find a source. Also, feel free to edit away at my proposal above to change anything you guys want to. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This is correct. Trump's supporters think he's a "straight talker". He's not, but they think he is. Sources for his supporters thinking he's a "straight talker" abound. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I just did a quick search, and so far I've found plenty of sources refuting the claim that he's a straight talker, but few making it. So there might be a kernel of truth to the statement that it's synth to say so. That being said, Many of the sources refuting it, themselves state that Trump is seen by his supporters as being a straight talker, so we could use one of those. ([48] [49] [50] [51]) I've copied a few links here, but I haven't vetted them as reliable sources yet. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

"Straight-talker" came from this source which apparently I neglected to cite. The source says "It’s the trope on Trump: He’s authentic, a straight-talker, less scripted than traditional politicians. That’s because Donald Trump doesn’t let facts slow him down. Bending the truth or being unhampered by accuracy is a strategy he has followed for years." No WP:SYNTH required.- MrX 18:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That clears that up. I like it then, thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that the proposed content assigns far too much WEIGHT to this subject for Trump's bio. Also, I don't believe the current text regarding Mexican immigrants is supported by sources. Finally as I stated in Talk above, while the fact-checking organizations may be reliable for the specific statements that they analyze, we need to be careful about comparing percentages of False statements between candidates. As far as I'm aware, the fact checking organizations don't use a systematic approach in selecting which and how many of a politician's statements to analyze. Unless there's some indication that the statements are chosen for analysis in a systematic, unbiased manner, percentages can't be considered objective.CFredkin (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

In response, we can remove mention of Mexican immigrants and replace it with something from his acceptance speech. Say, "I will present the facts plainly and honestly". Using sarcasm, hyperbole and humor are not usually the vehicles for "plain and honest" speech. They cause confusion and misunderstanding and, as my wife often tells me, are dishonest ways to communicate. My guess is that the fact checking organizations focus on Trump because they have found him to be a good source for un-truth. Other than the fact checkers, who or what is available, as a reliable source, to verify what we all know? Buster Seven Talk 20:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I was writing off the top of my head, filling in the blanks between sentences copied from the one above. I may well have mischaracterized his comments about Mexican illegal immigrants. Feel free to correct it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin is correct that the Mexican immigrant material is not supported by the source in the revision by MjolnirPants ("the majority of Mexican immigrants are violent criminals"), however, it is verifiable in the original version that I wrote ("associating Mexican immigrants with criminal activity").

I have a question for CFredkin and MelanieN, both of whom raised WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns: Are you concerns about the amount of text relative the rest of the bio (282:13,688 (2%) in my version, 138:13,688 (1%) in MjolnirPants' version); too few sources (16 cited); or is there another aspect of the policy that you believe the material would violate?- MrX 20:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Basically the amount of text. I thought the two-paragraph version was too much; I also didn't like it being a whole section. I think the current two-sentence paragraph is fine. And actually I could accept the shorter version offered now. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The amount of text is the basis for my WEIGHT-related concern as well.CFredkin (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Consider this proposed language: "65 percent of Trump's statements fact checked as of August 18, 2015 received the newspaper's worst rating for falsity...." Suppose candidate X makes one false statement during a campaign, and it is the only statement of candidate X that is fact checked by a fact-checker. In contrast, candidate Y makes a hundred false statements during the campaign, and the fact-checker fact-checks 200 statements by candidate Y. So, the fact-checker says that 100% of fact-checked statements by candidate X are false, compared to only 50% for candidate Y. How are such statistics useful for Wikipedia?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable point which could be addressed by including the number of statements checked and the number that were determined to be false. Of course that increases the overall length of the text.- MrX 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to speculate, or make up unlikely theoretical situations. For the Washington Post, here are the numbers, which I already cited above: For Trump: 52 claims were rated. 63% were Four Pinocchios (meaning total lies), 21% 3, 10% 2, 2% 1, 4 % truthful. For Clinton: 36 claims were rated. 14% were Four Pinocchios, 36% 3, 30.5% 2, 5.5% 1, 14% truthful.[52] For the 2015 Lie of the Year award, PolitiFact evaluated 77 of Trump's statements, of which 76% were lies. I don't think these need to be cited in the text; they are just to answer Anythingyouwant's question. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but those numbers do not do justice to the issue at hand. Per WaPo, "The Fact Checker responds to reader requests, and many of Trump’s statements were provocative and controversial." If WaPo did not fact check various Clinton statements because their readers were more interested in Trump statements, or the reader requests about Clinton were about statements that readers were inclined to believe but wanted WaPo to verify, then the resulting percentages would be greatly altered from what they would otherwise be. Moreover, were these WaPo percentages widely reported by other news outlets? If not, then please see Lies, damned lies, and statistics.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. That's one of the points I was trying to make above.CFredkin (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that the WaPo is not read by non-Trump supporters? Sounds like WP:OR without the research. Objective3000 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The WaPo fact-checking was based on reader requests, and that is not how reporting is usually done, nor how public opinion polling is usually done, and there is no indication how the statistics would differ if usual reporting or usual polling techniques were used instead of waiting for readers to make inquiries.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what does this have to do with opinion polling? Objective3000 (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There was no polling to find out what statements the public wanted fact-checked. Instead, WaPo readers made inquiries and the fact-checking was in response to those inquiries.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant Please decide what your argument is. First, you were concerned about presenting raw percentages. I suggested that we also include the number of facts checked and the number determined to be false. Now your argument is "those numbers do not do justice to the issue at hand." The issue at hand is an independent source checked statements from both candidate and found that most of Trump's were false. That's a simple fact. There is no reason, based on their reputation, to assume that they cooked the figures. As far as The Washington Post is concerned, I think it's great that an independent news organization checks facts on behalf of their readers. Isn't that how free press in a free democracy is supposed to work?- MrX 16:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to make very clear both here and at WP:RS/N that I believe these sources are reliable regarding the truth or falsity of many campaign statements. Not all, but many. They would not be reliable for deciding, for example, whether it's true that Republican presidents are better than Democratic ones, but they don't usually fact check such things, so I'm happy to say that they're almost always reliable for checking truthfulness of a specific statement by a candidate. And they perform a valuable service in that regard. But what they are not reliable about is assigning a percentage of truthfulness to each candidate based on percentages of fact-checked statements that have checked out as truthful. All these fact checkers would have to do to lower such a percentage for a candidate would be to decline to fact-check statements that seem plausible. Even if the fact checkers use the exact same standards for picking statements to fact-check from all candidates, they are still open to manipulation if statements are selected based upon inquiries from unknown and unreliable members of the public.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I should add that Trump is often not a model of clarity, and fact-checkers often give their opinion about his meaning, and then fact-check that presumed meaning. When Trump's meaning is not clear, I would not trust the fact-checkers because what they are fact-checking is their own opinion about his meaning. See Graves, Lucas. "'Deciding What’s True’ with Lucas Graves", WORT (August 10, 2016). This is an audio interview of Graves, author of Deciding What's True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism (Columbia University Press 2016). Note particularly the portion of audio beginning at 50:30.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I could accept this abridged version. One quibble: I don't like using the "founders of ISIS" example - because he semi-sorta retracted it, and because most people knew he didn't mean it literally - unless Reliable Sources consider it one of the most notable. There are many others to choose from, such as the "I saw New Jersey Muslims cheering 9/11" story which he repeated many times and never retracted. Or "I opposed going into Iraq" or "I am self funding my campaign, I don't take donations". I would also like to add to the final sentence as follows: "According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, so that PolitiFact gave its 2015 Lie of the Year award to "The campaign misstatements of Donald Trump".[53] --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think politifact's main page on Trump is a better source if we have to cite a fact checker. It's got a larger number of statements checked than the WaPo source, and the proportional difference between Trump's total fact checked claims and Clinton's total fact checked claims (231 for Trump and 243 for Clinton) is smaller. Large sample sizes make for more accurate results, and smaller differences in sample sizes make the comparison better. Also, for anyone disputing that Trump is less honest, 70% of his checked statements were rated false in some way, compared to 27% for Clinton. 22% of Clinton's claims were rated entirely true, compared to 4% of Trumps. 18% of Trump's claims were rated "Pants on Fire" (which they define as "The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim."), compared to 2% of Clinton's.

Regarding the "founders of ISIS" claim, I believe he later doubled-down on it and said he meant it literally, but I'm fine with replacing it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Melanie: Do you have a link to where he retracted it? Because from what I recall, I remember him doubling down too, on some right-wing talk show I think. Graham (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC) cc: MjolnirPants

… Or I could just learn to use Google instead of asking others. Sure enough, he did double down as I remembered (after being essentially offered a way out by the talk show host), but he later claimed he was being "sarcastic" as Melanie said. (Yet another lie – it's almost as though he wants us to be confused…) Graham (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with the word "falsity". It's weak. It makes something serious sound minor. It's lawyer-ly. I'd rather insert "falsification". It speaks more to the act of making false statements. Ii can support if changed. Buster Seven Talk 06:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Buster7, there may be a better word than falsity, but it's not falsification, which speaks to intent (i.e. lying). Most sources do not directly say that Trump has lied. - MrX 01:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Mother Jones in Nov 24, 2015 said: "The man is a serial, pathological liar." That was 9 months and many lies ago and we still skirt around this deceitfulness issue. I'm not one to force things into the article, but using the diminutive "falsity" is an attempt to cover-up and hide what is going on. Buster Seven Talk 13:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did some googling. I guess it is a more common word than I thought;

• Clinton's physician, whose name appears on the fake documents, confirmed their falsity.
• It is our opinion that Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss is a cowardly act of a man who, in repeating his libels against Ms. Jacobus after he received a cease and desist clearly explaining the falsity of his statements, dared her to sue him. Now, as Ms. Jacobus has bravely confronted Donald Trump and his smears, he hides behind technical arguments and claims that anything he says must be deemed merely his “opinion.”
• ...or more precisely, it encompasses the idea that judges are not in a position to pass on the truth or falsity of claims or statements made in the political context.

Nevermind! Buster Seven Talk 17:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Efforts to repair RfC material

@MrX, MjolnirPants, Buster7, and MelanieN: Thank you for trying to address other editors' concerns by repairing the proposed material. But there is no consensus that PolitiFact is a reputable source for ideologically contentious material about Trump's false statements. And you must respect that lack of consensus.

NOCON policy
Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take an action. For ideologically contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus results in its removal.

TALKDONTREVERT policy
Consensus can't be assumed simply because editors stop responding to discussions in which they have already participated. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify what you consider the consensus to be. The RfC made no mention of using PolitiFact as the only reputable source. The RfC was about Trumps statements being false. Period. The RfC wandered around the subject as RfC's are want to do. And, the supports and opposes can get confusing with all the suggested changes and the like. Where do you evaluate the consensus to be? Anyway, I find the list you pinged interesting. Buster Seven Talk 06:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: DrFleischman followed the instructions at the RfC project page. As any interested editor can see, he demonstrated good faith by making an effort to thoroughly discuss the matter in question:

"You're citing unreliable opinion sources about other sources by PolitiFact to say that PolitiFact isn't reliable in general, and saying that the cited PolitiFact and FactCheck.org sources are opinion sources... We're not getting anywhere here. I'm going to start an RFC."

He was clearly replying to this comment in particular:

Time and the Wall Street Journal have characterized PolitiFact as "spreading false impressions" and as "fundamentally dishonest" for calling their opinion pieces 'fact checks'.

And to this comment in general:

Don't use either source to support contentious material anywhere in a BLP.

He then spelled out the same dispute at the Reliable Sources noticeboard:

You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. Prior discussion involved the reliability of the proposed sources.

Finally, he proposed these same two sources at the Talk page RfC section.

There now appears to be a lack of consensus that the sources have the proposed reliability. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Since you are questioning the reliability of PolitiFact, I think we need to get broader input at WP:RSN. - MrX 12:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I am an interested editor and I don't see the developement of the RfC the same way you do. True, DR F said "You're citing unreliable opinion sources about other sources by PolitiFact to say that PolitiFact isn't reliable in general, and saying that the cited PolitiFact and FactCheck.org sources are opinion sources... We're not getting anywhere here. I'm going to start an RFC." But when he initiated the RfC he asked

Should the lead section, which currently says:
 "His statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, ..."
be changed to read (changes in bold):
 "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false,[1][2] ..."

and provided references from FactCheck and Politfact. To me the RfC was about the addition of "many" and "false" and this, and only this question, is what I (and I believe other editors) gave comment and support or oppose to. To me (and I believe others) the RfC was not about the References. The discussion drifted that way and the comments and ivotes became muddled to the point of losing clarity as to what was being judged and responded to; "many and false" or FactCheck and PolitiFact. You say above...He was clearly replying to this comment in particular.... I may have been clear to you, but that is in no way what was clear to me. To me the RfC drifted off target and any concensus it reached is tainted by lack of clarity as to what editors were Ivoting on. I see support for "many and false". You see responses to the side issue of References. To me, while the RfC discussion was lively and informative, it is not a reliable answer to the question; should we change to, "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false"....? Buster Seven Talk 13:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Added clarification: I am one of those that accept that PolitiFact is a reliable source. Buster Seven Talk 20:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A television critic complaining that a fact checking site said something he disagreed with. Not even that they rated the claim in question false, but that they rated it as false as they did. That's your evidence that they're unreliable? I'm gonna go write a blog piece saying that they are reliable, because my blog and your TV critic opinion piece are at the same level of reliability themselves. Then we'll be in a quagmire. Furthermore, your WSJ piece is an opinion piece, an editorial. It's not an investigation. It's another conservative railing against the fact checking sites that so often make conservative politicians look bad. Finally, it's going to take a lot of evidence to prove them wrong. The various fact checking sites in operations now (factcheck.org, politifact.org, snopes.com and various fact checking divisions of major and minor news outlets across the country) exist for the express purpose of being as accurate as humanly possible. Two opinion pieces is not enough to undermine that. Hell, a hundred opinion pieces is not enough to undermine that. If you go out and find just one work of investigative journalism published in a reliable source that uncovers a systemic bias or regular dishonesty by a fact checking site, then we can conclude that that particular fact checking site is unreliable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The second Journal piece is speaking for the newspaper's editorial board. The editorial board "directs or supervises" the "writing, compilation, and revision of content" for the Journal. The Journal is the most trusted newspaper in America. And the Journal says "PolitiFact ... has marketed itself to ... news organizations on the pretense of impartiality." ("Politifiction: True 'Lies' about Obamacare".) --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla, I have sometimes seen you claim that something "does not have consensus" when you are the sole dissenter. Please remember that WP:Consensus does not have to be unanimous. In this case, most people here seemed to accept that PolitiFact is a reliable source. It has won a Pulitzer Prize), and it is produced by the Miami Herald which is a reliable source. I believe we did have consensus on that point, even if you argued against it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Please consider these points from Lunsford, "Fallacies of Argument":

"Ad Hominem Arguments. The theory is simple: Destroy the credibility of your opponents, and either you destroy their ability to present reasonable appeals or you distract from the successful arguments they may be offering."

"Begging the Question. Begging the question — that is, assuming as true the very claim that’s disputed — is a form of circular argument."

There doesn't appear to be anywhere near a majority of editors supporting the proposal.

And no one is arguing that PolitiFact and the Tampa Bay Times didn't win two Pullet Surprises (one apiece). Rather I'm arguing that a columnist at Time and members of the Wall Street Journal editorial board have characterized PolitiFact as "spreading false impressions", and as "fundamentally dishonest" for calling its opinion pieces Fact Checks, and as having "marketed itself ... on the pretense of impartiality". --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC) 10:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A fact check on this statement would reveal that it is false. Time and the Wall Street Journal did not say those things in their own voice: opinion writers at those publications said them. Please stop repeating this false characterization of the criticisms. As for whether PolitiFact is a reliable source or not, we will soon have a opinion from the RS noticeboard on that subject. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thank you for questioning my statement. I've corrected the attributions and added new material that would have had the correct attribution if I'd used it instead. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not think RSN is the appropriate route when a single editor (out of what, 20?) claims that PolitiFact--PolitFact!--isn't reliable. The appropriate avenue when there is a good faith dispute as to whether there's consensus is WP:ANRFC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I count four editors, not "a single" editor.

1. Oppose... It is also my impression that it would be false to say that... Zigzig20s

2. Oppose per Lügenpresse. [The press is lying.] Zaostao

3. Strong oppose per WP:PSTS policy, which cautions against basing large passages on opinion pieces... --Dervorguilla

4. Oppose. It's a simple not factual statement that is not well-proven and not easily verifiable... --Malerooster

Also, thirteen editors support adding the material and twelve editors oppose. Does any of the editors have a reason to believe there's a consensus? --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: No, Taranto's an editorial-board member, not an "opinion writer". "James Taranto is … a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board." (James Taranto Biography.)

In this particular piece, he's using the editorial we, and "we is sometimes used by an individual who is speaking for a group {the magazine’s editor wrote, ‘In our last issue, we covered...’}" (CMOS.) He's most likely speaking as a editorial-board member.

Ten days later the board itself clearly spoke out.

PolitiFiction: True 'lies' about ObamaCare

    So the watchdog news outfit called PolitiFact has decided that its “lie of the year” is the phrase “a government takeover of health care”...

    PolitiFact wants to define for everyone else what qualifies as a “fact”...

    In fact ... at the heart of ObamaCare is a vast expansion of federal control... Sounds like a government takeover to us.

    ... In reality PolitiFact’s curators also have political views and values that influence their judgments about facts...

Wall Street Journal. "PolitiFiction: True 'Lies' about ObamaCare". December 23, 2010.

The Journal itself is saying that the alleged "lies" were true. It offers evidence and reasons. And it supports Taranto's claim that PolitiFact does "function as a state propaganda agency".

The Journal can reasonably be said to have spoken out against PolitiFact not once but twice:

(a) for portentously marketing its qualitative judgments to other news organizations on the pretense of impartiality; and

(b) for equivocation; for "shilling"; for functioning as a propaganda agency; and for selling opinion pieces by labeling them "Fact Checks". --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

An editorial-board member is an "opinion writer," and the WSJ editorial page is well-known as biased. If they used the word "shilling," that's an example. Further, the ACA is not a gov't takeover of health care, or anything like it. Objective3000 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

An editorial is, by definition, an opinion piece. The same with statements from the editorial board which take a stand on some issue outside the operations of the news outlet in question. The WSJ's stance on anything related to politics is also well known. They are highly conservative, and their opinion on politics is not well regarded outside of their readership. Also, as I've pointed out already, the Times piece is a clearly labeled opinion piece written by a television critic. These two complaints do not constitute evidence of the untrustworthiness of fact checking outlets. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000: "Editorial-board member" means editor, not "opinion writer". "ed·i·to·ri·al 1. being an editor or consisting of editors <an editorial staff>." (Unabridged.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know what the word "editorial" means. However, the "editorial board" at a newspaper writes the editorials, which are opinion pieces. Objective3000 (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000: "[Editorial] board. an official group of persons who direct or supervise [editorial] activity," not "write editorials". --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That is not the what a newspaper editorial-board is. Objective3000 (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000: The Wall Street Journal editorial board oversees the Journal's editorial page and represents the newspaper publicly. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

They're opinions, not news. These days, Rupert Murdoch's opinions. Objective3000 (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: See Pew Research Center, Trust in Media Sources:

News Sources: Ratio of trust to distrust (among total web respondents)

BBC 5.1; PBS 3.2; WSJ 3.1 (higher among liberals, lower among conservatives); ABC 2.9; CBS 2.7; NBC 2.7; CNN 2.7; USAToday 2.5; NYTimes 2.0; WaPo 1.9; NewYorker 1.4; Fox 1.2; HuffPo 1.1; Limbaugh 0.3.

More at Which News Organization Is the Most Trusted? (2014). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC) 07:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That study specifically refers to news. We are talking about editorials, which are opinion pieces. Many people read the WSJ for news but disdain its editorial page. Objective3000 (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000: See Pew Research Center, "Which News Organization Is the Most Trusted? The Answer Is Complicated": "The Economist, BBC, NPR, PBS and The Wall Street Journal are among those with the highest ratio of trust to distrust [for news about government and politics]."

And see Pew, Political Polarization & Media Habits (2014): "The average consumer of the Wall Street Journal sits very close to the typical survey respondent, but the range of Journal readers is far broader because it appeals to people on both the left and the right."

Some of its invited editorials are conservative; some are liberal. But the Journal's managerial board itself would appear to be less "liberal or conservative" than the average board -- and thus more trustworthy.

The Journal's managerial board doesn't stand behind the any of its invited editorials. But it most likely does stand behind newspaper's public claim that PolitFact has been portentously "marketing itself to other news organizations" on the "pretense of impartiality". --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The WSJ editorial-board has been known as extremely conservative for decades. I am a WSJ subscriber for the business news. I wouldn't touch the editorial page for their reactionary opinions. And, once again, they are opinion writers. The editorial page is not news. Objective3000 (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I want to direct your attention to the RSN discussion on whether fact checkers are reliable sources for fact checking and leave it at that. You are arguing against an overwhelming consensus. You have refused to address the point brought up by several other editors that your 'evidence' of fact checking unreliability consists of some of the least compelling evidence one could find. The question of the fact checker's reliability has been answered. Anything beyond this is just your refusal to drop the stick. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The RSN appears to show a lack of consensus on question 2. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Still Oppose - so the RFC was tangled, but making up a section like this just seems going WP:SYNTH and no better. Look, just put the notable topics (fence, etcetera) and the positions -- don't try to invent a theme or make broad statements that there isn't strong WP:V for. Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• What specifically in the proposed text do you believe violates WP:SYNTH? Trump's false statements as a general subject has been discussed in numerous sources as evidenced in the citations above. - MrX 01:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Markbassett, I don't understand how the proposed content isn't verifiable. We have a variety of highly reliable sources that support it, and if you don't like them we can probably find more. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

--Dr. Fleischman -- the start of this thread that said there was source concerns at the level of a single line, and my remark above is adding note that this is made worse by the SYNTH and BLP concerns involved as well as it's now a whole section. This section appears to be a not fitting to bio article as it's not an event or period. It also sems to be WP:SYNTH as collecting up materials and making a topic out of them, and that brings on additional levels of WP:V. Skip over that it seems part of trying to advance a lead line and focus on the SYNTH issue here for the moment. To show it isn't SYNTH, wide sources on both sides should be available on it as a topic in and of itself to best comply with "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." and the WP:BLP emphasis on BALANCE.

Ultimately I think this is the wrong article to be discussing the campaign at length as there are specific articles covering that, and this is a BLP article which has special guidelines. From WP:BLP, sections emphasize to try for BALANCE, the WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPREMOVE that say any contentious material should be removed and "the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals", and WP:PUBLICFIGURE that calls for multiple third party sources rather than the usual RSS. On a side note of style and OFFTOPIC, this is a bio page -- so should be 'briefly' giving notable periods and actual events, and the pointing to the other articles for more. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking?. - MrX 16:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

I'm psychic. This is exactly what I predicted. lol MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This RSN is now publicized at PolitiFact.com Talk.

I rephrased the questions per core policies and for accuracy and readability.

"1. Is the PolitiFact subsidiary of the Tampa Bay Times a reliable third-party source for material about the truthfulness of statements made by a candidate?"

"2. Is it a reliable third-party source for material about the ratio of false statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact to true statements made by the candidate and checked by PolitiFact?"

Here's an old version of the PolitiFact.com article; it's somewhat more concise than the current version. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Should the lead say "have been controversial or hyperbolic"?

Should the lead say "have been controversial or hyperbolic" instead of "have been controversial"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

• Yes. This RFC proposal would change the lead as follows (emphasis added):

“ Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or hyperbolic, and some of the rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots from both sides of the political spectrum. ”

What the body of this article says about this subject, as of August 31, 2016

“ Many of the statements Trump has made during his presidential campaign have been controversial or false. Fact checking organizations such as PolitiFact and FactCheck.org have singled him out as having made record numbers of false statements during his campaign compared to other candidates, based on the statements they have analyzed. Trump's penchant for exaggerating to voters has roots in the world of New York real estate where he made his fortune, and where hyperbole is a way of life. ” References

Instead of inserting "or hyperbolic", we could hypothetically insert "or false" or "or dishonest", et cetera. I think "hyperbolic" is much better because the words "false" and "dishonest" lack nuance, because hyperbole is a major (if not the major) form of Trump's falsities, because a bare assertion of "falseness" or "dishonesty" sounds too much like a partisan attack, and because the discretionary sanctions applicable to this BLP require not merely consensus but "firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• No. "Controversial" covers it. Whether to add "false" is a separate discussion (or is this a suggestion to bypass that discussion by substituting "hyperbolic" for "false"? If so maybe you should make it at that RfC discussion.) IMO "false" is much better documented; either that or nothing. Anyhow, I don't think "hyperbolic" adds anything except verbiage. If the consensus is to add it, I recommend splitting the sentence into two sentences. In fact I'm going to do that anyhow, since the two points (controversial statements and violence at rallies) are not closely related. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no way to make this proposal in the previous RFC in a manner that would be noticed. I already did mention it deep in the discussion, which garnered only one response.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, I just saw that and was in the process of striking that from my comment above. IMO starting a whole separate RfC is likely to be confusing if not disruptive. How is a closer supposed to deal with the first RfC when there is a second one that might override it? --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Seriatim. There is already a survey above about the same issue in the body of the article, so we already have overlap. I don't think it's disruptive to give editors a choice (i.e. an alternative) about what to say in the lead, instead of either "false" or nothing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• No. This RfC disrupts the pending RfC which asks if we should use the word "false" instead of "hyperbolic." Hyperbolic ignores the various uncontradicted, extremely reliable sources, some of which are currently cited in the article, with a single source that acknowledges that the term "hyperbole" comes from Trump's book The Art of the Deal, whose own ghostwriter now acknowledges was a euphemism for lying. As a result, using the term "hyperbolic" violates our neutrality and no-euphemisms guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Actually, "hyperbolic" is all we need. Remove "controversial"; that's judgemental criticism, and Wikipedia is not an opinion piece. "Hyperbolic" is NPOV--that's what we should say.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing judgmental about "controversial"; it is an unmistakable fact (not an opinion) that widespread, highly publicized controversy has arisen in response to many of his statements, and many reliable sources have pointed this out. Anyhow this RfC is not about removing "controversial", it is about adding "and hyperbolic". --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Controversial" has a negative connotation. "Hyperbolic" is neutral.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Procedurally close this RfC until the previous one runs its course. On the merits, I agree with Dr. Fleischman that "hyperbolic" is a euphemism that shouldn't be used. An overwhelming array of high-quality, straight-news sources say that Trump has become known for his frequent, sustained falsehoods, misstatements, and conspiracy theories on the campaign trail. To omit that would not give the full story to our readers. Neutrality^talk 18:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Neutrality, suppose for the sake of argument that every single one of Mr. Trump's falsities is the type of falsity known as an exaggeration. You think saying "exaggeration" would be a euphemism? To me, it would seem far more precise than the word "false", no? I also see nothing proceduraly wrong with giving editors a choice beyond "false" or nothing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In that hypothetical, alternate-universe scenario, then yes of course we could use the word "exaggeration." But that is not the reality. The sources clearly reflect that many of Mr. Trump's misstatements are not merely exaggerations or hyperbole, but false statements made up out of whole cloth. Neutrality^talk 18:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we have percentages?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Suppose for the sake of argument" is pointless. We are talking about reality here. Many of his false statements, the ones that caused Reliable Sources to say they have never seen anything like it, are NOT "hyperbole" (which would normally get rated "partly false" or "false"), They are flatly, factually false ("False" or "Pants on Fire"), such as when he denies having said something that he indisputably said (17 times and counting), or when he claims he saw television coverage of American Muslims celebrating 9/11 when in fact no such coverage ever existed, or when he said he had met Putin when they were both on 60 minutes when in fact they were never in the same place at the same time, or when he claimed his campaign was "100% self funded" at a time when more than 50% of his campaign funds had come from outside contributors, or when he said no other country besides America has birthright citizenship. These are not hyperbole, they are outright falsehoods. "Percentages" don't matter; the actual count of his lies is what matters and it is way beyond anything the fact checkers have ever seen. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the body of the article. At present, the body of the article does not break down his false statements by the number that are exaggerations versus the number that are not. Nor does it break down the false statements into those that he has repeated after being debunked, versus those he has not repeated after being debunked. Anyway, I don't think anyone disagrees that he has a propensity for exaggeration, regardless of whether he also has a propensity to lie like Holden Caulfield: "I'm the most terrific liar you ever saw in your life. It's awful. If I'm on my way to the store to buy a magazine, even, and somebody asks me where I'm going, I'm liable to say I'm going to the opera. It's terrible." If he's dishonest like Holden Caulfield, then "false" is a euphemism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• No Terms such as "Hyperbolic" are subjective interpretations, which are even questionable from reliable sources. Terms such as "falsity" and "controversial" are in principle verifiable and reportable by reliable sources.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. Hyperbolic could suggest that Trump's false statements were not intenteneded to be taken literally. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• No, not in the lead, because "hyperbolic" is a judgment or characterization in Wikipedia's voice, something that would require very strong sourcing. A neutral, careful analysis in the body might mention that some of the statements are untrue, some provocative, and some exaggerations to the point of hyperbole, or that Trump or commentators have made some of these observations. By contrast, "controversial" is not Wikipedia opining about the speech itself, but observing that the speech has caused controversies. Two points of order. First, it is not a good thing that the political articles have gone RfC happy on minor, temporary, and overlapping issues. Second, even if this is ever well sourced enough to be in a lede, this is the wrong place, because it is a point about the campaign, not his biography. It would belong in his campaign article. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The BLP subject self-identifies as a person who exaggerates: "A little hyperbole never hurts"Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he does exaggerate. He also lies. The two are not the same. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

But that's a tautology. All politicians lie. Google "Hillary pinocchio"--lots of matches come up. It's part of their job description. No need to mention it here.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• No - "Hyperbolic" is a euphemism used primarily by those whose job it is to try to get Trump elected. He does sometimes make hyperbolic statements, but those are overshadowed by the many false statements that he has made during his campaign, all of which are well-documented. Some sources even say that most of his public statements are false, and some go as far as to say that Trump lies. As others have mentioned, this RfC should not have been started until the previous one was closed.- MrX 19:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with others here; the elephant in the room is that many reliable sources have found Trump to be uniquely untruthful (even for a politician), and to be untruthful in unique ways (for instance, repeating the same falsehoods after they've been repeatedly discredited). Our site policies (including WP:BLP) say that we need to convey that, clearly and accurately, but for whatever reason we have a couple of editors who are extremely resistant to following where the sources lead in this particular case. This blizzard of overlapping RfC's, silly euphemisms, and bowdlerization is becoming disruptive and needs to stop; it has taken on the appearance of a lawyerly campaign of vexatious wiki-process and wiki-litigation aimed at obscuring, rather than improving, the article. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Two RFCs is hardly a blizzard, so maybe Trump isn't the only one with a hyperbole issue. Falsehoods come in many flavors, from exaggeration, to sarcasm, to blatant fabrication. The only kind mentioned in the article body right now is exaggeration, and the lead should summarize the article body. The word "hyperbolic" is no euphemism, but rather a perfectly valid description (supported by impeccable secondary sourcing plus self-identification) of at least one kind of falsehood that Trumo often engages in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yet it is not the kind of falsehood that has received the most attention from reliable sources. Therefore it might have a place in the article body along side other kinds of falsehoods, but it would be non-neutral to include in the lead to the exclusion of the others. Of course listing in the lead all of the different kinds of falsehoods Trump has uttered during the campaign would be terribly undue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - A number of reliable sources reference the fact that Trump characterizes at least some of his own rhetoric as "truthful hyperbole". I don't see the 2 RFC's as necessarily being mutually exclusive. If the consensus is ultimately to include both, I think it would be possible to combine them. One possible solution: "...have been controversial or false, while Trump characterizes his rhetoric as "truthful hyperbole".CFredkin (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump isn't a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe Yahoo! News is a reliable source.CFredkin (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

For saying that Trump says he engages in hyperbole. But not for saying that he does engage in hyperbole. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I was clear with my initial post. My point is that, on a standalone basis, the proposed content is supported by the sources provided by Anythingyouwant as part of the RFC. If both RFC's pass, I think the content from both can effectively be combined.CFredkin (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• No - Hyperbole would convey that Trump just exaggerates, that he stretches the truth "just a little". I looked up the word "lie" in the best synonym finder I could find and searched thru the 125 or so synonyms for lie and did not find "hyperbole". Same with "false", "falsehood" and "falsity". Hyperbole was no where to be found. Buster Seven Talk 19:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This attempt to wrangle ((to herd horses or other livestock)) the word hyperbole into the article makes me think of an analogy. Lets say we have two stallions in a pen. One is rambunctious, snorting and wild-eyed. Lets call him "LYE". The other is also a stallion but is calm as the daisy that hangs from its mane. Lets call him HYPurrBOLE. Some here are trying to present LYE and HYPurrBOLE as two peas in a pod. But....one will always be wild and untamed. The other could be a horse in the "ride a pony" show. Our reader is entitled to know which horse they are buying. Buster Seven Talk 19:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Procedurally Close as recommended above. Don't light another fire when you're still fighting one. Hyperbolic is the wrong word for Trump and for Wikipedia. False or lies are better one word candidates. ~ Fiachaire (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• No The word "hyperbolic" implies anything from simple figures of speech (e.g. using 'literally' in a sentence such as "Literally no-one likes the Star Wars prequels!") to outright lies (e.g. "Inner city crime is reaching record levels."). It's ambiguous, and frankly, it's expected of politicians to use frequent hyperbole. It thus doesn't accurately convey the information. A word like "false" or "untrue" is far more accurate, and equally easy (if not far easier) to source properly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes – Let's say it all in just a few words: "Many of his statements have been controversial, hyperbolic or fabricated." That would close two RFCs with a single edit! — JFG ^talk 20:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources for "fabricated?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No question there are fabrications. The active verb fabricated tends to imply intentional acts. Although his books lend credence to his belief that hyperbole to the level of fabrication is a part of his 'art of the deal,' care must be taken. Words must come from RS analyzing a pattern. Objective3000 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Probably No – I think such wording would in itself be hyperbolic! This or similar wording would present what are opinions, even if widely held and accepted and most likely true, as indisputable facts. Is in not enough to just present sources that have said his speeches have generated controversy, or have contained crude hyperbole, or suchlike, summarize what such commentators have said, but use wording that makes it clear that it is those commentators' opinions? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm kind of confused about all the choices...if the previous RFC is still extant, if it was closed, etc. But to me "hyperbolic" is somewhat of a WP:Peacock term. I am still concerned if the subject matter is covered extensively enough in the main body of the article to warrant such prominent mention in the lede. Shearonink (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment; suggested revision; non-negotiable policy objections. When reputable mainstream sources have expressed significant opinions about the subject, you must attribute these opinions to particular sources or describe them as widespread views or the like. You may say, "Genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil". You may not say, "Genocide is an evil action". (WP:NPOV § WikiVoice.)

In particular, avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If reputable sources make conflicting assertions about a topic, you must treat these assertions as opinions, not facts. Don't present them as direct statements. This policy is non-negotiable. (WP:NPOV § WikiVoice.)

You must represent fairly and proportionately all significant views that have been published by reputable sources on the topic. (WP:NPOV.)

Suggested wording:

"According to [1], [2], and [3], very many of Trump's campaign statements been false; according to [4] and [5], very many have been true. An extraordinary number have been controversial.[6][7][8]"

(Does need work, I'd have to say.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC) 08:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• No. I think we should just keep "controversial" without adding any other descriptors, as I think it best describes Trump's statements. Also, WP:SYNTH might apply, as it might create a false impression that the statements that were not controversial were instead hyperbolic. However, I would much prefer "hyperbolic" to "false", so if the decision comes down to either two words, I would support it per Anythingyouwant. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Weak no- I think the themes 'controversial' is far more dominant, nearly universal and un-objected to by both sides. For "hyperbolic" I think the specific word use out there is "hyperbole", and that at a much lower level so UNDUE to put here. I actually suspect 'criticized by critics as crazy' (keeping the 'by critics' clear) would actually be of higher prominence. (e.g. Dolly Parton on Hillary and Trump 'theyre both nuts' Markbassett (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes in the lede

This has been a longstanding sentence in the lede:

Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and some of the rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots.

Recently that sentence was modified to read:

Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and some of the rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots from both sides of the political spectrum.

I split it into two sentences because I thought the two halves of the sentence were not really related to each other:

Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial. Some of his rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots from both sides of the political spectrum.

Just now someone recombined them, in a way that seems to me to imply a causal connection between "controversial statements" and "protests and riots" that I don't think is justified:

Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, with his rallies sometimes being accompanied by protests or riots.

I would like to see this combined version of the sentence reverted, and any one of the three previous versions restored. I don't know that we need to have a huge discussion/consensus over the matter, but I would not be comfortable reverting it myself, per Discretionary Sanctions. Thoughts, anyone? --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that edit bothers me too. "... with his rallies..." is poor grammar. Someone who hasn't used their daily revert, please revert to MelanieN's version.- MrX 23:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I added that he escaped an assassination attempt by a protester, as covered in the #General election section. This looks significant enough to be mentioned in the lead, but revert me if you disagree… — JFG ^talk 17:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Middle initial in infobox title?

From memory, it seems that the infobox used to be titled "Donald J. Trump", a frequently-used name including by Trump's own web site. Any clue why this is now only "Donald Trump"? Can we restore the middle initial without triggering a fight? — JFG ^talk 17:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be kept without the middle initial. He does use his middle initial often, but he's still perhaps best known without it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Having been reverted by Awilley, I'm bringing the discussion to the talk page. I'm wondering why I was reverted. Graham (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I assume that he clicked rollback by accident. I'm sure he'll fix it momentarily.- MrX 03:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

So sorry about that, I have no idea how that happened. I was navigating a bunch of diffs from the history and I must have accidentally rolled back along the way. ~Awilley (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Awilley! Graham (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

New pics

Pic A: Donald Trump in Phoenix on August 31, 2016

Gage Skidmore has kindly donated some new pics dated yesterday, including the one at right. You can see some more here. I like the one at right best. The flag is tiny, but it's there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not the one you posted; he's squinting. Maybe this one.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

So he's squinting a little bit. Is that a sin? Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride, and squinting? Anyway, there are more on Flickr from this event, so feel free to upload any you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the best one you've uploaded. Anyway, I'm currently discouraged (see your talkpage), so I won't look at Flickr, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There's currently another similar discussion ongoing over at the 2016 Presidential election article, if more people could weigh in there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#New_Trump_photos Calibrador (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I like this one better : it could actually replace the current one in the infobox. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed it should be updated. ^{Snake bgd} 19:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Pic B: August 31, 2016

Any objection if I install the one at right for the time being? It's clearly better than the present top image. Putting at the top now won't block consideration of other pictures.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The picture to the right is pretty blurry, isn't it? Graham (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should use either of these pictures. Can't we find one where his eyes are open? The one currently in the article infobox is better than either of these. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Pic C: How about this one?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Of the 3, I prefer "How about this one?" by Ayw. Buster Seven Talk 20:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this one is pretty good. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The existing photo is better than any of these. In (1) he looks like he has a stick up his ass, in (2) you can’t see his eyes and there’s too much emphasis on the bouffant comb-over, and in (3) much as I like the clarity of the pigginess of the eyes, and also the sticky-out ear that gives the overall impression, together with the hairdo, of a hamster sitting a wingnut, the fact is he’s smirking, and a smirk is inappropriate in a photograph of someone running for president. Writegeist (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this third photo is by far the best one, and leagues better than the current photo. Calibrador (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Pic D

@Jean-Jacques Georges, Buster7, and Calibrador: Arguments like "I just don't like it" or "I just like it" usually carry no weight. Please use reasons based on sources, policies, and common sense. (WP:CON.)

For these four reasons, I feel that Skidmore's 2013 pic (right) is a better photo:

√ Eyes open.

√ Not smirking.

√ Muted field (same field as in the photo on the right at "About Donald J. Trump").

√ Inspirational pose (mirroring the 2006 Obama image).

As we know, Obama won, Clinton didn't — and to my recollection, she was smiling all the way. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

All the 2016 photos are fine, but I still prefer the one on the left, since it makes him look somewhat "dignified". It seems rather difficult to have a photo of Trump where he isn't making a funny face, so I'd say this is the best we have for now. Anyway, they are all far better and more neutral than the current "grumpy" photo. The 2016 "smiling" photo could also be used here, but I think it would be more suitable in the United States presidential election, 2016 article. The pose on the 2013 photo may be "inspirational", but IMHO the image - although technically fine - is not very flattering. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with everything Jean-Jacques Georges has stated about the left image, and would also add that the backdrop of the American flags also gives the photo a more Presidential professional look, something that is desired for a Presidential candidate. He's looking forward, has a smile, and is standing up straight rather than hunched over. It is superior in every way to the status quo photo from more than a year ago. Calibrador (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

These endless discussions about a better Trump photo call to mind the expression about polishing a turd.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the point of neutrality : even if we do think that a person is a turd, we should not be trying to make him look like one. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support the current photo already in the infobox. It still works fine. As well, consensus needs to be built here, not forced, therefore I have reverted back to the long-standing consensus photo that was prematurely replaced before this discussion was allowed to run its course. The recent suggestions for photos show him with a smirk, as others have noted at the 2016 presidential election article talk page, and are not better than what we already have. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the photo with caption "How about this one?" is a big improvement. You really see a smirk? I don't. I think he looks a little dazed maybe, but still it's a better pic by far.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Anythingyouwant that the photo captioned "How about this one?" (aka, hamster on a wingnut) is the best of the five in consideration. It is a more natural, reposed portrait, has better photographic quality (except for the blown highlights on the shirt), and has a more dignified context than some of the others. The smile could be interpreted as a smirk but I suspect it's not. Hopefully, once he's elected, we can get a really nice official portrait. - MrX 18:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Pic E (longstanding)

Let's try to stay neutral here, without expressing hopefulness that one candidate or the other will be elected.  :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll try. .- MrX 18:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

MrX, you need to change the photo back. There is no confirmed consensus for that photo here, nor has the discussion closed - it is still ongoing. Consensus doesn't get formed in just a day or a few hours, it takes time. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. The infobox image that you reverted out has been in place for a long time with a definite consensus, yet, you ignored the embedded instructions in the infobox and just changed it on your own accord. That needs to be remedied immediately. The right thing to do would be for editors who came to consensus on the previous image to also be notified of this discussion so a fair consensus can take place. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page.- MrX 18:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the new picture better as well. I always thought the old one was a bit dull. I also do not see a smirk in the new one. Display name 99 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I strongly support pic A, pic B, or pic C, and strongly oppose pic D and pic E. Pic E was nice for awhile, but it needs to be retired now,though it's not too bad. Pic D is looking in some random direction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with WV. The other photos make him look strange and non-professional looking. Our standards need to be if he was to hire someone to take pictures of him, they should be as good as that. He would use zero of the above pictures to advertise, neither would anyone else unless they are against Trump. Chase (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You realize the current photo doesn't meet your own criteria? And is why there is a discussion to constantly replace it because it is extremely unflattering. Calibrador (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador: I disagree slightly. It's not the picture I would fantasize about having, but it's the closest to it. I agree that the picture should be changed, but to one that is better to the current. In the current photo he isn't squinting and making silly faces. It looks like he is listening to someone asking a question. Which honestly, I quite like because it reflects what one of his campaign highlights. Him listening to his main group of supporters. That's something he has built the campaign on. I think the photo should reflect something like that. There are many criteria that should come into affect, and as a photographer, I understand that, but we will never get a perfect picture unless his campaign himself releases one to us or something similar. So until that happens, we need one that is dignified and high quality, as if he were going to be president. Chase (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Your hopes of an official portrait is not going to happen, at least not during the campaign when it is most relevant. Calibrador (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Photo E: Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to make anyone look more presidential. Calibrador's comments on Photo C: "I agree with everything Jean-Jacques Georges has stated about the left image, and would also add that the backdrop of the American flags also gives the photo a more Presidential look, something that is desired for a Presidential candidate." Also oppose Photo D as it is taken from a weird angle; oppose Photo A is it shows him smirking. Photo B would be good for an infobox photo in the United States presidential election, 2016 article, but not here. Only left with Photo E. --Proud User (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Replace the word Presidential with professional. That was the connotation I was going for. Calibrador (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Photo E.CFredkin (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Continue to support image E. It remains the better of any being suggested here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Photo C-I find that the picture makes him look fairly normal. Photo D is probably my least favorite because I don't think the camera shows him at the best possible angle. I've considered Photo E to be a bit boring, and with the U.S. flags in the background Photo C adds a bit more color. I think it is more pleasing to look at. Display name 99 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Photo C It's high quality, in focus, well lit, has sense of professionalism, accurately portrays the subject, and they are standing up straight rather than leaning forward. Not to mention a smile rather than a frown, and it is from August 2016 rather than August 2015. Calibrador (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support C - It is a more natural, reposed portrait, has better photographic quality (except for the blown highlights on the shirt), and has a more dignified context than some of the others. E has a harsh shadow, creating visual separation from his face to the rest of the composition. Also, his face looks overly orange, flat, and his expression makes it look like he's practicing his 1000 yard stare. In A he is squinting, or perhaps laying an egg. B is so out of focus I'm surprised the photographer would take credit for it. D has the best lighting an exposure, but he's looking the wrong way and the focus is soft. Note to the photographer: increase ISO to 3200, DOF to ~f/7.1 and shutter speed to 1/100 and you will probably nail it next time.. - MrX 20:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• E – This picture is perfectly fine, and it has survived many such discussions. Opposing C version with a flag because Trump has never held political office. If you look at his recent speech in Mexico, Peña and Trump stand at the same podiums in front of the same background, but Peña has Mexican flags while Trump has none. Diplomatically correct per protocol; we should respect that. Compliments to MrX for his photographic advice — JFG ^talk 21:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

JFG, I don't understand. Are you saying that because someone has never held political office they are not allowed to give a speech in front of flags? That doesn't really make sense. Display name 99 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Don't get me wrong, Trump has every right to give speeches with prominent US symbols. I was just remarking that in official contexts such as his visit to Mexico, he can't. And on Wikipedia, it seems more appropriate to me that only elected officials have a flag in their main picture. Besides, the white-and-red stripes make the background more "noisy" and attention-grabbing than the candidate's face. — JFG ^talk 13:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment That sounds like original research to me. Calibrador (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment @Calibrador: It's not OR. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• C ShadowDragon343 (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The sole official photograph of Trump as president (& CEO) shows his upper canines and incisors. (Source: "Donald Trump Biography", The Trump Organization.) So does pic B. But pics A, C, D, and E don't show any teeth at all.

In the official biography photo, his frontalis (forehead) muscle looks relaxed, as it does in pics A, B, C, and D, but not pic E.

Also, he's looking at or near the camera, as in pics A, B, and C, but not pics D or E.

Also, the cropped background is rather neutral, as in pics A, B, D, and E, but not pic C.

And the microphone is absent, as in pics A, B, and D, but not pics C or E.

Raw scores

Pic A: +3. Pic B: +5. Pic C: -1. Pic D: +1. Pic E (current): -5.

I personally like pic D best ... but that's my problem. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Compare the proposed images with an analogous picture in the Britannica article lead. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• strong support for C with A coming close. The best photo so far, the current one in the infobox more than 1 year old, that one you said looks presidential, too old, I encourage every other user to support CTexasMan34 (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support for C. B or A can be used in the articles about the various elections (B might be better because he is smiling). D is technically fine, but not for the infoboxes. Same thing for E - too unflattering - which should definitely not be used in infoboxes, especially not in the pages about elections. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Pic F: Well F this discussion :)

• F-This - really getting tired of this showing up every 6 weeks, we have better things to discuss...--Stemoc 13:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Now that's a smug photo. Calibrador (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Lets face the fact, he has more pride than an actual pride of lions :) ...--Stemoc 13:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support E I see no problem with the current photo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• This photo is the best. I support this. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support C for now, until we find a better picture. The current one is awful. The one we had before was fine, though.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support whatever is already there without looking. How many times has this discussion restarted? Objective3000 (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This vote should stricken, as they admitted to not even looking at the photos being discussed. Calibrador (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support C I have supported the current photo for a while but after so much complaining and discussions, I think it's time for an update. Hopefully people won't complain about this photo as much as the current one has. TL565 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support C: In my own opinion, this is the most presidential photographic option for depicting Donald Trump. A close second alternative would be E, but C has my vote. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Revert war warning

Attention, all of you: I have asked an uninvolved administrator to take a look at the revert war that has been going on about this picture. As far as I can see, a new picture has been added to the infobox twice today, and the longstanding original photo has been restored twice. Remember that this article is under Discretionary Sanctions, which are intended to stabilize the article and prevent exactly this kind of edit warring. I am not accusing anyone of anything and I am not taking a position on the question of what image to use. I am just reminding you all that there can be immediate sanctions, including blocks, for violating the Discretionary Sanctions spelled out at the top of this page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Editors changing the image, must follow this instruction: "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." There are currently five pictures to choose from which may cause discussion to bog down and meander as choosing the "best" picture often boils down to personal preference. If editors wish to have a quicker resolution then I suggest having a weighted poll (top pick gets 5 points, second gets 4, etc.,) that lasts three or four days. Note that this is only a suggestion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN's proposal. The discussion is getting rather lengthy from both here and the 2016 election article, and would be better suited to have something on record that is more concise. Calibrador (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why a 'weighting' system rather than just stating preferences and using instant‐runoff voting, if we are going the route of a formal vote rather than a discussion? Graham (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There should be a poll between Pic C and Pic E. Calibrador (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone doubt that this is an image of DJT or that it matters? Seriously, I've lost count of the discussions on the image and have never seen this on any other article ever. There exist more serioius discussions to complete. Objective3000 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Especially when choosing the infobox picture of an ideologically polarizing living person, the argument "I just like it" carries absolutely no weight whatsoever. See consensus-building in talk pages policy. Editors are to give their reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. See achieving consensus through discussion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I'm aware of policy, thanks. You've given a few subjective reasons why youlikeit above like many other editors. If everyone wishes to continue to argue they have the best aesthetic sense, that's fine as there are no sources that tell us which is the best picture and no policy that dictates who has the best taste. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: I categorically deny your misrepresentation of my original comment. I'm giving what I consider objective reasons to include photo D and any comparable photos; and I'm giving official sources that may (indirectly but analogically) support some of my reasons -- or may, in one case, contradict them.

1. There's objectively no microphone in photos A, B, or D or in the analogous official photos at Trump for President or About Donald J Trump.

2. Photos A, B, C, and D were objectively taken by the same professional photographer (Skidmore) who took the photos in the biography page.

3. The tie and backdrop objectively match in photos D and E, as they do in President Obama's analogous official photo, rather than clash as they do in photo C.

4. The out-of-focus flag backdrop in photo D looks objectively more like the backdrop in President Bush's analogous official photo than does the high-contrast flag backdrop in photo C.

5.1. Subjectively: Per many other editors' concerns, his eyes are more "open" than "squinting" (as they are in photos A, B, and C). (Many of us even think he looks like he's "smirking" or "making silly faces" in those photos.)

5.2. Objectively: See the current official "***** Trump-Pence 2016" campaign photo. He's squinting so hard you barely see his eyes. Anythingyouwant is objectively right here; and many of us, including me, are objectively wrong.

6. He's objectively looking somewhat off-camera in photos B, D, and E and in the analogous official photos at Trump for President and About Donald J Trump.

Here I'm giving five objective reasons, rather than just two; nowhere am I saying that I "like" photo D the best or that my "aesthetic taste" is any better than yours or anyone else's. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

And you are the only one who believes and supports these objective reasons, and the only one who has made the case for D out of a dozen or more users. Calibrador (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The New Jersey Generals

Our article makes no mention that the USFL franchise was originally owned by Donald Trump. I first remember becoming aware of Trump when the team signed Heisman Trophy winner Herschel Walker, who was an underclassmen. Not sure but I think he (Walker) may have been the first underclassman to sign with a professional team and forego his college career. Shouldn't that be mentioned? 22:21, 2 September 2016‎ User:Buster7

This Wikipedia article says: "In 1983, Trump purchased the New Jersey Generals for the inaugural season of the United States Football League (USFL). Before the inaugural season began, Trump sold the franchise to Oklahoma oil magnate J. Walter Duncan. Then, prior to the 1984 season, Duncan sold the team back to Trump.[103][104] The USFL played its first 1983, 1984, and 1985 seasons during the summer. Trump convinced the majority of the owners of other USFL teams to move the USFL 1986 schedule to the fall, directly opposite the National Football League (NFL), arguing that it would eventually force a merger with the NFL; owners of any USFL teams included in a merger would see their investment increase significantly.[105] After the Houston Gamblers merged into the Generals in 1985, Trump retained a 50 percent interest in the merged team.[106] The 1986 season was cancelled after the USFL won a minimal verdict (of less than four dollars) in an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL; the USFL folded soon afterward."Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. Its not what I remembered it to be this morning. My point was that I thought Trump was involved in one of the first college athletes to turn professional after his junior year (and a Heisman Trophy winner at that). But it turns out that Walker actually signed a personal services contract with J. Walter Duncan, who later sold the team to Trump. Its still an interesting fact that Trump owned a professional sports team but not as interesting as being an owner that started the trend of drafting college players before their class graduated which was a MAJOR change to college athletics. Buster Seven Talk 06:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Bottom of infobox

How come the infobox has a footnotes section without footnotes and a {{listen}} box which appears to be invisible? I would just remove it, but there's a hidden note that says <!-- Unnecessary, BUT DO ''not'' REMOVE -->. Graham (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

See rev 735196627 by Dervorguilla, where I remove the material labeled "<!-- Unnecessary, BUT DO ''not'' REMOVE -->" but forget to remove the "DO not REMOVE" label itself. I also mistakenly add the "footnotes" parameter based on a misreading of Template:Infobox person, which clearly says, "Footnotes: Notes about any of the infobox data", not "Footnotes: Footnotes in any of the infobox data". My error. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump World Tower

There has been a back and forth about whether to include that a floor in the building was sold to Saudia Arabia for 4.5 million or whatever. Thoughts--Malerooster (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

As he stated on Hannity that he would not accept money from Saudis, and Giuliani has stated that Clinton should apologize for accepting charitable funds from Saudis, and he previously stated: "Why wouldn't I take their money?," it would seem relevant. Particularly since the office space is used for Saudi government related business. Sorry for not including cites. I think these are all well-known. Objective3000 (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this the essence of original research or synthesis? The paragraph mentions a few buildings and has ZERO about who the occupants are or who bought what and when and for how much. This would be undue weight to single this out. Thousands of units have been sold to thousands of foreign nationals and governments needing space near the united nations. Has this become a talking point or something or is it being widely reported recently? --Malerooster (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If its relevance stems primarily from the Clinton connection, then it would be more appropriate in the article about his 2016 campaign, assuming that reliable sources have linked these things together. But mentioning it here without explaining relevance would just leave readers wondering why we're paying so much attention to one transaction like this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That would seem to make sense. --Malerooster (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I agree that this belongs in a different article -- I think your edit summary in the deletion violates discretionary sanctions was inappropriate. Please WP:AGF. Objective3000 (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It's neither OR or SYNTH, and it has been widely reported recently. But, Anythingyouwant has a point that it belongs more in the campaign article where there is context. Objective3000 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

May I ask where you're getting the impression it's been widely reported? I can't find much about it other than some "investigation" by the New York Daily News; it seems fairly undue even for the 2016 campaign article. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It is of no relevance unless it become and issue in the campaign in which case it may belong in that article. If it does attract media attention then we will also have informed commentary. There is a difference between a property developer selling condos in an arms-length transaction and soliciting for donations. Which is probably why other media have not picked up on the story. TFD (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

At this point is it being reported only by the New York Daily News, a tabloid, and a blog at The Hill. Unless and until it becomes a generally reported and prominent issue, it should not be in this article OR the campaign article IMO. Also, since it has been added to the article once and removed, it is identified as contentious material, and it MUST NOT be restored to the article without consensus, per Discretionary Sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Finally a good pic

File:Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 13.jpg

This is the best Trump photo by far.

Look, I know there's a discussion going on right now above about which picture to use at the top of this article, but I believe this one is the best, even better than the current one. This one has Trump looking straight at the camera and with a normal, neutral expression, unlike the other proposals. I support using this photo. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. It's not a neutral expression. It's a "meh" expression. The current one is terrible though. Can we not revert it back to the one we had before?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Being honest, he looks like a sad puppy here with the lips. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Best picture by far: [54] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. The current is better and many discussion have been had to have that one in place. It should remain. Chase (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. If I'm being honest this is probably the worst of the bunch so far. It would probably be nice if not for the pursed lips; to me it's the type of image someone would want for a satire piece of Mr. Trump. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Simply awful. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Are you kidding me? TL565 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Best to leave well enough alone. The one that is there now is fine for the time being. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's well past time to end this interminable and diversionary Trump pic sideshow. The existing photograph is adequate and characteristic. Energies here would be more productively directed towards the content of the article. Writegeist (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Whether a picture is "aesthetically pleasing" or adequate is entirely subjective anyhow, so we're unlikely to get anywhere with these types of wasteful discussions. If someone finds a picture they really think works in the future, boldly post it, and if it sticks, it sticks. I'm not sure why there's any urgency to change it in the first place. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I like the current one, though the one here isn't too bad. D is better, imho. [Amended.] Trump himself doesn't seem too picky. YoPienso (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Replace the current photo with photo C shown in the above discussion, and let's all move on to something else. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I also oppose this photo, and Jean-Jacques Georges, did you mean C? E is the current photo. Calibrador (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Calibrador, sorry : I guess I was tired. :) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I Oppose because in this photo he looks like my junior year science professor. That was the exact look he had when he handed out detentions. 55 years later and I still have nightmares. Buster Seven Talk 02:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Note: So technically it is not an IDONTLIKEIT vote...its more a SCARESMETODEATH vote. Buster Seven Talk 02:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Support Yes I am going to be butchered for breaking a trend but if this were Hillary Clinton currently having a picture of her leaning looking off to her side it would be full of supports in the quest to try and fix it and get her the most smiley picture of her in existence. Instead of automatically bashing it how about analyzing what is good about it. It's better than C in the above discussion. In that there is no mic obstructing the view, he's smiling lightly and not in an out of norm manner, and he's looking right at the camera. The picture was included in a discussion in the General election page but the discussion somehow teleported to here and the vote was started while leaving it out. It's always going to be hard to get a picture with his eyes wide open because of genetics. If your supporting the current image, it is looking off, leaning over, and has bad lighting that makes his skin look redder than normal.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion re photo

I think the reason why the current photo has continued to survive so many discussions yet they keep popping up, is that someone will suggest a new picture, then more people join the discussion and more and more pictures are suggested. This then splits everyone's support meaning there is no firm consensus allowing the status quo picture to survive yet again. I think there should be a process of elimination with so many images being suggested. Judging from right now, there is a lot support for photos C and E(the current photo). I suggest when the above section closes, there should then be a final vote between the two photos head-to-head only, like a runoff election. I think this is the only way to establish a firm consensus rather than having endless discussions with so many images and all ending in a mess. TL565 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the current discussion ongoing, nearly every vote to keep the current photo (which I counted at 6) is either supporting it simply because it is the current photo, or due to lethargy from all of the photo discussions and simply saying it's "the best," or didn't even look at any of the photos, in a recent instance, being proposed and just being generally flippant. Nearly every vote for C (which I counted at 11) has listed many different reasons for the photo being a better choice, and no one who chose E has taken the time to effectively respond to these commenters saying why they are wrong, or to develop a consensus. As a supporter of C, I've seen no arguments to convince me that E would be a better choice to remain the main photo, and not to mention the fact that there is good reason that E has been brought up over and over again for replacement because it is an awful photo that portrays the subject negatively, and I'm not even a supporter of his, it needs to be replaced and C finally provides a professional photo that portrays the subject from a neutral point of view. Calibrador (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

11 to 6 seems like a firm consensus to me. It's about 65%. Does anyone disagree with that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We should definitely replace the current photo with photo C, and we must replace it everywhere, including the pages about the primary elections. The current infobox at United States presidential election, 2016 looks like a "Vote for Hillary" poster : I'm no fan of Trump - but I'm not even a citizen of the United States, so I guess that makes me relatively neutral - but I find that embarrassing. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant My main point was that those users supporting E had mostly no legitimate reason given, and have made no attempt to create a consensus among those opposed to the current photo. Calibrador (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure people really need much of a reason in such a subjective matter. Hence my emphasis on the raw number of supports and opposes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Any image with 65%+ support is a very clear winner. I would even go as far to say that any image with more than 50% support should be the chosen one. Assuming that the candidate images meet MOS:LEADIMAGE, then the best we can do is determine the most favored by counting votes.- MrX 20:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with MrX. It's definitely time to replace the current photo with photo C - in this page and the pages about the elections - and move on to more interesting things. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly becoming obvious from this past week that the same users are opposing the new photo for one reason only, Gage Skidmore took it. They always harp about "consensus" but they never do anything constructive about the actual process. They will always oppose the new photos but never give any reason why the new photo is not good or why the old photo is better other than the fact that they're just tired from all discussions in the past. Of course they support photo E, Gage Skidmore didn't take it. Their goal seems to be to replace any photo taken by him and will support any image as long as it's not his. I don't know what this personal grudge is, but it is weird. Photo C clearly has enough support for consensus now. I withdraw my suggestion from earlier especially when the only people who support E, only support it because it's not by Skidmore. TL565 (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, and hold per proposed RfC on whether WP:CONACHIEVE policy applies to decisions about choosing pictures. See comments above and Consensus Talk. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. There's no justification for delaying determining consensus in this discussion, while you propose an RfC to change a policy.- MrX 17:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Compare a relevant comment by a page admin,

I'm aware of policy, thanks. [...] If everyone wishes to continue to argue they have the best aesthetic sense, that's fine as there are no sources that tell us which is the best picture and no policy that dictates who has the best taste.

with a relevant example from the WP:RfC project page:

and the relevant policy (WP:RFCEND) as given in that page. "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments... Counting 'votes' is not an appropriate method of determining outcome." --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I think you missed NeilN's point. The "merits" of arguments about images are largely subjective and ultimately come down to personal preference. Technically, any of the images in consideration are equally valid based on policy. - MrX 20:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Per WP:CONACHIEVE, editors try to "work out the dispute using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". Here are the most relevant sources yet found, and the most objective reasonable rating factors yet identified:

Analogous picture in Britannica article lead:

microphone absent • teeth concealed • irises showing • eyebrows not elevated • anterior gaze • mostly black background (some gray) • 2010

Main picture in official biography:

microphone absent • teeth showing • irises showing • eyebrows not elevated • anterior gaze • marble background • 2011?

Main picture at Trump-Pence 2016 Campaign page

microphone absent • teeth concealed • irises concealed • eyebrows not elevated • lateral gaze • mostly gray background (some crimson) • 2016

Pictures in Trump-Pence 2016 Campaign biography

microphone absent • teeth concealed • irises concealed • eyebrows not elevated • anterior/lateral gaze • mostly deep blue or black background (some pale blue or peach) • 2013

Points: Microphone absent = +1. Eyebrows not elevated = +1. Low-contrast background = +1. Teeth, eyes, gaze, date = 0 (inconsistent).

Scores: Pic A: +3. Pic B: +3. Pic C: +1. Pic D: +2.5. Pic E: +1. Pic F: +1.

I like Pic D best. Pics A and B match the most relevant sources best. I lose. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, really??? We just completely circumvent policy and guidelines regarding consensus and disrespect that other editors of other articles should be bypassed in their opinions regarding that article's images by declaring in this discussion what the Donald Trump photo will be Wiki-wide? We will now start counting votes ("scores") instead of achieving consensus? No, no, and no. That is not how this type of thing is done and if anyone here knows that but is advocating for it anyway (I know Calibrador knows better), what the hell? It's time for more eyes on this. Before starting an RfC so more editors across Wikipedia will become involved, I'm pinging an admin for a more weighty "weigh-in". NeilN, opinion, please? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

See this. Editors can strive to achieve local consensus in all matter of ways. With something as subjective as choosing the "best picture" it may be useful to try techniques that differ from the norm. Of course, this is dependent on buy-in from interested editors. If it is felt that regular discussion will achieve consensus and not bog down then that's great. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

My larger concern beyond what you've mentioned, NeilN, is that there seems to be an idea that one decision here on one person's photo will then decide for all articles where such a photo would be included. Particularly concerning is the fact that the one-size-fits-all photo proposal is being suggested by the photographer who is pushing for his photos only in these talkpage photo popularity contests. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus to use a picture in one article does not necessarily mean that's the best picture for all articles. If there are objections, they will need to be addressed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ex wives' pics

The pics of Trump's two ex wives in "Family" section, is weirdly not right (not good). (I'm sure policy-wise it is ... UNDUE. But I suspect a greater problem, one of subtle smear against Trump, by including all wives, current & ex, as though "equal", like a tribe, like a harem. The reason I suspect this is because many Clinton campaign surrogates have propagated the idea that two divorces somehow makes Trump "immoral" and therefore unqualified/unfit to be president on that basis. That's what the inclusion of the series of pics connotes in this article.) Blue-links to the ex wives' names are what's appropriate. I doubt there's any equivalent BLP parading pics of ex wives equal to the subject's wife in "Family" section or any other BLP section. Can we please delete these excess/unnecessary/inappropriate pics? IHTS (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, remove. If there are available pics of Trump with these former wives, particularly while married, then that might be worth including in this BLP. But these photos do not strike me as very pertinent, and it's especially offensive to caption the photo of his wife as "third" IMHO, as if we are waiting for fourth and fifth. If we don't include pics of Trump's brothers and sisters, we can also do without post-marriage pics of former wives.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Remove. Undue and inappropriate.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree to remove per above reasoning. At this point we might as well add pictures of everyone at the Trump family reunions. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 07:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Remove Seems fairly unanimous especially since it was an undiscussed change, I restored the section to its previous format. Calibrador (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Congrats! Unanimous decision achieved in half an hour. Buster Seven Talk 13:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed, impressive unanimity among all of five users!

However I do see the resemblance now that one of them has drawn attention to it. Personally I think geese are cute-looking birds but of course they’re not to everyone’s taste. Crumpled Fire’s suggestion of a Trump family pic is brilliant. There’s quite a good one on Italian WP [55] but there are probably others if someone wants to dig around. I must say that, as the editor who put the goosey pics up, I’m slightly disappointed (but not altogether surprised, given the frequency of pejorative personalizations at the Trump talk pages) to be smeared as a “Clinton campaign surrogate” who wants to propagate the idea that having more than one goose wife is immoral. Let me be clear. I never judge a man’s morality by the number of his wives, and Mr. Trump's brand of morality is easily gauged by examining the record of his business practices, and searching his political policies and public utterances, for the Christian values of his self-declared Presbyterianism. Writegeist (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Glancing at the article this morning I couldn't help but notice that there are 8 photos of Trump properties. And I agree with Editor Writegeist. This thread is the very first mention of 3 wives as a smear that I have seen anywhere. If there has been any "propagation of the idea that two divorces somehow makes Trump "immoral" and therefore unqualified/unfit to be president on that basis", in the hated media, I'd like to see some evidence. Buster Seven Talk 17:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Procedural note. WP:UNDUE is a transparently specious reason for removing the photographs, as it obviously does not apply. (Please read it.) The photographs present no point of view; they simply illustrate relevant components of the text to which they are adjacent (in this case, text that already lists the three wives) —just as the photographs of the buildings do. There is no reason in policy why the photographs should not be included. Writegeist (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the policy: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to ... prominence of placement...." Including all the images reflects the view that his current wife is just as much a part of his "personal life" (header) and just as much a part of his "family" (subheader) as his former wives, and vice versa.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

When you say "..his current wife is just as much a part of his "personal life" I beg to differ. His current wife is more a part of his present personal life than his former wives. But his former wives are parents to all his adult children and grandparents to all his grandchildren. They are and will forever remain an important part of his family life. To exclude them in his gallery in no way demeans Melania. Both Ivana and Marla are substantial successful women that are mentioned in the thread and reserve a photo in the family gallery. Sorry for the sarcasm regarding the speed of achieving the previous consensus but let's all admit it was a very quick decision. Buster Seven Talk 20:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the articles of a few other divorced/remarried political candidates, since I wanted to see how Wikipedia has handled this in the past. Newt Gingrich: no photos at all of his first two wives; one of him with his current wife. Ronald Reagan: One photo of him with his first wife; numerous pictures of him with his second. John McCain: no photos of the first wife; several of him with his current wife. Rudy Giuliani: no pix of his ex-wives, one of him with his current wife. I don't find any precedent at all for including mug shots of the person's ex-wives (decorative though they may be). In fact I don't even find any with a separate picture of the person's current wife, either - only with the subject. I concur with removing them. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(inserting) The idea that stuff can’t be done on Wikipedia that hasn’t been done before on Wikipedia is reactionary to the point of perfection in the context of this particular article :) Writegeist (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(inserting) Gingrich doen't have pictures because the new wife(s) were the result of affairs plus he left the first wife in her Cancer Recovery room. Surprisingly, the Reagan article has 10 photos that include Nancy but not a single one of Jane Wyman, a very famous actress. Didn't check the other two since the dye seems cast. Buster Seven Talk 21:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There actually is one of Reagan with Jane Wyman. That was the only picture of an ex-wife that I found in the four articles I checked. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant: To give the full sentence from which you cherry-picked: “Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.” It clearly refers to the detail, quantity, placement, and juxtaposition (and several other unnamed aspects) of statements (i.e. text). As far as I know there is no view that his third wife is as much a part of his personal life and family and the previous wives—such a view would be absurdly delusional, so I don't know why you proffer it; and like a vampire, a non-existent view can’t be reflected. According to your line of (let's call it) reasoning, the presence of the wives in the text must “reflect the view” that the wives are all equally a part of his personal life and family—again, plainly absurd. The pictures simply show the people in the text. Do you think they reflect badly in some way on your favored candidate? If so, how? I'm withdrawing from this discussion now, as I have no liking for encounters with stonewalling, either here on on the Mexican border :) Writegeist (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It does seem odd to have a row of pictures of the wives. It does imply that we're waiting for numbers four and five or perhaps he was married to them all at the same time. TFD (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For that matter, how do people feel about the row of mug shots of his three adult children? I haven't seen that in other articles, either. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The captions for the children used to give their positions in the Trump Organization. I would support either restoring such captions, or else taking the approach of Italian Wikipedia by showing a group photo (perhaps cropped further).[56]. Or just leave as-is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with above, the current layout and captions only really goes to 'show' Trump's adult children (though not Tiffany). Re-add captions, look for a group photo or just leave as is would also be my suggestion. Zaostao (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Official photo

This Wikimedia Commons photo(scroll down for three cropped versions) is an official photo of the Trump campaign. So it would probably be the best one to put at the top, right? I will propose to do so, because it's obviously a vast improvement over the one at the top now. It can always be changed again, but I think an official photo is far preferable to a photo that is not official.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Not tiptop.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's official, and it's an improvement. Right? Shall we go with the full picture, or a cropped one? I favor the full one, because that's really the official one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)