Talk:Donald Trump

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

Removal of newspaper ad, Trump's first documented hint of candidacy in 1987

An open letter placed by Trump to several newspapers was removed in an edit by User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz on August 16th with the summary "fails NFCC#8, also image of copyrighted text can be replaced by limited textual excerpt if appropriate". I would respectfully submit that this image be restored. It seems to me that in the context of this article it does meet this NFCC criterion, as its omission removes the first documented speculation of Trump's presidential candidacy in national politics.

With regards to the limited textual excerpt, the copyrighted text itself is not the subject-matter the picture is meant to convey, nor the sources attached, but rather it is placed there to illustrate the letter itself as it appeared in newspapers on that date. That a full page political ad was placed by a real estate developer in several national newspapers, without any other context, is in itself significant given the subsequent events. Moreover, the fair usage of this article specifically meets Wikipedia's standard fair use license for newspapers in that it does not replace the copyrighted text itself, nor does it feature a copyrighted image, but rather illustrates the publication in question. In contrast to the superfluous nature of other images in this article, I feel this is not without its contribution. --Simtropolitan (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• "To illustrate" is not a sufficient rationale for using a nonfree image. The meaning of the statement illustrated is quite clear from its text alone; therefore the image fails to satisfy NFCC#8. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• The standard license non-free license literally states "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper pages to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question...qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." This somehow negates contextual significance? Wikipedia's own policies explicitly contradict this.--Simtropolitan (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Meeting fair use license standards is necessary, but not sufficient, to justify the use of a nonfree image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• See my first post, to say that it does not contribute any matter to the article would be, in my opinion, fallacious. When one considers this was his first formal press release of a political nature, I still hold that this does contribute to the readers understanding of the article given its unorthodox nature. I'll leave it at this until a third party addresses the matter.--Simtropolitan (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support reinstatement. (1) Most pre-1990 advertisements aren't found in searchable databases. The image illustrates that the text was indeed published. (2) It illustrates Trump's sense of graphic design as it was thirty years ago, when he first began publicly expressing his political ambitions. (Was it more/less sophisticated than his current sense of graphic design? Of architectural design?) (3) It indirectly aided my understanding by providing a clear graphic 'anchor' to the section in the body where his political ambitions are first discussed. (Perhaps it could be better positioned, though?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on whether NFCC applies to this ad, but I propose that we restore the following which is still valuable biographical information. In fact, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, why didn't you leave this text in in some form?

Trump first expressed interest in running for office in 1987, when he spent $100,000 to place full-page ads critiquing U.S. defense policy in several newspapers.

References

- MrX 21:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone object to this sentence being restored? - MrX 21:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"Terror countries"

I know Trump used the term, but what in the world are "terror countries"? Just because he uses the term doesn't mean an encyclopedia needs to pretend that it's an actual thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It's shorthand for nations with a "proven history" of terrorism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Says who? It's bad writing and non-encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

And what the hey is a "proven history of terrorism"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

"Proven history" is a phrase used four times in this BLP, e.g. "Trump later changed his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a 'proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies', or countries 'compromised by terrorism'."Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The source used the term without quotes, so we can do the same. Trump explained it, according to the source: "where you have tremendous terrorism in the world, you know what those places are." TFD (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not an explanation. We need to be careful not to put Trump-speak in Wikipedia voice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Somebody has changed the sentence in the "immigration policy" section to read "According to his campaign, his revised proposal would bar Muslims from, as he coined, but not specified it, "terror states". IMO that is awkwardly worded as well as inaccurate; his attempts to specify what he means are included in the very same paragraph. The version it replaced - "his revised proposal would not bar Muslims from non-terror countries" - was even worse, and does not appear to be true according to the source (his spokesperson refused to confirm that he would allow Muslims from peaceful countries). And it does not appear to be correct that his revised version refers to just "Muslims" from terror countries; in fact he says it would ban "people" from terror countries. Let's try to work out a consensus sentence. For now I'm just going to replace "from, as he coined, but not specified it" with "what he called "terror states". BTW according to the reference provided there, "terror states" was his spokesperson's word, not his. Do we know if he has said "terror states" or "terror countries"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not up to date with recent changes on this article and I don't have time to look at this but this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Muslims_immigration_ban) should be a fairly solid overview of the frequent changes to the Muslim ban. I agree that we should preferably not use short-hands such as "terror countries" when Trump has clarified it to refer to countries with a "proven history of terrorism". We should preferably note that Trump's categorization of which countries fall under that label remains vague. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This article [1] shows the different descriptions he has used over time. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's start over. Take another look at the whole paragraph, as currently in the article:

One of Trump's most controversial proposals was his initial plan for a "total and complete", but temporary, ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States.[417][418][419][420] Trump later changed his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism".[421][422][423] Trump said that the new proposal was not a "rollback" of his initial proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants[424] describing it as an expansion.[424] He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting".[425][423] According to his campaign, his revised proposal would bar people only from what he called "terror states".[420]

Actully that final sentence - the one that says "terror states" - is redundant anyhow. His actual current position, with "proven history" and "compromised", is already in the paragraph. The final sentence only muddies the water. I propose we simply get rid of the "terror countries" wording that is giving us so much trouble, by deleting that last sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That's fair. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the last sentence, but tweaked the rest. I think the main point here is that Trump has made the proposal territorial, and so that expands the previous position by making even some non-Muslims subject to the policy if they come from countries compromised by terrorism, whereas even Muslims would not be affected if they come from countries like Scotland that have not been compromised by terrorism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that sounds like classic original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

And when you add "because those countries have been compromised by terrorists whom they have allowed in, but he said Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned" you've once again slipped Trump speak into Wikipedia voice. Which makes it POV. Trump, and his supporters might imagine that "those countries have been compromised by terrorists" (wtf that means) but that doesn't make it true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The sentence now says (emphasis added): "He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face 'extreme vetting', because he says those countries have been compromised by terrorists who have been allowed in by those countries, but he said Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned." Everything is attributed to Trump so Wikipedia is not engaging in any Trumpspeak.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurately attributed to Trump. He has never said "Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned." That's putting words in his mouth. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

To ensure no BLP violation, I have revised it to say this: "but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree the new "tweaks" are original research and not supported by the sources. (Anythingyouwant, you really should have discussed those significant changes here where the paragraph is under discussion.) You added this sentence: "He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting" because those countries have been compromised by terrorists whom they have allowed in, but he said Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned.[425][423][420]" "He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting", because he says those countries have been compromised by terrorists who have been allowed in by those countries, but he said Scotland has not done so and therefore Muslims from Scotland would not be banned.[425][423][420]" "He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting", because he says those countries have been compromised by terrorists who have been allowed in by those countries, but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland.[425][423][420]" I don't think Trump has ever spelled it out this way. Yes, he gave France and Germany as examples of countries needing "extreme vetting" "because of people they have allowed in," and I believe he mentioned Syria as an example of a country he wouldn't allow anyone from. But all he said about Scotland was that he would be OK with Muslims from Scotland; he didn't explain why; that's OR. Furthermore, his spokeswoman specifically did NOT confirm that Muslims from peaceful nations would be OK, or that only Muslims would be subject to the "territorial" test. And Trump has never made that clear either. I think this newly added sentence is not justified, precisely because his current policy is too murky to be spelled out clearly like this. I prefer the version we had - the version I quoted above, minus its last sentence as agreed - and I think Anything's new last sentence should be reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the cited source about Scotland. The title is quite clear: "Trump now says Muslim ban only applies to those from terrorism-heavy countries". Do you disagree that the article title correctly summarizes the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The source's headline is clear but inaccurate. The spokesperson they are quoting (not Trump himself, so that's error #1) actually said "Hicks said in an email that Trump's ban would now just apply to Muslims in terror states, but she would not confirm that the ban would not apply to non-Muslims from those countries or to Muslims living in peaceful countries." That's error #2. Not all headline writers get it right. This one didn't. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the headline is inaccurate, and I suggest we resolve this issue before proceeding further. I will present detailed information to prove to you today that the headline is correct, but it will take some time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"He didn't explain why." Correct. His son did.

ERIC TRUMP, SON OF DONALD TRUMP. The difference between a Muslim faith coming from Scotland is you can actually vet them. I think my father's biggest point was ... if you have 200,000 Syrian refugees in this country, they don't have files... They are not in any kind of database.

Eric Trump, interview by Greta van Susteren, Fox News, June 27, 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

....which is not the same as the reason Anything ascribed to Trump - that Scotland had not let in terrorists and therefore Scots would not be banned. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is essentially the same. Germany has allowed in a million un-vetted Syrians this year. Scotland has not. Therefore any Muslim immigrants from Scotland to the United States can be thoroughly vetted. Anyway, this is merely background information, and I'm not suggesting to put any if it in this article as of now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyhow, not to get too bogged down in quibbles - I continue to think that this sentence should be removed, not only because it is inaccurate, but because it is TMI for this biographical article. Spell it out in that much detail at the Political positions article, not here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

From Template:Original research inline: "In the event that researched origins for the text are not produced after a relatively small passage of time (i.e., no more than a few days) ... it could be edited or otherwise removed from the article to comply with WP:OR." Could you edit accordingly, Anythingyouwant?

Any material about Muslims coming from France, Germany, and Scotland does need to be directly followed by this explanation (otherwise the material would appear unhelpful or worse, being so readily susceptible to misinterpretation). --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is an overall diff showing how I edited the article today. As you can see, the stuff about Germany and France was in there already, and I inserted an explanation (which seems to be what you're saying was needed). I also mentioned Scotland, because it would not be NPOV to only mention Germany and France. So, I deleted the last sentence per consensus above, but kept a mention of Scotland. I strongly feel that the article headline of the Jenna Johnson article in the Chicago Tribune is accurate, MelanieN disagrees, and I think we need to resolve that issue. Per Melanie's request at my talk page, I don't intend to edit this stuff again today, unless for BLP reasons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The headline incorrectly states that the new policy would apply "only" to those from terror-heavy countries. But the source for the article - the Trump spokesperson - refused to confirm the "only" part of that claim. In other words, the article text does not actually support the claim that it would "only" apply to those territories. So I want the word "only" removed from this sentence in the article: "Trump later changed his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply only to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism". Your recent revision has solved the OR/putting-words-in-his-mouth problem regarding Scotland, so the word "only" is my only remaining issue with your changes. And the larger question: should the sentence be there at all? I feel it should not. Looking for input and hopefully consensus on that question. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the word "only" is correct, and the headline is correct, and will provide evidence of that later today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Muslim ban now only applies to those from particular countries?

Here is the article by Jenna Johnson about Scotland in the Chicago Tribune. The headline says: "Trump now says Muslim ban only applies to those from terrorism-heavy countries". User:MelanieN doubts that the source's headline is accurate, because the spokesperson quoted in the article would not later confirm that the ban would not apply to Muslims living in peaceful countries.
I think the headline is correct, for several reasons. The Chicago Tribune article and headline are repeated in The Washington Post, and other reliable sources. Also, Trump said that Muslim immigration from Scotland would not bother him, and Jenna Johnson properly drew the inference that he only wants to ban Muslims from countries with heavy terrorism. The June 25 WaPo article by Johnson reports (emphasis added):

“ Donald Trump has revised his proposed ban on foreign Muslims, with spokeswoman Hope Hicks saying Saturday that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee only wants to ban Muslims from countries with heavy terrorism.....During one of four stops along the 18-hole course, a reporter asked Trump if he would be okay with a Muslim from Scotland coming into the United States and he said it "wouldn't bother me." Afterward, Hicks said in an email that Trump's ban would now just apply to Muslims in terror states, but she would not confirm that the ban would not apply to non-Muslims from those countries or to Muslims living in peaceful countries. This firm new position is a dramatic deviation from those Trump took on Dec. 7.... ”

So, we have a statement from Trump, plus a statement from Hicks, albeit one that Hicks did not repeat. So the headline accurately captures what the article says.
Let's look now at other news reports that confirm that Jenna Johnson headline. Here's a report from Fox News that included the transcript that the Jenna Johnson article used:

“ REPORTER: Yes. You said countries linked to Islamic terrorism would be blocked in terms of immigration.

DONALD TRUMP: Countries with great terrorism.
REPORTER: So would a Muslim coming from Scotland or Great Britain, have you tweaked your policy on that? So --
DONALD TRUMP: It wouldn't bother me.

”

It seems like a perfectly valid inference by reporters that this means the ban (or "extreme vetting" or whatever) applies to countries with great terrorism, not countries like Scotland and Great Britain. Likewise, CNN correspondent Sunlen Serfaty characterized Trump's remarks this way: "Trump is now softening his position, no longer supporting a ban on all Muslims coming to the U.S. just those from terror states, as long as they are vetted strongly." This yet again confirms the Jenna Johnson headline.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Inference" is another name for "Original research". Or in this case, of reporters trying to draw conclusions from some very vague and contradictory statements, putting words in his mouth that he hasn't said. Nobody from the Trump campaign has said, firmly, that the ban would NOT apply to Muslims from peaceful countries - in fact the spokesperson refused to confirm that conclusion, even though she had just said it would "just" apply to Muslims from terror states. Trump said immigrants from Scotland "wouldn't bother him". He said it while he was IN Scotland, so it may have been just a courtesy. It's a long, long way from repealing his ban for all countries not on his "terror" list (which apparently he gets to define at his whim; putting France and Germany on the list, for instance, does not meet his original definition of "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies"). Anyhow, IMO the claim that he is now proposing to ban "only" Muslims from countries on his list is unproven, and I think the word "only" should be removed. --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

So you think this BLP, including the lead, should directly contradict secondary sources including news reporters at the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and CNN because you think you understand the primary sources better than they do? I will have to disagree. Moreover, if Trump says that he supports a ban on Muslim immigration from countries compromised by terror, it's just silly to insist that he also supports such a ban for countries not compromised by terror.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Conclusions and inference again. I will believe he has dropped the ban from countries not on his "terror list" when he says so. Anyhow, leaving out "only" doesn't contradict him; it simply leaves it up in the air, which is where he has left it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No, for us to say "Trump supports a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to the United States" strongly implies all Muslim immigration to the United States, which is directly contradicted by multiple secondary sources (not to mention on multiple occasions directly by Trump and his spokesperson that I've already linked to). He said Muslim immigration from Scotland and Great Britain "don't bother" him. He's said that his ban would apply to "countries with great terror" and "countries compromised by terror", and he's explained at great length why he thinks France and Germany compromised themselves by admitting a million unscreened Syrians. I adamantly oppose misleading Wikipedia readers by saying without qualification that Trump supports a temporary ban on foreign Muslims coming to the United States. That proposal itself was temporary, and both secondary sources and primary sources clearly show it has changed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You have stated your position. I have stated mine. Time to hear from other people: should the word "only" be removed from the sentence "Trump later changed his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply only to people originating from countries with a "proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies", or countries "compromised by terrorism"." or should it be retained? --MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As of a few minutes ago, the lead was out of harmony with the body, so I fixed the lead (emphasis added): "Trump has also suggested temporarily banning foreign Muslims from entering the United States, which he later said would focus on those from countries with a 'proven history' of terrorism, and he also advocated raising the level of vetting for immigration from those nations." This uses language that you proposed in Archive 15 on 17 July 23:26 (emphasis added), "His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to 'unfair' trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP, and a proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States (which he later said would focus on those from from terrorist countries) until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots." I do believe that it was also a BLP violation for the lead to state a position which all reliable secondary sources contradict.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to stop trying to revise history of Trump's behalf. It's not an objective way to present this content. Trump's entire campaign has consisted of

1. Trump makes an outrageous policy declaration
2. Opprobrium ensues—Trump sinks in polls
3. Trump and surrogates re-explain his comments, soften his meaning, and recast everything as if the original declarations never occurred
4. Lather, rinse, repeat.

We should be presenting material chronologically, without adding equivocating phrases like "in the past", "which he later said ", and my favorite: "... his initial plan for a "total and complete", but temporary, ban on foreign Muslim" ← What does that even mean? - MrX 23:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As always, we ought to just follow the reliable sources. As to your question "what does that even mean", I suppose a total and complete and temporary ban would mean that absolutely no non-citizen Muslims would be allowed into the US for a period of time while a more permanent policy is formulated. That policy has since been modified to focus on countries with a proven history of terrorism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should follow sources: NYT: "Donald J. Trump’s proposal to bar Muslim noncitizens from entering the United States, at least temporarily"; CNN" "they do not support his proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the U.S"; USN: "Trump's proposal to temporarily block Muslims from coming into the United States.".- MrX 00:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you denying that reliable secondary sources have reported that he has modified his approach to focus on particular countries instead of all countries? The sources are quoted above and at Archive 15. It's not my fault he modified his position. If he hadn't modified it, then I'd be 100% for saying the policy today is what he initially announced. I think Melanie is correct that the "focus" of the policy has changed, and he isn't bothered by Muslim immigration from some countries. You want us to just ignore that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If you take a couple of words from each source, I suppose you could write Shakespeare, but we're not supposed to be doing that. If he changes his policies, that's new information—not a reason to completely change the meaning of the material that already exists. On a similar note, the last sentence of the Immigration policies section include this bizarre construct: "...but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland." This is off-handed comment is not appropriate for an encyclopedic summary of Trump's immigration policies. - MrX 00:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

We cannot continue to say or imply that "Trump's position is X" if he has changed it to "Y". Regarding Scotland, on what basis have you determined that his statement was off-handed? He was answering a direct question from a national news network reporter, not overheard muttering to a friend. I don't see how it could be NPOV to mention Germany and France without mentioning his very different position with regard to Scotland. You want us to only mention Germany and France but not Scotland?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Q:"Have you tweaked your policy on that also?"; A: "It wouldn't bother me." Great, but that wasn't the question. If his policy de jour is to allow Muslims from Anglo Saxon countries, then he should say so in a policy statement, then sources would say so, then we could add it to the article. We shouldn't be adding vague interview answers and misleading our readers into believing that Trump has minted a brand new immigration policy.- MrX 01:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I know you would never deliberately mangle a primary source, so I'll just point out that the question (already quoted above) was this: "So would a Muslim coming from Scotland or Great Britain, have you tweaked your policy on that?" Fortunately, we don't have to rely on primary sources because plentiful secondary sources are available. Your remark about Anglo Saxon countries is your personal invention as well, as neither Trump nor any other sources have made such a distinction. The distinction he has made is between countries "compromised" by terrorism (i.e. having a "proven history" of terrorism) versus other countries. This BLP is about Trump, not MrX's personal caricature of Trump, though maybe you could try starting such article (good luck with that). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Scotland's Celtic, MrX.

For nine centuries did we fight the cursed "Anglo Saxons"... --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I know. - MrX 02:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion, again, shows that it is senseless to discuss with pro-Trump-people. The deletion of the Trump-Phrase "terror states" (including threating the editor who put it in on his talk page) shows that many pro-Trump-editors here are trying to white-wash this article in every sentence. It is totally impossible to write some real facts about the narcissistic and irrational behaviour of Donald Trump, because the Pro-Trump-fraction will put all this in endless discussions on the talk page. Trump uses racist language "banning all muslims" and that is the fact. All the crazy wischy-waschy talk afterwards (immigrants from Germany and France will be "extremly vetted", but Scotland is okay), are pure deception, window-dressing the racist baseline which is clearly communicated by Trump and which is continuously kept out of this article for the reason of white-washing. This whole article is just a shame for everything what wants to be called an encyclopedia. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, you wrote: "The deletion of the Trump-Phrase 'terror states' (including threating the editor who put it in on his talk page) shows that many pro-Trump-editors here are trying to white-wash this article in every sentence." I never objected to including the term "terror states". It's one of several descriptions that have been reported to explain which countries could not send Muslim migrants to the United States. Other descriptions are "countries compromised by terror" and "countries with a proven history of terrorism". The term "terror states" is fine for us to use, as long as further explanatory description is given, though maybe that explanatory description is enough without the term "terror states".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump isn't the man for reasonable description. (Redacted) --Jensbest (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant: If nothing else, it seems like we agree that we should rely on sources. Can you please produce a couple of reliable sources that say "Trump's proposed immigration policy includes an exemption for Muslims from Scotland?- MrX 01:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Making a late dinner right now for two. Will reply later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MrX asked: "Can you please produce a couple of reliable sources that say Trump's proposed immigration policy includes an exemption for Muslims from Scotland?" Yes, I can provide sources that specifically describe a Scotland exemption, plus sources that say Trump’s immigration policy includes an exemption for Muslims from any country that is not compromised by terrorism, or that has no proven history of terrorism, which of course would include a Scotland exemption:

• ”During one of four stops along the 18-hole course, a reporter asked Trump if he would be okay with a Muslim from Scotland coming into the United States and he said it ‘wouldn't bother me.’”[2][3]

• "Donald Trump said today it "wouldn't bother me" if Scottish Muslims went to the United States — seeming to move away from the temporary ban on all foreign Muslims going to the United States that he has called for throughout his presidential campaign."[4]

• "When pressed by reporters for details on his national-security policies, Mr. Trump said he would block immigrants from 'countries with great terrorism.' Muslims from Scotland or other parts of Great Britain 'wouldn’t bother me,' he said."[5]

• "Mr. Trump offered a slightly new formulation: The ban would be geographical, not religious, applying to 'areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies.' But not just any kind of terrorism, he clarified on Twitter two hours later: The ban was only for nations 'tied to Islamic terror.' Then ... last weekend, Mr. Trump said he would allow Muslims from allies like the United Kingdom to enter...."[6]

• ”Donald Trump has revised his proposed ban on foreign Muslims, with spokeswoman Hope Hicks saying Saturday that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee only wants to ban Muslims from countries with heavy terrorism….”[7][8]

• ”Trump is now softening his position, no longer supporting a ban on all Muslims coming to the U.S. just those from terror states, as long as they are vetted strongly.”[9]

• "the ban would be focused on "terrorist" countries, shifting from his previous proposal of 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'"[10]

• "His spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, told CNN Saturday that Trump supports barring only Muslims from 'terror states,' not all Muslims."[11]

Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

In the quotes provided at the beginning of the sub-section from this source, Trump was apparently responding to a question from a reporter who asked about Muslims from GB and Scotland specifically.

Currently the article reads:

....but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland.

based on the sources, I think it would be more accurate to say:

.... but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from countries like Scotland.

CFredkin (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin: No, that would not be accurate. To extrapolate "from Scotland" to claim he meant "from countries like Scotland" is Original Research and not supported by anything Trump actually said. The question he was asked, and answered, was specifically about "Scotland and the United Kingdom," and he refused to expand on his answer. When a reporter in Scotland asked a followup question to clarify Trump's "it wouldn't bother me" response, Trump walked away without answering.[12] --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The NY Times interpreted it like CFredkin: "Mr. Trump offered a slightly new formulation: The ban would be geographical, not religious, applying to 'areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies.' But not just any kind of terrorism, he clarified on Twitter two hours later: The ban was only for nations 'tied to Islamic terror.' Then ... last weekend, Mr. Trump said he would allow Muslims from allies like the United Kingdom to enter...."[13]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The first two sentences in the second paragraph of Donald Trump#Immigration policies already covers that. The additional text, "He has stated that immigrants from France and Germany could face "extreme vetting", because he says those countries have been compromised by terrorists who have been allowed in by those countries, but said he would not be bothered by Muslim immigration from Scotland." is not necessary and does not serve to enlighten our readers.- MrX 13:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

In my personal opinion I believe it's time that Trump's portrait be updated. The current photograph depicts him from August 2015, which was a year ago, and his head is slightly tilted. I feel that a more stable, straight and professional photograph should replace his portrait as well as on the United States presidential election, 2016 page. There are several photos of him that are labeled for reuse because they're already on the Commons. Here was the best alternative I could find on the Commons.

I would like to generate consensus for this photo to replace the portrait. CatcherStorm ^talk 21:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• No. He's looking away, frowning and it's not his best angle. Compare it to Hillary Clinton. We need a picture of Trump looking into/smiling at the camera, with a US flag in the background. Let us treat them as equals.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. In my opinion, the best we're going to get is this one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant: Oh no, he's squinting on that one. That would be terrible. The one we have now is fine, except we need a smile and a US flag to make sure no animal is more equal than the other...Zigzig20s (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: No, we shouldn't compare the two when making articles for them. We only need an accurate and decent quality picture that represents the subject. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but they are both running for the same office and yes, we need to treat them equally and make sure one picture does not give either candidate an unfair advantage.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, they should be the same quality and all that, but we don't need to go on a manhunt for identical pictures for them. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Wikipedia strives to have verifiable articles, free from original research, that are written from a neutral point of view. Trying to avoid giving either candidate an "unfair advantage" (however you happen to define either of those words) is not one of our primary goals.

If your main focus is on the electoral implications of our articles, maybe you should rethink why you are here and whether your goals align with those of this project. Graham (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop trying to discourage me from editing. Sure, the content needs to rely on reliable third-party sources. The pictures, however, need to treat both candidates equally.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm encouraging you to edit with the goals of this project in mind. I think there's a reason that you don't dispute that your interests are electoral in nature. It would be worth your while to consider whether that is actually reconcilable with the values of this project. Graham (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm encouraging you to stop assuming bad faith (or stop talking to me if you can't do that). I am only interested in improving content. My political opinions are irrelevant. Wikipedia editors are irrelevant; it's the content that matters. Please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I made no reference to your holding any particular political opinion. I said that you were concerned about the electoral implications of Wikipedia articles. That is not an assumption on my part. You just stated "we need to treat them equally and make sure […] not [to] give either candidate an unfair advantage." From that, one can infer that electoral implications are, at the very least, a factor that you are taking into account when making editorial decisions (at least with respect to photos).

As you can see, there was no need for assumptions (of good or bad faith) on my part in order to see that. I would appreciate not to be accused of "assuming bad faith" when I am but reading what you wrote just a few paragraphs above this one. Graham (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

They are both running for the same office. We have a responsiblity to treat them equally. I am not interested in going around in circles with you--please stop talking to me--I am busy with more important research at present.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

We could work together on the history of organized labor at some point--as long as it's productive work and content-oriented--just not now--too busy.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s: I regret to have to tell you that Graham's complaints seem justified, at least to this editor. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No. We can't have DYKs for political candidates for example. We have a culture of treating political candidates equally. Sorry I must finish reading two academic articles right now, no time to go around in circles with you guys! Please respect my time.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree that you're right to do so (rather than go around in circles with us). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, to be honest, that one looks awful. And not because of Zigzig's reasons. Graham (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose because of the angle, in part. Graham (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. You need to convince people that this pic is better than the current one. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump (14235998650) (cropped)

Donald Trump portrait

Donald Trump January 2016

UPDATE, here are several other photos. CatcherStorm ^talk 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to update: All awful, except for number 2 perhaps, but the one we have at the moment is much better. Maybe the campaign will upload a better picture (smiling, looking into the camera, US flag in the background), but until then, let's refocus on more important things.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, Zigzig20s. Not yet. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes on top photo.

See Adding images: "Focus on uploading images that can ... illustrate the text of an article." Let's posit that the images at Trump Organization and Trump for President well illustrate Trump in his capacities as (A) businessman and (B) nominee. What do those photos have in common?

1. They're professional quality, not Twitter quality. They "enhance the subject's appearance with natural or artificial light". (See "Photographers", Occupational Outlook Handbook.)

2. Trump's head looks stable and straight, not mobile or tilted.

3. His expression looks natural and self-assured, not posed or quizzical.

We can reasonably infer that the proposed image illustrates Trump best. The current image fails 1-3 and can be removed for being poorly representative. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC) 07:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

We really need him looking into the camera. The current picture is the best one to "illustrate the text of the article".Zigzig20s (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The current picture shows him looking away from the camera, Zigzig20s. Not "into the camera."

In addition, the photo appears in the Infobox, where the text describes Trump as both a "businessperson" and a "politician". Trump's business website shows him looking into the camera; his campaign website, away from the camera. We can show him either way. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Kek, that awkward moment that no one realizes that Image 1 actually gives him "demon eyes" .--Stemoc 04:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• None of the above. The proposed new picture is awful - looking up at him from below, emphasizing a saggy chin and lines on his face, and he is frowning. The other three proposed ones are not much better. The first has a twisted half smile, and his hair is doing something strange. The second is a frown. The third is a sappy, unnatural smile. None of them improve on the one currently in the article, which makes him look alert, curious, attentive, and natural. He is a guy who does not photograph well (in fact most pictures seem to show him with strange expressions on his face) but the photo currently in the article seems to have captured a rather sympathetic Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for providing both your personal esthetic judgment and your reasons for that judgment, MelanieN. (To me, however, the proposed photo makes him look like a leader set against some military, political, or business foe.)

Yes, the current photo does capture a comparatively "sympathetic Trump". But that's my point, Melanie. None of the images at trump.com or donaldjtrump.com show him looking sympathetic.

And almost none of the article text makes him sound sympathetic. (Cf. Adding images.)

Moreover, not much of the body of reliable sources on the subject does either. Based on your comment, the current image fails BALASPS.

If you have time, check out the pictures on Trump's websites. Two (of four) "look up at him from below". None show him looking even slightly "curious". Rather, they show him looking self-determined. The article text shows him in that light too, as do the majority of reliable sources.

Wouldn't you agree that the proposed photo does as well? (But maybe we should take a second look at it tomorrow.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should not actively try to make a political candidate look bad or unsympathetic. I can't believe I have to state the obvious. We are neutral. We wouldn't change Hillary's picture to her "What difference at this point, does it make" exasperated look. Ergo, Trump's current picture is fine as User:MelanieN explained and if we can find a better one (smiling, US flag), we will.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." — WP:BALASPS.

"aspect ... is frequently used to indicate changes in the observer's point of view or specific compartmenting of his notions." "aspect ... suggests a characteristic or habitual appearance, especially facial expression, but most commonly is applied to nonconcrete things." — Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary.

BALASPS is policy and it applies to both text (in sense 1) and images (in senses 1 and 2). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous; you are reading too much into our policy guidelines. But by your rationale, Trump is very patriotic (he wants to make America great again!), so we should definitely have a US flag in the background!Zigzig20s (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS emphasizes the problem of recentism (discussed in detail at WP:10 year test). Trump has spent 50 years as a businessman, 2 as a politician. The background in his official portrait is gold, not red, white, or blue. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Should we have a picture of Hillary in a Walmart boardroom? Anyway. I think we should tone down the nonsense. There is an election going on; we have to be responsible and treat both candidates equally. That's not recentist. It certainly would not be appropriate to use the infobox picture to belittle Trump or Hillary.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It neither would be nor is. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Current infobox image is fine. Zigzig20s, please let it go. You've stated your opinion numerous times now and the back and forth needs to stop. Enough, already. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 09:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have just contacted the Trump campaign through email requesting a professional portrait (Mr. Trump smiling into the camera, US flag in background, good angle, good lighting). I have also asked for a portrait that I can use under CC-BY-SA 3.0. CatcherStorm ^talk 10:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, you seen to be arguing that it would violate BALASPS to show a "sympathetic" picture of Trump (by which I mean a picture that, if not exactly flattering, at least makes him look like a normal, decent human being). You argue against this because "almost none of the article text makes him sound sympathetic". The text is what it is; it contains quite a bit of well-sourced negative material; IMO it is appropriately balanced. That doesn't mean we have to seek out a picture that illustrates the worst aspects of his biography. The infobox picture is normally one that the subject him/herself might choose or be comfortable with; in the case of officials, it's almost always their official portrait. And it's not the only picture in the article. In addition to the infobox image there are nine other pictures of Trump in the article (three of him alone and six with other people). Surely that is a wide enough selection to provide "balance" so that we can allow a reasonably attractive picture in the inbox. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN! I'm arguing that we should show a picture that's analogous to the photos at trump.com and donaldjtrump.com. Those photos do "make him look like a normal, decent human being." I personally think they're "reasonably attractive". I didn't (and wouldn't) say they "illustrate the worst aspects of his personality". Nor, I think, does the proposed May 2015 photo, which I did and do support. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And are those pictures available per copyright status? If so, propose them here and let's talk about them. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think User:CatcherStorm's approach is very good.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so, but i doubt his staff understand anything about 'creative commons' licenses...it will be a waste of time, I remember someone sending a similar requesting in February, did not get a reply...and also, if they do agree, then Catcher has to send the email and the image to OTRS before it can be used...just claiming that the Trump staff have approved a certain image for use is just not good enough..--Stemoc 08:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Could a NYC-based Wikipedian try to call them and upload the picture with them? I think that would be ideal.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:CatcherStorm: Did you try to contact them through this? To be honest, I don't think they have the time to read those.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I sent an email today to Hope Hicks, seeking pic. We'll see.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump's staff actually do "understand ... about 'creative commons' licenses", Stemoc. And the photo on the left in the main section of "About Donald J. Trump" is CC BY-SA 2.0.

Credit: Gage Skidmore, photograph of Donald Trump at 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Md., March 15, 2013.

Authority: Creative Commons. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

We need a smile and a flag though.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not, Zigzig20s. The infobox gives his primary occupation as "businessperson", not "politician". Per Adding images, the photo can illustrate him as a businessman. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There's an election. We can't give an unfair advantage to Hillary with a smile and a flag. I'm sure we could look for arcane policy guidelines to make Trump look worse than Hillary and try to influence low-information voters subliminally, but we don't want to do that. I know you don't want to do that--I know you want to treat them as equals. Wikipedia should not be Animal Farm.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, your POV is showing. The only POV you should have -all editors here should have- is in the interest of Wikipedia as a neutral, encyclopedic entity. What's more, an infobox photo isn't going to influence anyone's vote. You're also now deep into personal attack territory. Cool it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig, I have come to agree with what many others here have told you: your determination that the picture must include "a smile and a flag" has no consensus or support here. Please accept that no one else agrees that "a smile and a flag" are requirements for the infobox picture, or that Trump's picture must include the exact same elements as Clinton's for purposes of "equal treatment". You have not convinced anyone of this, and your continued insistence on it is approaching disruptive. Please drop it and don't bring it up again. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I actually think treating them as equals would be the most neutral thing to do. But I've made my point.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

They are different people. At the risk of sounding snide, should she also have orange hair? There has been way too much discussion of photos on Trump-related articles. To use an ancient quote: "When you will make an end of it?" Objective3000 (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead changes 23 August 2016

CFredkin, this wasn't a constructive revert. You reverted 7 of my changes all in one fell swoop, simply saying that the additions weren't sufficiently notable. Several of my changes weren't additions of content so notability has nothing to do with it. I broke my edit up into pieces and included an edit summary for each one specifically so that other editors could consider each part separately. Please self-revert the portions you don't have a problem with. As for notability, Trump's falsehoods and his birtherism have both received extremely heavy coverage in the news. Birtherism coverage was discussed above in the section titled "POV lead." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me like CFredkin carefully preserved all of your edits except those to the lead. True, your first edit to the lead did not introduce new material, but your second did, so maybe CFredkin could be faulted for reverting the first lead edit; personally, I don't think the reorganization in the first lead edit was needed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

After looking more closely at the first edit to the lede, I agree that it was beneficial. I've restored that portion. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Was Trump a real birther or was he trying to get Obama to release his full birth certificate? I'm not 100% certain, but I thought I read somewhere awhile back that he questioned why the long form certificate had not been released, but acknowledged the Hawaii birth certificate. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

SW3, it would probably be best if you would look at the sources cited in this Wikipedia article on the matter, and also look at other reliable sources you can find, to get an answer to your question. Me giving you my own view would not be as useful as consulting sources that are more reliable than a mere Wikipedia editor (infallible though I am!).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, what about these three edits? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with those three edits. It would have probably been simpler to make those edits before inserting the controversial stuff rather than after, but I don't see why those three edits cannot be restored. I do object to removal from the body of the article that the birther controversy was already "longstanding" when Trump got into it. The thing had been going on from 2008 to 2011, and instead we make it sound like Trump started the whole thing. Actually, he was pivotal in ending it; the whole controversy subsided greatly once the certificate was released. I believe that a firm consensus is needed to remove the longstanding description of the controversy as "longstanding". Regarding his 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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've restored these edits as well. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I did agree with CFredkin's removal of "false" (in Wikipedia's voice) from the lede, but I assumed Trump's frequent falsehoods were mentioned somewhere in the article - as they are at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Campaign misstatements. To my surprise I don't find anything about that here. There needs to be at least a sentence about this somewhere in this article, since it is well documented. Likewise, I think there needs to be a sentence about the birtherism stuff - an issue which he revived long after it had died out, and which (according to some polls) more than half of Republicans now believe, thanks to him.[14] --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Is your concern about the importance of the falsehoods, or is it the use of "false" in Wikipedia's voice? Also, are you proposing that the birtherism remain in the lead section or just that it be included in the article? Because it does have a couple of sentences in "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015". --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If birtherism is in the article (I missed it) then that's enough. Yes, my concern was with having "false" in the lead and in Wikipedia's voice. I believe there should be a sourced sentence or two about this in the body of the text somewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I agree that the birtherism paragraph needs not just the word "longstanding", it needs rewriting. This version makes it sound like something Trump was the first to come up with, when actually he just revived and re-publicized an old meme. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

To assert that the birther issue is "not notable" is ridiculous, particularly since it's closely related to Trump deciding to run for president [15] [16].Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Right... particularly since he provided no indication that he was interested in running for President prior to 2011.CFredkin (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm splitting this out since we're getting all crossed up. This section is about the lead section. If we're going to talk about birtherism outside of the lead section, please start a new thread.

False

Melanie, I'm sorry but I don't understand your concern about adding "false" to the lead section. Trump's many falsehoods have received enormous coverage by impeccable sources such as the ones I cited from Factcheck.org and PolitiFact. There are of course many more. "False" is not a subjective or loaded term; it's purely factual. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's factual and sourced, but it cannot be said in Wikipedia's voice. It should be said in the body of the article, with sources (Politifact would be the best one). --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Melanie, what policy or guideline are you relying on? Neutrality? I'm not aware of any sources saying Trump hasn't made many false statements during so campaign, so are you objecting to the language? Or undue emphasis? The fact that verifiable facts paint the subject of an article in a bad light doesn't make their inclusion non-neutral. Are you saying Trump's falsehoods haven't been one of the most noteworthy aspects of his campaign? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's another editor's concern, Dr. Fleischman. Merely claiming the sources are "impeccable" doesn't make them so.

"Begging the question -- that is, assuming as true the very claim that's disputed -- is a form of circular argument, divorced from reality." — Lunsford.

The reality: Factcheck.org and PolitiFact are flawed sources, not "impeccable sources". Also they're narrow-circulation sources, not mainstream (broad-circulation) sources. For more about RS publications see the WP:RSVETTING essay.

Don't use either source to support contentious material anywhere in a BLP. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Do PolitiFact and FactCheck.org fact-check every statement by the presidential candidates? If not, how do they decide what statements to fact-check? Is there some objective criteria? As far as I'm aware, these organizations don't take any systematic approach to selecting the statements to analyze. Given that, I think we have to be careful about extrapolating out any broader characterizations about the candidates based on an aggregation of their work.CFredkin (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding me? Do we need to go to RSN to confirm that PolitiFact and FactCheck.org widely considered two of the most reliable outlets that exist? Yes, they are impeccable and if either of you disagree then I'd love to hear what you think is more reliable. Name a reliable news outlet and there's a good chance they've reported on Trump's many falsehoods. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

My statement above made no assertions regarding the reliability of those 2 sources.CFredkin (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but the sources say that Trump made many, many false statements and you are questioning the reliability of those assertions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Are you guys kidding me?" Answer: No, Dr. Fleischman, we're not. Neither of those outlets has enough paid circulation or advertising to hire high-quality journalists. See WP:RSVETTING ("A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and greater likelihood of employing top-tier people"). Their readership is just too small. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well if we reach a standstill on this issue then I will take it to RSN, where I'd put money on the result. In any case, you didn't answer my question: can you give me an example of a news outlet you'd consider more reliable? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute, Dervorguilla. Our definition of Reliable Sources has nothing to do with paid circulation or advertising. Nothing! Some of the most UNreliable sources in the country have huge circulations and advertising. Our definition of a Reliable Source, per WP:RS, is "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Note: WP:RS is an official guideline; RSVETTING is an essay. Read the notice at the top of that page about essays.) That certainly applies to PolitiFact and FactCheck.org. They take comments or assertions - that is, testable statements asserting facts - and compare them to the actual facts, and they use that to rate the truthfulness of the assertion. Their research is transparent, the facts they use for comparison are given, and their ratings are pretty much the standard for the truthfulness of political commentary. Politifact found Donald Trump to make so many false assertions that they couldn't even single one out for their "lie of the year" award for 2015; they awarded it to "The campaign misstatements of Donald Trump."[17] This is what we are talking about when we say his untruthfulness is well documented. I still maintain it should not go unsourced into the lede; but it definitely needs to be in the body of the article, and I will try to come up with a suggested wording. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well said. However my proposal all along has been that it go sourced into the lede, not unsourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal because it doesn't affect the flow of the sentence as much. I agree with you on the sources, politifact and factcheck.org are both suitable. ~ Henry ^TALK 00:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:PSTS policy says to be cautious about basing large passages on opinion pieces. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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. That won't get you very far. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

We're not getting anywhere here. I'm going to start an RFC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman: I'm citing the opinion sources to support a passage in a talk-page reply, not an article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Every major news outlet has been criticized by someone who didn't like something they wrote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

But see US newspapers by total circulation:

Wall Street Journal, 2.4 million; New York Times, 1.9 million; USA Today, 1.7 million.

And see BBC News:

"...the world's largest broadcast news organisation..."

--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Birtherism and 2000 Reform Party

I added the birther sentence to the lead section in part because I thought it was considerably more important than the sentence about Trump's 2000 flirtation with the Reform Party nomination. Thus, when I added the birther sentence it was a replacement of the Reform Party sentence. Do people think the the birtherism was less biographically significant than the Reform Party stuff? If not can we please remove the Reform Party sentence? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

For sure, the 2000 presidential run was taking too much space in the lead so I boldly shortened it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not think the source says "In 2011 [Trump] repeatedly and publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship and eligibility to be President." At least that is not what he did. He questioned why Obama did not release his long form birth certificate, which Obama eventually did.[18] TFD (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"The more Mr. Trump questioned the legitimacy of Mr. Obama’s presidency, the better he performed in the early polls of the 2012 Republican field".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing the language if it doesn't quite reflect the reliable sources. But, as both the body of this article and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Donald Trump say, Trump did more than question why Obama didn't release the long form birth certificate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. He didn't then let it go after the "long form" birth certificate was released in 2011. Even though Trump took credit for the long form birth certificate release, he didn't drop it. He continued pushing for more records in 2012. As recently as 2015 he said he "didn't know" if Obama was born in the U.S. or not, and "I don't know why he wouldn't release his records".[19] It's Trump's pushing of this issue, both overtly and wink-wink, that has a majority of Republicans believing it. The birther thing is a signature issue for him. But it may not need to be in the lede of this biography; in the text is probably enough. Dr. Fleischman, why do you find it and the Reform Party issue mutually exclusive? Why can't they both be there? --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The Reform Party sentence sticks out like a sore thumb as being relatively non-noteworthy compared to both the birther stuff and the rest of the lead section material. Trump flirted with a presidential bid for 2012 in connection with his birther campaign, and I believe that got a lot more media attention. There's no reason why 2000 gets space in the lead and 2012 doesn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned, I shortened that material in the lead today about the 2000 candidacy so it's now very concise: "He briefly ran for president in 2000 but withdrew before any votes were cast." My feeling is that actually announcing a candidacy for president is a major milestone in a person's life, right up there with the person's date of birth and full middle name. Doesn't the shortening of this sentence make it more acceptable? Before, it said: "He briefly sought the Reform Party's nomination in the 2000 presidential election but withdrew prior to any primary contests."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur with that change and believe it should remain in the lead. Including the 2000 candidacy (which was significant enough that we have an article about it) in the lede is entirely independent of where to mention birtherism; they are unrelated. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's incorrect that Trump's pushing caused a majority of Republicans to doubt eligibility. Here's an archived version of Wikipedia's birther article shortly before Trump got involved. It cites a poll saying 58% of Republicans already had doubts about his citizenship and eligibility.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The source above for 2015 indicates that he was responding to a question. The body of this article states that it was during a 6 week period in 2011 that he really pushed the issue. Compared to the things he's done in his career, and the things he's said in this presidential campaign (over a much longer period of time), I just don't see why this rises to the level of being ledeworthy.CFredkin (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we please just put DrFleischman's edit back? It's pretty clear that CFredkin is gaming DS to make POV WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT edits by removing any piece of text, no matter how relevant or well sourced and then running around repeating "don't restore! don't restore! discretionary sanctions! discretionary sanctions!". My good faith hath runneth out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I can see how CFredkin's edit summary might suggest that, but it's important to assume good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

After that edit, he self-reverted much of it, so I don't think his edits as a whole might suggest that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No, but the bit about DS was unprovoked and unnecessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're making an (incorrect) assumption that the reference to DS was directed at you or anyone in particular.CFredkin (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

He did not self-revert the removal of the sentence "In 2011 he repeatedly and publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship and eligibility to be President. In June 2015, ", which is the bone of contention here. He self-reverted some minor stuff instead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well sure, removing new content in the lead does not necessarily have anything to do with "gaming the system". I agree with Melanie that having the birther stuff in the text is probably enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a sentence that could go in both the body and lead:

Trump has said that he "single-handedly forced President Obama to release his birth certificate" after failed efforts by Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Several other reputable sources are available, but 1-3 have the broadest circulations. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No, we cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that Hillary Clinton wanted Obama to release his "long form" just because Trump says she did. More generally, let's keep this out of the lead, please. Trump's had lots of big or even bigger controversies (Judge Curiel, Mrs. Khan, Cruz's father, etc.).Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with AYW that Dervorguilla's proposal won't work--both on verifiability and importance grounds. However I disagree about comparing the birther thing to the campaign controversies. The birther campaign was more than a controversy, it was a sustained campaign that has drawn sustained media coverage for years and laid the foundation for his 2016 run. And the campaign controversies are already in the lead with the reference to Trump's many controversial statements during the campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would not object to saying something like "before and during the campaign". Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed a partial rewrite of the "birther" paragraph in the "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015" section, see below. I think this paragraph is sufficient to cover the matter and it does not need to be in the lede (we can't possibly mention every controversial thing he has said in the lede). As for mentioning Hillary Clinton or John McCain in this context, as if to imply that they also had doubts about Obama's birth or citizenship, I absolutely oppose that. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, Trump's birtherism was more than just another controversial statement, it was a sustained campaign that laid the foundation for his 2016 run. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This definitely should not be in the lede. It's a non-issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump's claim about president's grandmother

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".[20]

That was removed today by a bold edit without prior talk page discussion.[21]

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."[22]

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."[23]

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".[24]

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 [25] 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,[26] Trump echoed a "birther" demand that Obama release a "long form" birth certificate as well.[27][28] He also repeated a debunked claim that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya.[29]
• 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,[30] 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 [[31]].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)

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, reviving 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. He also repeated a debunked claim that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya. Trump claimed he had sent investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but there is no evidence that he actually did so. 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. 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)

Trump's new immigration stance

[32], 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.[33] 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. [34] 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)

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)

• Strong support - His frequent false statements, as noted by Pulitzer Prize winning sources, have become a staple of his campaign [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44].- 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 characterizes PolitiFact as "fundamentally dishonest" for mislabeling opinion pieces as 'fact checks'. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:21, 27 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)

• 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: [45] [46] [47] [48]. 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 ([49]). "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. [50] 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. [51] --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 Wall Street Journal has characterized PolitiFact as "fundamentally dishonest" for calling its opinion pieces 'fact checks'. Also, Time 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.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:24, 26 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." Time appears to be questioning the accuracy of PolitiFact's language. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:45, 26 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)

Time 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)

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"), Time appears to be saying that PolitiFact may sometimes have a "desire" to sell unrestrained ridicule. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:42, 27 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)

Comment: 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.[52][53]- 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. 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)

Neutrality tag in Campaign section

Can someone please point me to the discussion associated with the POV tag here? ThanksCFredkin (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The tag was added by Cwobeel with the summary: "This section is supposed to be a summary of the related main article." I don't believe there was any discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If no such discussion was initiated by the 'tagger" the tag can, and should, be removed. Buster Seven Talk 22:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It needs discussion first. And, a chance to sort the problem so a tag isn't even needed. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

What problem? Cwobeel never identified what the problem is, and never started a discussion. IMO we should just remove the tag. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If there's no discussion, there should be no tag. Cwobeel, any comment? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Tag has been removed. Buster Seven Talk 15:55, 27 August 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. ([54] [55] [56] [57]) 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.[58] 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)

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".[59] --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)