Talk:Donald Trump

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

RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements

Should the lead section, which currently says:

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

be changed to read (changes in bold):

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

The proposed sources are:

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

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

References

notes added by Anythingyouwant

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

• Strong support - His frequent false statements, as noted by Pulitzer Prize winning sources, have become a staple of his campaign [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].- MrX 18:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support for adding "or false"- His covert, coded and often repeated rhetoric is most often deceitful and without specific regret afterwards. Examples are abundant and can be found with very little effort. Buster Seven Talk 18:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Fact checking organizations are often controversial. Indeed, I've seen accusations of a liberal bias many MANY times, and I've seen precious little refuting those accusations (except memes with pithy little comments like "The facts have a liberal bias"). That being said, I'm not at all convinced that those accusations are true. Politifact has given every candidate this season except Sanders at least one "Pants on Fire" rating. Factcheck.org has slammed Clinton, Sanders, Stein, Johnson and Trump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources MrX provided above are a good starting point. Some others: [11] [12] [13] [14]. 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 ([15]). "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. [16] 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. [17] --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JFG's argument is expressly contradicted by our BLP policy, which says that in the case of public figures, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The reason we don't have that parade of horribles in our lead section is because, as extensively hashed out on this talk page, there aren't reliable sources to support any of it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see your point, but if we're going to include attribution, it needs to encompass to full range of debunkers: fact checking organizations; major newspapers, magazines and news programs; professors; and his friend, Mark Cuban.[18][19]- MrX 16:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Mr Ernie: In ascending order of magnitude:

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

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

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

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

  @Chase:

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

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

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

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

References

Graham, a lot of this is indeed rhetorical. Fact-checking organizations ought to fact-check statements that have a clear meaning, but instead they often focus on snippets that have an ambiguous meaning, or they take statements literally that are obviously not meant to be taken literally. I'll just address your first example. In context, Trump said this about David Duke: "[D]id he endorse me, or what's going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists."[20] So, in context, he was saying that he didn't know anything about David Duke endorsing him. You seriously think Trump expected anyone to believe that he did not know what a white supremacist is? Sheesh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"nothing he says in exact words can be proved to false". Sorry, CCamp. Sorry, Anythingyouwant. Even if you think Graham's examples are possibly open to interpretation, there are many, many things he says that are simply, objectively false: 1) at least 17 times (and counting) he has insisted he never said something that he documentedly did say.[21] 2) "South Korea doesn't pay the U.S. anything for out troops there." WRONG. 3) "The U.S. is the only country in the world that has birthright citizenship." WRONG. 4) "Illegal immigration is at an all time high." (It's actually the lowest since 2003, and the lowest from Mexico since the 1940s.)[22] There are dozens and dozens of these things that are simply, factually wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

User:MelanieN, was it a lie when you quoted Trump as saying "The U.S. is the only country in the world that has birthright citizenship"? I can't seem to find that quote on google.[23] If you consider the percentage of humans who live in countries that have birthright citizenship, omitting the United States, the percentage is miniscule. AFAIK, the actual honest quote from Trump is this: "almost every other country anywhere in the world doesn't have that". Which is true, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

And guess what - Mexico IS one of the countries that has birthright citizenship. So yes, his statement (even with the later added qualifier "almost") is false. [24] --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I have replied at your user talk page.[25]Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support with attribution and citations within the text. But that said, I'm aware of efforts to excuse and/or excise Trump's factual failings when there is an attempt to include them within the text, often on the grounds that this is his biography, not his campaign article. Yet his mendacity does seem to be on another level, going well beyond the bounds of that "all politicians lie" chestnut, which to my mind is an inadequate rebuttal. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Responding to a note from a few days ago on my talk page. It's not clear to me if this is moot at the moment as it seems to have been closed. I oppose this kind of language, but would prefer a sentence saying that "the truthfulness of many of his comments has been widely disputed since the commencement of his campaign," or something to that effect. I don't believe Wikipedia should make such statements in its own voice in situations such as this, even though I personally believe that indeed he has lied extravagantly and often. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support The language used by a preponderance of reliable sources about the remarkable number of outright falsehoods is striking, and bears note. The language proposed here reflects, partisan politics aside, the uniqueness of the situation here. Parabolist (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support It's quite clear that Trump has made very many statements that are just not true, and he makes far more than most anyone else. It's not just "disputed", experts agree that his statements are incorrect. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose I have no objection to talking about Trump's false statements, but jamming a two-word reference into that particular sentence seems like the wrong way to do it. This is particularly because many of his statements being false is only a fraction of the controversies that has dogged his campaign. Following the "...controversial." sentence with a sentence that summarizes a few of the controversies would work better. I created a section titled "Alternative Proposal", below, to discuss this option. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Throughout Trump's campaign he has gained wide media coverage, often because the media (which he professes to hate) have exposed his falsehoods. Whether this has been a deliberate attempt to gain free coverage, or just regular mendacity is a moot point in this context. Lying is what has gained him his current noteriety and arguably his success. Fact-checkers have had a field day with Trump, from his bizarre claim to have witnessed New Jersey folk rejoicing in the streets on 9/11, to his frequent self-revision of his own history. "All politicians lie," we might say, but not to this extent. It's his hallmark; it needs to be stated and sourced. --Pete (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Annoyed comment: I was just about to close this based on an AN request, but just before pressing "save" I noticed that it hasn't been 30 days yet and comments are still incoming. So a closure would probably be premature at this point, and accordingly I'm striking the AN closure request.  Sandstein  20:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Sandstein. I put in that close request when there was a lull in the comments, and before I learned of the 30-day tradition. I've never been a fan of treating traditions as rules, and I support an "early" close if consensus is clear, but my close request has already caused such a brouhaha that I've learned my lesson about pressing such things. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Objection to closing this RFC after only four days

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes to closer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need an uninvolved admin to look at this situation

This discussion was closed by User:Tazerdadog on September 2 at 08:59.[26] A few hours later, User:DHeyward decided the close was "improper" so she reverted it, simultaneously expressing an opinion/!vote contrary to the closer's result.[27] Neither Tazerdadog nor DHeyward are admins. Tazerdadog is previously uninvolved at this article; DHeyward has rarely posted here (last edit prior to today was July 3). What is the procedure here? Can we please get an uninvolved admin to come and look at this situation? I am involved at this article and cannot make the call. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This RFC was not listed under BLP bio, but only under BLP pol. It ought to be listed under both, though I'm not sure how to do it. I've asked an uninvolved admin about it.[28]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Closure review

I have requested closure review here.User:MrX, please do not delete this notification again.[29]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Alternate Proposal

The proposal in the RfC could give the misleading impression that Trump has been controversial mainly because of misstatements. How about instead following ""...have been controversial." with "Many controversies have involved misstatements by Trump, or statements viewed as appealing to racism."? Sources would be ones mentioned in the RfC, plus ones used for "...viewed him as appealing to racism." on the page for Trump's presidential campaign. As a third possibility, we could mention the fact-checking issue at the very end of the lede. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, the rewording of this is confusing and no better than the current proposal above. This proposal makes it seem that Trump misspoke, which is indeed false. Most of what Trump has said, he has said purposefully, and them "viewed as appealing to racism" is unfounded. Who has viewed it as appealing to racism? Everyone? Maybe it would be best to leave this out of the lead, but if we did want to add it somewhere else, if it isn't already, it would be best to say "Many of Trump's statements have been portrayed by the media as appealing to the prejudice of his base support". Something of that nature. Chase (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Real estate in our lead section comes at a particular premium, which is why I phrased the RfC so concisely. I think the RfC proposal avoids the problem you're describing by saying "controversial or false" instead of "controversial and false." By using the word "or" we arguably imply that these two categories of statements (controversial statements and false statements) are actually exclusive or each other--exactly the opposite of your concern. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

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

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

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

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

New pics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pic B: August 31, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pic D

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

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

√ Eyes open.

√ Not smirking.

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

√ Inspirational pose (mirroring the 2006 Obama image).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pic E (longstanding)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raw scores

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

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

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

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

Pic F: Well F this discussion :)

• F-This - really getting tired of this showing up every 6 weeks, we have better things to discuss...--Stemoc 13:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Now that's a smug photo. Calibrador (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Lets face the fact, he has more pride than an actual pride of lions :) ...--Stemoc 13:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support E I see no problem with the current photo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• This photo is the best. I support this. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support C for now, until we find a better picture. The current one is awful. The one we had before was fine, though.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support whatever is already there without looking. How many times has this discussion restarted? Objective3000 (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This vote should stricken, as they admitted to not even looking at the photos being discussed. Calibrador (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support C I have supported the current photo for a while but after so much complaining and discussions, I think it's time for an update. Hopefully people won't complain about this photo as much as the current one has. TL565 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support C: In my own opinion, this is the most presidential photographic option for depicting Donald Trump. A close second alternative would be E, but C has my vote. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• E - Best out of the lot IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 03:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note One needs only to scroll down a few sections to see the personal vendetta of this user, WP:HAR. Calibrador (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Skidmore I would advise you go to SpecSavers, come back with some lovely glasses, and then read this where I clearly state I have no issue with you personally .... so no this isn't a personal vandetta well not against you anyway but 10/10 for trying!. –Davey2010^Talk 10:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He thinks anyone that is against him using wikipedia to WP:SELFPROMOTE himself is Hounding him..lol ignore him..he will get blocked soon enough for his persistence..--Stemoc 00:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• C or E both seem good. No problem with Gage's pics. Tend to be high quality. E is fine too. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Revert war warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Jersey Generals

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

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

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

Bottom of infobox

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

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

Trump World Tower

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally a good pic

File:Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 13.jpg

This is the best Trump photo by far.

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

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

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

Comment - Best picture by far: [30] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - I oppose absolutely every photo that has the words "by Gage Skidmore" in the title, You'd think Calibrador ... err I mean Gage Skidmore would stop with the self promotion bollocks but clearly not, That aside the photo has as noted above a "meh" impression ... not really something you want on a potential president image, Seeing as I have the file mover right on Commons I may just rename all of these images!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion re photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TL565 - Personally I have nothing against Gage/Calib - I do however have an issue with the fact he has to use his name on every single image title, Had it been "Donald Trump 1" 2,3 etc etc etc then I wouldn't have any issue however I have an issue with the naming and I always will and my opinion would be the same for any photographer who uses their name in every single photo title so nope it's nothing against Gage/Calib ... just the titles. –Davey2010^Talk 03:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is I keep seeing users who follow him around though multiple articles and revert when he tries to add seemingly uncontroversial photos telling him he must seek consensus. When he then tries to seek consensus on the talk page the same users seem to try make the process as painstaking as possible so that consensus can never happen. I am trying to assume good faith but that seems to be a clear case of WP:Hounding. I point it out and suddenly I'm accused of being his "buddy". If so many people are opposed to his photos, it needs to be addressed. Undermining his every move under the guise of consensus building is ridiculous. TL565 (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analogous picture in Britannica article lead:

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

Main picture in official biography:

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

Main picture at Trump-Pence 2016 Campaign page

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

Pictures in Trump-Pence 2016 Campaign biography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex wives' pics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes indeed, impressive unanimity among all of five users!

However I do see the resemblance now that one of them has drawn attention to it. Personally I think geese are cute-looking birds but of course they’re not to everyone’s taste. Crumpled Fire’s suggestion of a Trump family pic is brilliant. There’s quite a good one on Italian WP [31] but there are probably others if someone wants to dig around. I must say that, as the editor who put the goosey pics up, I’m slightly disappointed (but not altogether surprised, given the frequency of pejorative personalizations at the Trump talk pages) to be smeared as a “Clinton campaign surrogate” who wants to propagate the idea that having more than one goose wife is immoral. Let me be clear. I never judge a man’s morality by the number of his wives, and Mr. Trump's brand of morality is easily gauged by examining the record of his business practices, and searching his political policies and public utterances, for the Christian values of his self-declared Presbyterianism. Writegeist (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The captions for the children used to give their positions in the Trump Organization. I would support either restoring such captions, or else taking the approach of Italian Wikipedia by showing a group photo (perhaps cropped further).[32]. Or just leave as-is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Official photo

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

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

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

It's not official. They simply took the photo from my Flickr, and it is not superior to the C photo above. It's the work of a webmaster simply looking for photos to use, and in one case if you scroll down further on that page you can see a scrolling arrow on the right side of the photo, where they quite obviously just screenshotted their screen and inserted the photo. Calibrador (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador: Nothing at the donaldjtrump.com site suggests that your March 2013 photo was taken by the Trump campaign (which didn't even exist back then). From June 2015 on, however, this photo actually has been (in both the legal sense and the Wikipedian sense) one of the "official" photos published (or republished) by the campaign.

See Black's Law Dictionary ("official. Authorized or approved by a proper authority <a company's official policy>"). If you say "it's not official", you're (in theory) making a claim that you're a proper "authority" -- meaning, that the Trump campaign has delegated to you the power to act legally on its behalf. (Black's.)

More on this interesting issue at Spotlight on Gage Skidmore, Political Photographer, Creative Commons (June 17, 2016). --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I agree that the official photo of the campaign is a good compromise. The cropped version should be used for infoboxes and other areas where a Trump photo needs to be within a box of some type within an article. I still prefer the current, longstanding image in the Trump article infobox, but the cropped version of the one you have brought here is a good replacement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's cropped though, the flag becomes much less visible, and you lose some of the officialness. Whether it's the work of a rogue webmaster or the work of a coordinated campaign hierarchy, it's what they've decided to use, at least for now. Note that they have cropped the photo slightly at the bottom, so we could too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There is zero support for my suggestion here. In contrast, there was clear consensus for image C above, so I will go ahead and insert it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No, there wasn't clear consensus for C over any other photo. In fact, from what I can see, it's 9 for C and 9 for E (AKA "current photo"). That's not a consensus by any sense of the imagination. Even 8:10 wouldn't be a clear consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi, please revert yourself. As to image C versus E, the tally is an overwhelming landslide, 12 to 7, meaning over 63% favor C. Preferring C over E:

• Jean-Jacques Georges
• Snake bgd
• Calibrador
• Anythingyouwant
• MrX
• Display name 99
• ShadowDragon343
• Devorguilla (-1 for C versus -5 for E)
• TexasMan34
• Zigzig20s
• TL565
• Darthbotto

Preferring E over C:

• Writegeist
• Winkelvi
• Chase
• Proud user
• CFredkin
• JFG
• KnowledgeKid87
• Davey2010

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: Now 13 to 7 (65%) favoring C. If we factor in the ambiguous comments from Objective3000 and Buster7, we have 64% favoring C.- MrX 02:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Look again. There are comments by editors who expressly stated they preferred E or stated they didn't know what was wrong with keeping the current photo. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Besides those listed above, who else had made a comment that should be considered as preferring one photo over another?- MrX 01:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As I already stated, look at the discussion entire. Before the !votes started. Some are interspersed, but the opinons for the photo that was already present are there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi, do you intend to keep on reverting the image, without naming anyone who's not on the two lists that I compiled?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you look for the other opinions stating they wanted the original photo to remain? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I looked for all opinions comparing C to E.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you are having trouble counting, I'll go the good samaritan route and assist you: Writegeist, Chase, MelanieN (she noted another photo was "pretty good" but expressed her desire for the current photo to remain), Proud user, CFredkin, JFG, Knowledgekid87, Objective3000, Winkelvi for E. Snake bgd did not express favor for C, he simply said he thought the photo should be updated - that's minus one from your list; Dervoguilla likes D, so that's another off your list. Which brings us to 9 for E, 10 for C. Not a "landslide", not even a consensus - we don't count votes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN should not be counted for either pic unless she clarifies; she said "I don't think we should use either of these pictures [A or B]. Can't we find one where his eyes are open? The one currently in the article infobox is better than either of these." and then when C was presented she said "Yes, this one is pretty good." Objective3000 merely said "Support whatever is already there without looking. How many times has this discussion restarted?" which indicates that Objective3000 did not compare the two pics and would be happy with leaving either one there. Snake bgd said "Agreed it should be updated" in response to "I like this one [C] better : it could actually replace the current one in the infobox." Dervoguilla liked B and D, but also definitely expressed a preference for C over E: "Pic A: +3. Pic B: +5. Pic C: -1. Pic D: +1. Pic E (current): -5." So, I think you're clearly wrong on all counts, User:Winkelvi.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I updated my analysis yesterday. "Points: Microphone absent = +1. Eyebrows not elevated = +1. Low-contrast background = +1. Teeth, eyes, gaze, date = 0 (inconsistent). Scores: Pic A: +3. Pic B: +3. Pic C: +1. Pic D: +2.5. Pic E: +1. Pic F: +1."

The "official photo" (Donald_Trump_speech_2013.jpg) also scores +3. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, he won't tell you because they aren't there. He just pulled a similar stunt on Talk:Mike Pence. Go ahead and restore the photo. This is a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TL565 (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Enough already! You are now clearly hampering the process because you don't like it! Stop playing games! TL565 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Now he's BSing on this page. He just doesn't stop does he? TL565 (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I did. Besides the users listed above, one dismissed the question entirely (Stemoc); one said "support whatever is already there without looking" (Objective3000); one expressed a preference for a photo that is neither C or E (1990'sguy); one selected C then stuck his comment (Buster7), and one said "Yes, this one is pretty good." referring to C (MelanieN). This seems like a firm consensus to me. Would someone like to do the honors? - MrX 02:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So... you are seriously asking someone to ignore the discretionary sanctions rule placed on this article or are hoping someone will do it as a proxy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Given the evident consensus in the tally of comments above, anyone who places image C into the article will be on solid ground, and if you feel like pursuing some ridiculous quest to obstruct that, you can expect to have your conduct in these related articles thoroughly examined.- MrX 03:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I also must note some of the E votes are just people saying "I don't like Gage Skidmore." and should hold little weight for something like this. TL565 (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@TL565: Is there any evidence of users saying "I don't like Gage Skidmore"? Otherwise this is WP:OR and should hold no weight. Chase (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

One example here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=738465430&oldid=738464393 TL565 (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question, Do you have any proof of a user that is stated above in your "consensus" that they said this, otherwise, why state it at all, if we arent using that editor to state our claim? You named someone that doesn't even have anything to do with what is being discussed here. WV didn't even use that user to support his claim. Chase (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, Question!? Why are we discounting the people that preferred a different picture? @Anythingyouwant: Your percentages count for people who had an opinion on either C or E (which the percentage is a little skewed by how you did it). If we took into account everyone's preference, your percentage would be much smaller. Because not just 20 or 22 people had an opinion on a photo. Much more people did. Why aren't we taking their preference into account when discussing majority? Which is what you are trying to establish with this "over 50%" tactic. For example, take into account the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Donald Trump had to receive over 50% of the delegates to get the nomination. Say we only took into account the delegates that voted for trump; Trump received 1,441 delegates (Pic C), Cruz received 555 (Pic E). If you only take into account those delegates, which is what you went ahead and did, Trump won 72% of the vote, but if you take into account the other delagets he actually won 58% of the vote. Do you see how skewed this becomes? Chase (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

When exactly should consensus be declared and who gets to declare it? It's seem to be a vast uphill struggle to get any picture replaced lately and I supported the current photo for a while until now. TL565 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Which is why another photo shouldn't be instated until this discussion ends. Based on a clear consensus, not by a made up on, or by an uninvolved major third party (administer). Or everyone agrees that a vote is suffieicient, in which case we give everyone the chance to vote, including the people that voted for other picture, if Pic C and E are the final two. There is a reason Pic E is the picture. It withstood long discussions, and it shouldn't be removed easily. Especially with a lessthanorequalto picture. Chase (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of a discussion is not simply to look at the number of votes, it's to weigh the pros and cons of the arguments and reasons presented by each side. The primary reason given for E, if a reason is even given, is that it is because it's the current photo, and the "current photo is fine." If the current photo was fine, then there would not have been a discussion to attempt to replace it every couple of weeks. Several other of the votes for E either gave no reason, gave the simple explanation of it being "better," or admitted to not even looking at the photos being discussed and supporting E because it is the incumbent photo. On the other hand, a case was made by several of those supporting C for why specifically the photo is better to illustrate the subject as the main photo for the article, all of which you can read above. A consensus doesn't mean 100% of people have to agree, and if one side gives better reasoning and arguments than the other and that is still ignored, then there is a big problem. It's obvious that the consensus exists to replace the photo currently in use. And the only other photo that has received significant consensus is C. Calibrador (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador: Yes, let's ignore the question that I asked and state thousands of meaningless arguments that don't even relate to the conversation that I proposed. But since you continue to iterate that same argument over and over and over until its beaten to death, honestly, the current photo doesn't need to have a reason for support. It's already had a discussion about it and has had stated reason's why it is a good photo and should be on the article. If anything, the arguments for the photo being presented should have better reasoning. It has passed the test of getting onto the article yet through a discussion. Consensus has NOT been reached to replace the current photo with photo C. Also, you are the one that counted votes for photo C and for photo E. Please refer to my first statement of how your majority consensus is biased. You can't pick and choose to benefit your preference, thats not how wikipedia works. Chase (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I could not follow your incoherent, rambling analogy. I must be stupid, sorry for my ignorance. Calibrador (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Now you are just being hostile. My point was that out of all the people that were stating a preference, you were taking a portion of those to skew a percentage in your favor, and leaving out the people that chose a different picture. Taking into account ALL of the preferences would have changed your percentage. Chase (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know what you are referring to, I only came up with one count/summary as a part of an off-hand comment, and it wasn't meant as any sort of official tally. Calibrador (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If it wasn't meant to be anything official why have you used it to refer to a consensus and implementing it into the article? Chase (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Used what? I never used a tally as the basis for the existence of consensus. Refer to my argument above that you claimed I've made over and over and over and over again. Calibrador (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Here; The majority you were speaking of is obviously the percentage and votes that were arrange by Anythingyouwant. Chase (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not use Anythingyouwant's list, I've barely even glanced at it only to look at the substantive conversation taking place below it, I used common sense. Calibrador (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe the most controversial discussion about Trump on Wikipedia is about changing a goddamn picture. How long should this drag on? TL565 (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This has all the earmarks of an "official" RfC. An RfC can - and often does - go on for up to 30 days. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sanity plea

The notion that it's about quality of arguments is great, when there is some basis in p&g for any argument, or when there is a uninvolved closer to make that call. It's completely worthless when all arguments are subjective, even when claimed to be otherwise, and all participants are responsible for evaluation of all arguments. That simply does not work, ever. I guarantee that I will always see my arguments as more weighty than those of my opponents—that's why they are my arguments—and I would expect no different from them.
As I read it, we're wasting time analyzing editors' ambiguous comments. Part of the solution is to remove the ambiguity, a simple poll, where the preference is clearly stated using boldface at the start of the !vote. Follow that with your reasoning, which only purpose is to try to influence other !votes. Ping all previous commenters on the issue. After perhaps ten days, count the !votes, implement the majority preference, and move the fuck on.
If you want to allow multiple weighted choices, give each !voter 6 votes that they can distribute as desired between 1, 2, or 3 choices.
I am uninvolved here, and I don't have much of an opinion, but I would be happy to set up and administer said poll. Just tell me what pics to include, and whether to use weighted multiple choices. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: A directly related discussion is underway at the Consensus policy talk page. Comments welcome. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There ain't no sanity clause!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Thanks, I think I'll sit out the policy debate, at least for now. Can't say I really understand how current policy bears on this poll, but I do know that things went a lot smoother when it was used to decide the last Hillary photo dispute. That's good enough for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was for picture C?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There should be but certain people are determined to drag this as long as possible so it gets archived and swept under the rug. TL565 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, this really has to end. If there is consensus for Picture C, we need to update the infobox and be done with it. HRC has a US flag in the background and so should Trump. We want Wikipedia to be seen as a reliable, non-partisan source of information. Right now both candidates are not treated equally as far as their infobox pictures go, and that makes Wikipedia look bad. Those of us who love Wikipedia--please let us stand with the consensus and go with Picture C. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

(0) @Zigzig20s: Former Senator Clinton's official senatorial image in her politician infobox is not a Wikipedian precedent for Trump's personal image in his person infobox.

(1) Willkie's personal image in his person infobox counts as the most analogical Wikipedian precedent for Trump's. Willkie's infobox image has no "US flag in the background"; nor has it since it was created nine years ago.

(2) The Trump entry in Encyclopædia Britannica counts as the most analogical tertiary source for decisions about the Trump entry in Wikipedia. Its § Politics image (Skidmore, CC by 2.0) does have a "US flag in the background"; its lead image doesn't.

(3) Nor does the official image in the most official source: Trump's company biography. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo Support

• 
  A - 0% Support - 0/27

• 
  B - 6% Support - 1.5/27

Ddcm8991
{Dervorguilla, ½}

• 
  C - 35% Support - 9.5/27

Jean-Jacques Georges
Calibrador
MrX
Display name 99
ShadowDragon343
TexasMan34
Zigzig20s
TL565
DARTHBOTTO
{Dervorguilla, ½}

• 
  D - 0% Support - 0/27

• 
  E - 33% Support - 9/27

Chase
Writegeist
WV
Proud User
CFredkin
JFG
Knowledgekid87
Objective3000
Davey2010

26% Stated no specific support, but weighed in: ^{Snake bgd}, Anythingyouwant, {Dervorguilla}, Graham, MelanieN, Buster Seven, Stemoc, 1990'sguy

I didn't include people that didn't specifically say Support, for example I like this one or The current one should be changed was not included. Chase (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: I like this one is a nonconformist way of saying Support and should be treated as such. Assuming it's clear enough which "one" they're referring to. Same for other things such as Yeah I agree, agreeing with a preceding support. The added hassle of parsing all this out, and the potential for ambiguity, are reasons for the structured poll I suggested above, but it's necessary here. The current one should be changed is largely useless for our purposes, unless you wanted to allocate 1⁄4 to each of A, B, C, and D, which in my opinion wouldn't be worth the effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Most of the ones that said "I like this one" or "yeah I agree" stated it about multiple ones, so that is why they were not included. Until they make it more clear. Chase (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: Then we should start over and do it the right way. Costs very little. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I have no problem with that, I was just showing that there was zero consensus established yet. I was also trying to start the discussion about chosing a system to establish the consensus. Chase (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: I thought I started that discussion in the preceding subsection. I see nothing wrong with a structured poll with weighted multiple choices and pinging of previous participants. The only question remaining in my mind is whether we need two rounds of voting, lest we go with an option that received only 35% of the vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I feel like for this picture to acheive consensus, it needs to garner at least 25%50% more than that of the closest percentage or 50%, which ever comes first to determine if the second round needs to be had. If that makes any sense. Chase (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: If we get ourselves that deep into it, we'll be debating this until Christmas (or least until after the election). Just go with two rounds and be done with it, one round with all 5 choices, and a run-off with the two leaders. One week for each round. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I am fine with that. That'll make this whole process a lot easier. Chase (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fairly evident who the two leaders are. Calibrador (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: Your opinion? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. A round 1 might change the voting somewhat by bringing in additional participants, but unlikely enough to change the leaders. I have opened the run-off. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding 'Dervorguilla, ½' to B, 'Dervorguilla, ½' to C; removing from "Stated no specific support". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

How about you not include the vote that stated "Vote for whatever is currently there without looking." They did not look at the proposed photos whatsoever, as they admitted. Calibrador (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador: It doesn't matter their reasoning, support is support. Just like supporting a photo because it isn't taken by a certain person is also valid. Chase (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the difference in indication if someone said "Strong Support" vs. "Support"? Calibrador (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

In some kinds of discussions, some see a difference, some don't. In something like this, absolutely none. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Why? Calibrador (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

For starters, because it would give some people more say than others in the outcome. If we gave more weight to "Strong Support", I promise you I would !vote "Strong Support", as would anyone else with a lick of common sense. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What if some people are more indifferent than others? Calibrador (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

With the weighted-multiple-choice system I described, each !voter would have 6 votes to allocate between 1, 2, or 3 choices. But they wouldn't be required to cast all 6 of their votes. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Run-off voting

Notification of previous participants
@Ddcm8991, Jean-Jacques Georges, Calibrador, MrX, Display name 99, ShadowDragon343, and TexasMan34: @Zigzig20s, TL565, DarthBotto, Dervorguilla, CCamp2013, Writegeist, and Winkelvi: @Proud User, CFredkin, JFG, Knowledgekid87, Objective3000, Davey2010, and Snake bgd: @Anythingyouwant, Graham11, MelanieN, Buster7, Stemoc, and 1990'sguy: ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Each user may cast up to 6 votes between C and E, as, for example, C6 or E4 C2 or C5 E1 (a vote of C3 E3 would be pointless). Follow with your reasoning, with the understanding that its only purpose is to try to sway other voting. There is no requirement to use all 6 votes, so weak support can be expressed as, for example, E4 or C2 E1. Voting will run for ten days.

No threaded discussion please, i.e. don't respond to another comment. You are unlikely to change their mind, and there will be no uninvolved closer to judge, quite subjectively, that you have defeated their argument. And there has been ample threaded discussion prior to this.

• 
  C

• 
  E (status quo ante)

• C6 - Least unphotogenic of the two, includes a smile for those who vote because "he seems like a nice man". And his tie and collar are centered between the lapels of his coat. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Religion in the infobox.

I thought there was a consensus about not adding it.Ernio48 (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus (closed RFC here) not to place a subject's religion in their infobox unless it's directly tied to their notability. I've gone ahead and removed it accordingly. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

He's Presbyterian. Here's an article about his childhood church.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It was a different one made months ago, if Trump is elected he needs to either have it returned or all 43 previous presidents are to have it removed.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)