Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Working draft of a section about Trump's false statements

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

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

False statements

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

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

References
References

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

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

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

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

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

False statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just did a quick search, and so far I've found plenty of sources refuting the claim that he's a straight talker, but few making it. So there might be a kernel of truth to the statement that it's synth to say so. That being said, Many of the sources refuting it, themselves state that Trump is seen by his supporters as being a straight talker, so we could use one of those. ([1] [2] [3] [4]) I've copied a few links here, but I haven't vetted them as reliable sources yet. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's no need to speculate, or make up unlikely theoretical situations. For the Washington Post, here are the numbers, which I already cited above: For Trump: 52 claims were rated. 63% were Four Pinocchios (meaning total lies), 21% 3, 10% 2, 2% 1, 4 % truthful. For Clinton: 36 claims were rated. 14% were Four Pinocchios, 36% 3, 30.5% 2, 5.5% 1, 14% truthful.[5] For the 2015 Lie of the Year award, PolitiFact evaluated 77 of Trump's statements, of which 76% were lies. I don't think these need to be cited in the text; they are just to answer Anythingyouwant's question. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could accept this abridged version. One quibble: I don't like using the "founders of ISIS" example - because he semi-sorta retracted it, and because most people knew he didn't mean it literally - unless Reliable Sources consider it one of the most notable. There are many others to choose from, such as the "I saw New Jersey Muslims cheering 9/11" story which he repeated many times and never retracted. Or "I opposed going into Iraq" or "I am self funding my campaign, I don't take donations". I would also like to add to the final sentence as follows: "According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, so that PolitiFact gave its 2015 Lie of the Year award to "The campaign misstatements of Donald Trump".[6] --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efforts to repair RfC material

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was clearly replying to this comment in particular:

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

And to this comment in general:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ten days later the board itself clearly spoke out.

PolitiFiction: True 'lies' about ObamaCare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This RSN is now publicized at PolitiFact.com Talk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested wording:

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

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

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

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

Recent changes in the lede

This has been a longstanding sentence in the lede:

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

Recently that sentence was modified to read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Middle initial in infobox title?

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

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

Unexplained revert

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

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

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

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

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)

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 [7] 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).[8]. 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)

Nicks

We mention The Donald which is clearly the most notable but what about others? This year for example due to the elections the nickname "Daddy" or "Daddy Donald" has popped up:

• http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/opinion/columnists/2016/01/20/daddy-donald-trump/79071284/
• http://www.dailywire.com/news/4222/donald-trump-allfather-ben-shapiro
• http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434570/donald-trump-not-your-father
• http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/04/27/dear-nevertrump-time-get-behind-daddy/
• http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/19/happy-fathers-day-daddy-donald/

How much coverage in popular media would warrant a mention? Ranze (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Nix.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Have seen zero mention in popular media. Two of the sources are from one Breitbart editor pushing his cute idea, "Let's call Donald daddy." "Buster Seven Talk 15:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's look past those two at the earliest three then. I would argue that there is a lack of evidence that this is Milo's idea, as I've yet to find a use of it by Milo which predates Parker's use of it in January. So far the earliest use I've found from MY is February 19 so that still puts Kathleen a month ahead of him. If anyone could identify an earlier use then we could explore that possibility, but even then, a lot of usage has happened outside of Breitbart, as you can see below. I'll cite the above 3 non-BB more thoroughly so their source is clear.

• Parker, Kathleen (20 January 2016). "'Daddy' Donald Trump is looking out for you!". Great Falls Tribune. Archived from the original on 10 September 2016. WASHINGTON — So you say you want a daddy for your president? .. Big Daddy's the boss {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Shapiro, Ben (18 March 2016). "No, Donald Trump Isn't Your 'Daddy.' Grow Up". Daily Wire. Archived from the original on 10 September 2016. The Trump Children comprise a far smaller subset within all of these groups. They're looking for a father figure {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 11 September 2016 suggested (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Geraghty, Jim (26 April 2016). "Donald Trump Is Not Your Father". National Review. all the Donald Trump supporters in the audience reply: "Daddy's going to win! Daddy's going to win! Hooray!" It's not hard to find Trump supporters who describe their preferred candidate in such directly paternal terms.

In the process of citing these I also found another source for "The King" being a nickname:

• Horowitz, Jason (15 March 2016). "A King in His Castle: How Donald Trump Lives, From His Longtime Butler". New York Times. "You can always tell when the king is here," Mr. Trump's longtime butler here, Anthony Senecal, said of the master of the house and Republican presidential candidate. The king was returning that day to his Versailles

The initial results were also just from searching "Daddy Donald". It did not initially occur to me to try th inverse "Daddy Trump", which as you can see produces additional results including Big Daddy Trump also having recurrent use:

• Jones, Sarah (21 December 2015). "Like A Lump Of Coal in Republican Stockings: Donald Trump Is Not Going Anywhere". PoliticusUSA. Archived from the original on 10 September 2016. All will be well with Rich, Successful Daddy Trump in the White House. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Husband, Andrew (30 March 2016). "Ann Coulter Still Supports Donald Trump Even Though He's 'Mental'". Uproxx. Archived from the original on 30 March 2016. As surprising as Coulter's disappointment in Trump's behavior (considering her otherwise steadfast commitment to the candidate), it was nowhere near as horrifying as what Yiannopoulos said to prompt it. When Coulter said that she was "a little testy with our man right now," the Breitbart editor joked, "Daddy's annoyed you?" DADDY. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Rochell, Starshine (8 April 2016). "How Donald Trump can win back women". The Week. Archived from the original on 10 September 2016. Next, I want to see Big Daddy Trump come out to play. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Ball, Krystal Marie (27 April 2016). "Playing the "Woman Card" Won't Help You, Donald Trump, Says Columnist Krystal Ball". Glamour (magazine). Archived from the original on 10 September 2016. But that's how paternalism works—Daddy Trump gets to decide who gets rewarded and who gets punished. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• "Rush: Millions of Americans will react with orgasmic delight when Trump starts insulting Hillary". Hot Air. 28 April 2016. the best part of this is Rush's voice dropping into a sort of audible leer when he talks about the ecstasy Clinton-haters will feel when Daddy Trump gives 'em what they want
• Pappas, Alex (2 May 2016). "Hoosier Daddy? Trump Aims To Knock Out Cruz". Daily Caller. Archived from the original on 10 September 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Horsey, David (21 June 2016). "Republicans love their Daddy Trump and despise 'Crooked Hillary'". LA Times. Archived from the original on 10 September 2016. Just how far will the GOP's Big Daddy go {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Edelson, Chris (23 July 2016). "What 'Daddy' Trump wants is for all of us to be his children". MarketWatch.
• Mayer, Jeremy (25 August 2016). "Big Daddy Trump". The American Interest. Archived from the original on 10 September 2016. None of them are divorced, public philanderers, substance abusers, or so lacking in employable skills that they can't find a job with Daddy {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Raphael, Lev (14 August 2016). "Big Daddy Trump and Ivanka Boo-Boo". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 10 September 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I don't know if these sites are or aren't reliable sources for actual election facts, but all (except perhaps PoliticusUSA which doesn't have an article, but which I have included because Jones' is the earliest place I've found the 'Daddy' phrase applied to him so far) are notable media aggregates which demonstrate widespread use of this "Daddy" nickname. It seems worth considering whether to list them after "The Donald" as secondary/tertiary nicknames of more recent birth. Some of these reference MY but a lot of others don't, it seems to have taken on a life of its own outside quoting him.

By the way @NeilN: was special:diff/738676929 in relation to this or something else? I get the impression I'm being threatened for bringing this up and would like to understand why. Ranze (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I will comment on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam service again

This recent edit replaced the sentence "In December 1969 Trump received a high number in the draft lottery, which would also have exempted him from service" with "Richard Flahavan, a longtime agent of the Selective Service System, stated Trump's deferment had made his draft number unimportant". I object to this change, for several reasons. First, it's not good to start talking about a draft number without first saying when and how he got the draft number; second, Flahavan is already discussed in a footnote (that includes a quote from the NYT); third, the NYT discussed Flahavan without repeating his POV in the NYT's voice; fourth, a separate footnote quotes ABC as having a slightly different POV than Flahavan ("Nor do the documents categorically suggest it was deferments and not a high draft number that ultimately allowed him to avoid the draft"); fifth, the language deleted from this BLP did not contradict either Flahavan or ABC News; sixth, the sentence deleted from this BLP had been stable for more than a month; and, seventh, this stuff has already been discussed extensively at this talk page in early August (e.g. here).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:09, 11 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)

@Calibrador: No. See, for example, the comments by ShadowDragon343, Proud User, Chase, and Prcc27 supporting removal of the microphone. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions issue

I object to this edit. According to the RFC close, "Consequently, I find that there is rough consensus (the usual Wikipedia standard for consensus) to implement the proposal. As far as I can tell from the discussion, the proposed content hasn't been challenged through reverts yet, so it doesn't need the 'firm' consensus required by the applicable discretionary sanctions." Rough consensus is not enough to reinsert the new material, but it was reinserted nevertheless, which violates the discretionary sanctions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop trying to WP:GAME the system.- MrX 20:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Was the RFC closer also gaming the system by expressly distinguishing one level of consensus from another? I have requested assistance here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant and MrX: Closer Sandstein's analysis is well thought out and his intended meaning is clear enough. He appears to be thinking that (1) the proposed content should be added, (2) the added content will likely get reverted; (3) the revert will likely get discussed further at Talk, and (4) a compromise firm-consensus text will likely come out of the discussion.

And if that's what he means, I support all four points. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Your analysis of the closing statement is at odds with widely-accepted DR practice across Wikipedia. The result of the RfC is that the wording as proposed has consensus. Alternate wording has already been proposed and has not achieved any level of consensus. Of course you're welcome to propose new wording and we can discuss it to see if a new consensus emerges.- MrX 01:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I think you misunderstand how admins work. They generally go around trying to solve problems, not create them. No admin closes an RfC in hopes that it will start a revert war and generate more pages of discussion. Sandstein has already been asked to clarify their close. Let's wait for that to happen. ~Awilley (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Awilley: No, all five of us understand how admins work; and MrX's comment is correct in that we absolutely do not need to wait for the closer before we propose new wording and continue the discussion per WP:CON practice. Moreover, I and my colleague Buster7 are already doing so, at § Notes to closer. (Proposed compromise edit: "Many of his spoken statements and tweets have been erroneous and controversial".) I invite you, MrX, Anythingyouwant, and Sandstein to contribute. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What Dervorguilla said above looks a lot like WP:BRD to me, not a "revert war", or a "problem". (1)=B, (2)=R, (3)=D. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)