Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead section, which currently says:

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

be changed to read (changes in bold):

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

The proposed sources are:

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

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

References

notes added by Anythingyouwant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources MrX provided above are a good starting point. Some others: [11] [12] [13] [14]. I know of no reliable source suggesting that Trump is more truthful (or even equally as truthful) than other politicians. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

A few more links: PolitiFact's Lie of the Year was covered by other sources ([15]). "Donald Trump attempted to relaunch his troubled campaign Wednesday with a scripted speech fusing his anti-trade economic message with a series of attacks on Hillary Clinton that ran the gamut from harsh, to unprovable to false.". EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, and since you keep bringing up Clinton, here is a head-to-head comparison from the Washington Post, as of July: For Trump: 52 claims were rated. 63% were Four Pinocchios, 21% 3, 10% 2, 2% 1, 4 % truthful. For Clinton: 36 claims were rated. 14% were Four Pinocchios, 36% 3, 30.5% 2, 5.5% 1, 14% truthful. [17] --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Mr Ernie: In ascending order of magnitude:

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

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

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

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

  @Chase:

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right, now we're at 3 days without further comment, which means I can use my saved closure after all…  Sandstein  19:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Objection to closing this RFC after only four days

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor's conduct

Xenophrenic (talk) on 4 September 2016 added a {{Failed verification}} tag to this comment by another user (Dervorguilla):

The related RSN is now publicized at PolitiFact.com Talk. Here's an old version of the article; it's somewhat more concise than the current version.

The cited source actually does support the information in the comment. Xenophrenic illegitimately added an erroneous tag, hindering the RfC discussion and compromising the integrity of this page. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute, not editor conduct. Relevant resources are Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Try their user talk page. If you can't reach an agreement there, raise it here without framing it like a mini ANI complaint. Or, since it seems pretty innocuous and inconsequential, you could just ignore it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I do not agree that there is a question as to whether the silent alteration was harmful conduct. The policy is easy to understand. Talk page vandalism: Illegitimately editing another user's comment.

Nor does there now appear to be a question as to whether the alteration may have had actual harmful consequences. The RfC closer was unmistakably misled to believe that "the reliability of these sources is for the most part not contested, [and so] these opinions are based on valid arguments..." Both the comment and the alteration went to the heart of the RfC. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll confess to a major brain fart here. I failed to grasp that this was in that RfC, which I should have considering the location of this subsection. Happens a lot when I drop into a complex situation cold. I now agree that the edit was improper in that situation, but I'm curious as to what you seek here. A trout for Xenophrenic? An "adminishment" for Xenophrenic? A re-close of the RfC? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: The most important thing I'm seeking now is your objection, if any, to the proposed rewrite -- per WP:CON policy -- that I drafted and Buster7 has responded to below. (Something like: "Many of his spoken statements and tweets have been erroneous and controversial".) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Notes to closer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a radically (83%) abridged version of Anythingyouwant's proposed text, but I'm substituting the phrase "found to be" for the weaker term "deemed":

“ Many of his spoken statements and tweets have been controversial or have been found to be erroneous. ”

Or, even more concisely: "Many of his oral statements and tweets have been controversial or erroneous." --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

More concisely still would be: "Many of his oral statements and tweets have been erroneous and controversial." since first comes the error and then the controversy. Buster Seven Talk 00:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: Not a bad argument. It may not immediately follow from the dictionary definition; but the resulting language does address my concerns and sounds to me like a good compromise. (One very minor point: "Spoken statements" might read more smoothly than "oral statements".) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

“ ...has received extensive media coverage and international attention. Several rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots. Many of his spoken statements and tweets have been erroneous and controversial. Trump's positions include... ”

--Dervorguilla (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to look at this situation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closure review

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

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

Alternate Proposal

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

• Oppose, the rewording of this is confusing and no better than the current proposal above. This proposal makes it seem that Trump misspoke, which is indeed false. Most of what Trump has said, he has said purposefully, and them "viewed as appealing to racism" is unfounded. Who has viewed it as appealing to racism? Everyone? Maybe it would be best to leave this out of the lead, but if we did want to add it somewhere else, if it isn't already, it would be best to say "Many of Trump's statements have been portrayed by the media as appealing to the prejudice of his base support". Something of that nature. Chase (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Real estate in our lead section comes at a particular premium, which is why I phrased the RfC so concisely. I think the RfC proposal avoids the problem you're describing by saying "controversial or false" instead of "controversial and false." By using the word "or" we arguably imply that these two categories of statements (controversial statements and false statements) are actually exclusive or each other--exactly the opposite of your concern. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - this wording avoids mentioning the many untruthful statements made by Trump. The level of falsehood is far higher than for the sort of career politicians typically chosen as candidates, who are schooled in cautious discourse. Trump seems to speak more directly, without considering the hovering army of fact-checkers. --Pete (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Clarification

I've been asked to clarify certain aspects of my RfC closure. First, as concerns consensus and implementation: I did not notice that the content for which I found ordinary ("rough") consensus in the RfC was previously challenged with a revert that apparently led to the RfC. Under normal circumstances, I would expect that a RfC result is implemented without further problems, if the closure is not contested. I have, however, no authority to determine whether the RfC outcome constitutes the "firm" consensus apparently required per discretionary sanctions, because I don't know what that means as opposed to ordinary consensus, and I recommend that the admin who imposed these sanctions is consulted about this.

As concerns inline attribution: The proposal is about a text with footnotes to be included in the lead, and while that was one of the concerns raised, my reading of the discussion is that most who addressed it were of the view that inline attribution of an assessment of Trump's statements as "false" is required by policy. Therefore, in my view, consensus for the proposal also extends to the footnotes. As with all article content, this can subsequently be changed editorially if consensus (of the degree of firmness that may be required by discretionary sanctions) is found for any solution perceived to be better.  Sandstein  07:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

[Unsolicited speculation.] What does "firm consensus" mean? It may allude to WP:CONACHIEVE. Had the proposed edit ever been "adapted" (altered or limited) to bring in many dissenters?

Or to WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Does the consensus calculation take into account the expressed concerns of dissenters who stopped responding to the discussion? (Such concerns may sometimes be the most legitimate of all, as those editors may be the least "emotionally or ideologically invested in winning".)

Or to WP:CONLEVEL. Did the proposing editor post notices at closely related articles, at relevant WikiProjects, and at Village pump forums?

Otherwise you may be looking at an "ordinary" (weak) consensus, which isn't likely to hold for long in a page where disputes may have (overt or covert) ideologic origins -- i.e., a page where WP:CONADMIN comes into play. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I re-read through the arbcom remedies and couldn't find clarification there. I have therefore asked the admin who created the template to clarify. [30] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:RFA, "as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 65% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances." That seems like a traditional "firm consensus" at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No. Trying to define some percentage threshold for "firm" consensus goes entirely contrary to our model of consensus. Consensus is not a nose count, and it shouldn't allow a 25% opposing minority to bring article improvements to a standstill. The template would read better as "clear consensus" or "obvious consensus" or even just "consensus" rather than try to define some higher threshold. It's enough of a quagmire here already without requiring a super-majority to implement contested changes. I can't believe that's what User:Coffee intended. ~Awilley (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I was mainly pointing out that there's more than one consensus standard at Wikipedia, and surely some level of reasoned dissent should be able to bring article changes to a standstill. Moreover, I see absolutely no consensus that the two footnotes (dated 2015) proposed in the RFC are adequate, and no consensus that footnotes should be inserted into this lead, even if the rule is ordinary consensus instead of firm consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that Coffee was thinking of DS article disputes in which there is no close. In those cases, it makes sense to emphasize the need for consensus, and to avert edit warring and disruption when there is reasonable disagreement about whether there is consensus. On the other hand, when a contentious RfC has been closed as having consensus, that would seem to settle the matter, aside from a challenge through the normal process at WP:AN. (I'll also add that templates are neither policies nor guidelines.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: A relevant policy discussion has been started at VPP ("Create a clear definition of 'firm consensus'"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Any issue which has gone through a well-participated RFC constitutes "firm". You then return to work on the article - which includes informal consensus on revising details of that solution. To clarify the issue, you do not reverse an RFC merely because local participation has dropped to 6, of whom 4 disliked the RFC result. That 4-2 is obviously not a "firm" consensus because it is small, because it would be intensely contested as conflicting with a recent RFC, and because calling back the original RFC participants would just repeat the original outcome. Alsee (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

See now WP:AE#Sanctions clarification request: 2016 US Election AE for a clarification request.  Sandstein  07:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The outcome of that discussion was to remove the word "firm" from the consensus requirement for AE cases. The clarification was that such cases require "consensus", period. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)