Misplaced Pages

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 Misplaced Pages'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 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.- 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)

• 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --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 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 \\ 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 ." Was his statement true or false?
  • In a CNN interview in May, Trump "Frankly, 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

1. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/donald-trump/trumps-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/
2. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/22/donald-trump/trump-wrong-clintons-refugee-plan-would-cost-more-/
3. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/02/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-hillary-clinton-doesnt-do-very-/
4. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-repeats-pants-fire-claim-about-30-mil/

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: "id he endorse me, or what's going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists." 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. 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.) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I have replied at your user talk page.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 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 " 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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, 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)

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)

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":

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)

--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. 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. 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 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)

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.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)

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. --NeilN 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 Misplaced Pages.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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

New pics

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed it should be updated. 19:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

√ Eyes open.

√ Not smirking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raw scores

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• C or E both seem good. No problem with Gage's pics. Tend to be high quality. E is fine too. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Note There is a run-off below where voting is now taking place. Calibrador (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support E first and C second. These support the notability of this subject with just a glance from the general reader (our audience). Steve Quinn (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Continue to support image E, Its the bedst of the images. And the age of the picture really doesnt matter. (Hillarys image is 7.5 years old). Christian75 (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn and Christian75: if you want you vote to count please move it to here. Thank you. Chase (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Revert war warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally a good pic

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - I oppose absolutely every photo that has the words "by Gage Skidmore" in the title, You'd think Calibrador ... err I mean Gage Skidmore would stop with the self promotion bollocks but clearly not, That aside the photo has as noted above a "meh" impression ... not really something you want on a potential president image, Seeing as I have the file mover right on Commons I may just rename all of these images!. –Davey2010 03:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - really bad image. Christian75 (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion re photo

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Should the picture in the lead be changed?

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

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

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

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

Analogous picture in Britannica article lead:

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

Main picture in official biography:

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

Main picture at Trump-Pence 2016 Campaign page

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

Pictures in Trump-Pence 2016 Campaign biography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official photo

Run-off voting

1. David Uberti, Opinion Writers Throw Everything They Have against Trump, Columbia Journalism Review, September 8, 2016.
2. Editorial, Federal Deficits Explode—Is Anyone Paying Attention?, IBD, August 24, 2016.

Run-off Discussion

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.

I making this section because people clearly do not seem to understand why this is the system that is in place. Up above please only make your votes and if you have anything to discuss do so here in a clear manner, that we know what you are responding to. There has been MUCH discussion about the photos, so this voting is not in place of the discussion, just a natural progression. Chase (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I just want to remind everyone that wikipedia is not a democracy and therefore consensus will be judged by the merit of people's arguments rather than how many "votes" each photo gets. I see no point of having 6 "votes" and we usually don't do that on wikipedia. It's very unsettling to see discussion being discouraged when discussion is the foundation of wikipedian consensus building. Also, there usually is not a deadline on discussing things if consensus still is not clear. I suggest that after this discussion dies down that you guys ask an admin to access consensus. To be honest, I don't like either photo because in both pics there's a mic in the way and he's not completely upright. But to address Trumps photo... I prefer A because the contrast is not too dark, his posture is better, and he's facing forwards. We don't do runoffs on Misplaced Pages talk pages so technically A-E are still options and people can even propose more options if they choose. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You think we didn't make that argument already? Face it, this seems to be the only way we can settle things after a week of chaos. TL565 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. Admins are good for weighing arguments based on policy, guideline, and common practice. They are no better than any of us for judging whether one completely subjective opinion about a photo should be given more weight than another completely subjective opinion. If we did that, we might as well save everybody a lot of time and let the admin choose the photo. In any case, the current unanimous-minus-one consensus is that this method is just fine for the purposes of deciding this question. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well you don't get to make the rules on how consensus for a photo is decided. It doesn't make sense to notify users of a discussion where most of the options (like my choice) has already been eliminated and at a time when discussion is no longer being encouraged. Why even bother to invite more users to this talk page if we aren't supposed to engage in the discussion? If figuring out whether or not there is consensus is so difficult that you have to put it up to a vote that violates[REDACTED] policy, that probably means that none of the options have consensus and until that changes we are stuck with the status quo. I want to point out that someone "thanked" me for the comment I made above- just so you know that I am not the only one against this unnecessary voting method. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion began on 2 September, eight days ago, and there have been thousands of words of discussion spent on it. Many of us including me feel that at some point we have to move things forward, and there will always be more editors who arrive late and wish they could have participated in the discussion. If you and the other editor wish to dispute the otherwise-unanimously-accepted method of (finally) reaching this resolution, I don't think this is the place. I for one am more interested in results than in strict adherence to someone's subjective interpretation of policy. To me, "results" in this case means spending as little additional time as possible on bringing this largely arbitrary photo selection to a resolution. That's what we're doing here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

8 days is nothing considering that the default duration of an RFC is 30 days. If you disagree with my interpretation of[REDACTED] policy we should call an admin over and see what they think. You've made it quite clear on your talk page that you think that we should ignore the policy about voting. The thing is, we should only ignore rules when it improves Misplaced Pages. Encouraging limited discussion has a negative effect on the consensus process and therefore it should not be ignored. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, if an admin says we have to waste further time on arguments that change no one's mind, we will abide by that. If an admin says that we need a closer to choose an infobox photo, we will abide by that. Go for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Please read this if you have any questions regarding if a poll does or does not pertain to consensus. Thank you. Chase (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Because of his COI (declared or undeclared, I don’t know), the comments from Calibrador that attempt to influence the result in favor of the photograph he took should be struck and discounted. And anyway, run-off voting is not the way to resolve a content dispute. A tally of votes here will not provide a valid reason to keep or change the original photograph. Writegeist (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused to where the COI is or how he is influencing the result. Why should he not vote for his own suggestion? An admin even admitted that striking out his vote is going too far. TL565 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Which admin? Why is this admin not saying anything about the unconstructive voting going on (or have they)? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:MelanieN&diff=738722590&oldid=738721765 TL565 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Chase (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The admin is not commenting on the "unconstructive" voting because this was that Admin's policy based idea. If Prcc27 had bothered to read the talk page - they would know this. Please see my comments below. And Mandruss is not deciding how things go -- this is an established consensus and Prcc27 is showing up after the horse has left the barn. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I for one am disappointed I missed the voting, but I support how it all turned out. There was plenty of time for those who wanted - to jump on board. I think stopping it in mid-stream is not correct. All this was agreed to as it went on. Just because two editors don't agree after the fact should not carry any weight. Maybe this should be taken to ANI and let it be decided there because I don't find the reasons for thwarting what has been decided compelling. However, I find Mandruss's argument of wanting move things along on what is essentially arbitrary aesthetic judgement a much better argument. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Prcc27🌍 has opened the discussion as if no consensus has taken place. Consensus was established that this is how it would be done, at the behest of an admin. Also, it is impossible to judge on the merits of people's argument when aesthetic judgment is all there is. This was also noted by an admin - who encouraged us to choose a photo in this way. Prcc27 comments are like pointing to the horse after it has left the barn. Although, yes, there "usually is not a deadline on discussing things if consensus still is not clear" - but consensus has been very clear all along - so it seems Prcc27 has not read the talk page up to this point. And it is incorrect to say that consensus "is still not clear".

There is no possible way an admin can assess consensus on the best arguments for the photos because everyone has an equal opinion. The only possible way - is to choose the photo(s) that got the most votes. This seems to be supported by policy, because an Admin pointed this out. And Prcc27 then voices a preference on photos - with an argument that is much like any other argument pertaining to this - it is all aesthetic. There is no best argument. So, actually stopping this in mid-stream is going against already established consensus (in order to voice an aesthetic opinion?). Sorry, this is not correct. And using Misplaced Pages policies in this manner does not seem correct either. Consensus has determined what consensus has determined. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• You can't get local consensus at an article's talk page to disregard[REDACTED] policy. !Voting gives us an idea of which option has consensus but at the end of the day we have to go with the photo that has the strongest arguments. It is not in the convention of Misplaced Pages to have plural voting; a simply "support" or "strongly support" should suffice. The argument for the photo I !voted for was not just based on aesthetics; it was based on wikipedia standards not to use dark or blurry photos. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: we have to go with the photo that has the strongest arguments. Fine, and who makes that determination? Don't say that we make it together, collectively. I think I and those who agree with me have the strongest arguments. You think you and those who agree with you have the strongest arguments. You can say you have the strongest arguments because you pointed to Misplaced Pages standards not to use dark or blurry photos, and my response is that my preference photo is not dark or blurry. To my mind, I have defeated your claim that you have the strongest arguments. We can debate this to the end of time and neither of us will change our position. Seriously, how often have you seen someone reverse their position in a Misplaced Pages debate? I've seen it happen about five times in over three years, and three of those cases were me changing my mind. So how is this disagreement resolved without a closer? Such a closer would have to very subjectively decide whether my photo is dark or blurry, and being an admin does not make one more qualified than anyone else to make such judgments. Admins are experts in Misplaced Pages p&g, not photo evaluation. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment You know what? I don't care anymore what the result will be. It's just going to be contested by someone anyway and will be no way official, wasting everyone's time. As a matter of fact, I'm done with this place. TL565 (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: @TL565: "Hey now, Hey now! This is what dreams are made of." Don't be discourage! This is what Misplaced Pages is all about! We need you! Don't leave us!Chase (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Every consensus is subject to change, and many of them are revisited repeatedly. That doesn't mean everyone's time is necessarily wasted, although it is quite possible to waste time and we should work to avoid doing so. I feel that a poll like this minimizes the time spent on deciding this infobox photo. What is the point of spending a lot of time on threaded debate if (1) no one's mind is ever changed, and (2) there is no closer to independently evaluate the strength of the arguments? Has anyone else noticed that we never get any return on that investment?
  TL565, I'm not sure what you mean by "official". AFAIK, a clear consensus will be binding until it is replaced by a new consensus on this page, and persistent editing against it will be considered disruption and will be dealt with accordingly. So the idea is to establish that clear consensus, and that's what we're doing here. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not what you are doing here. What you are doing here is participating in a voting contest. Consensus is not determined by counting votes. This is a pointless exercise that contributes nothing to improving the article. Writegeist (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. By my count, 27 editors disagree. And neither you nor anyone else has provided convincing answers to the questions I posed in my preceding post. Nor has there been a reply to my post of 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC), which I consider well reasoned and well articulated. I conclude that the few dissenters have no real answers and have nothing to bring besides disruption of a process that is working quite well, despite baseless assertions to the contrary. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't matter; this is not a democracy. Eliminating options to choose from and disregarding[REDACTED] policy by holding an election is very disruptive so I posted on the Administrators' noticeboard so that we can get an admin to help guide discussion. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: A couple admins have already had their say, but you refuse to listen to them until you find one that agrees with you. Chase (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Third admin here, coming from WP:AN, and I've added {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} to this discussion, because as noted by several people, there's no real way to have a stronger argument than "I like it" on an aesthetic matter like this; I could imagine something being a major policy problem (e.g. a derogatory depiction of the guy) and votes for it being disregarded on WP:NPOV grounds, but that's definitely not the case here. And finally, note that voters on both sides have already offered opinions such as "It looks more presidential" (for the left picture) and "He's used it in his campaign ads, so it's more recognizable" (for the right picture), so it's not as if one side or the other is going solely on votes or depending on wimpy rationales. When people are strongly, strongly in favor of doing C or E (just three people are saying otherwise: use another image, use no image, and be random), it would be a clear disservice to do anything except for using C or using E, and closing as "no consensus, defaulting to status quo ante bellum" wouldn't be particularly good when one of the two choices was already in use. It's not ideal, but counting votes is the only way to do it here. So yes: barring evidence of outright misbehavior, e.g. sockpuppetry or other double voting, the position with the larger number of votes will be deemed to have community consensus for its implementation. Final note: if you want to continue discussing the general issue, go ahead, but please don't continue objecting to the idea of a vote, since you've gotten the admin input you requested. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

New image from September 17, 2016 (three days ago)

Because I anticipate (in good faith!) that almost everyone will find this image preferable to those proposed heretofore, I will insert boldly into the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I see that User:MrX has reverted. He and others may wish to create a better crop (I made this one with an old clunky computer that I have access to right now). Additionally, he and others may wish to look at the new set of images at Wikimedia Commons from which this image was taken.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I honestly don't care that much about which photo we use (although the expression in this one renders it undesirable). I care about the process that leads to consensus, a process which seems to be constantly disrupted by unwillingness to respect the instructions, canvassing, gaming, and general disruption. As an aside, I'm puzzled about why you put an entire Washington Post article in the file description.- MrX 11:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, the image was extracted from another image already uploaded, so merely copied the original description. I have no idea what "canvassing" you're referring to. People who were aware of these new photos days ago should have mentioned their existence, which would have saved me the trouble (and blowback!) of bringing them to people's attention at the last minute. I have removed the possible copyvio from the original upload, thanks for bringing it to my attention.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I can only conclude that you don't understand how a runoff vote works. In a runoff (or any vote for that matter), one doesn't introduce new candidates or choices, especially not in the final hours before the vote is to end. It's extremely disruptive and has the appearance of attempting to circumvent the dispute resolution process. This WP:RECKLESS edit was the icing on the cake.- MrX 13:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I knew the !vote was nearing an end, and therefore wanted to bring the new image to people's attention as fast as possible. The way a runoff works is that every editor can change his vote up until the last minute, based on new information, as I did myself in this case. I have no regrets about trying to ensure that !voters are fully informed, nor any objection to your right to revert the new image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That seems to confirm my conclusion above. Please see runoff.- MrX 14:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit this is better than option "C", but I still prefer E. Chase (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I kinda agree. This image is easier to "read", but something is off about it. It seems unnatural. I understand that's a subjective view... EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I like File:Donald_J._Trump_at_Marriott_Marquis_NYC_September_7th_2016_11.jpg out of the "new batch". Not sure if better than E, but better than C and this one shown here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well you're essentially rewinding the clock to September 10, negating all the editor effort made during that time. For an improvement that seems obvious to you but I suspect (in good faith) many others will dispute, including me. I see no non-messy solution, but at a minimum the existing process should be allowed to play out. Then we can decide where to go from there. I'm beginning to wonder whether I was incorrect when I essentially told one experienced editor that they were exaggerating with their statement: "It doesn't matter what decision will be made, because the discussion will restart in another week or so." At some point I think we need to say good enough, just so we can get some other work done. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks silly like he is mid sentence in a speechShadowDragon343 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a link where you can see the big batch of new photos taken during September 2016. Some older ones are mixed in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Allow me to suggest that you un-strike your vote. I'm closing that voting in 3.5 hours, and we're not going to add new candidates to that at this late hour. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I'd rather keep my !vote struck out, at least for now, because we suddenly have a fairly unusual collection of first-rate photos that ought to be considered. Any further votes could be limited to three days, since we have already identified a large pool of !voters who can be easily notified. As for you closing the !vote, didn't you yourself !vote at 21:47, 18 September 2016? I don't think that closure by an involved !voter is wise, even if the close is opposite to what you !voted for.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Duration was set at ten days from the start, and there has been no objection to that. This is not a "close" in the usual sense, as I'm not going to be making any judgments besides the sums of some numbers, which are subject to verification by others. So I don't need to be uninvolved. I'm merely using the word close because I can't think of a better one. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I object to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

On what basis? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

On the basis that we should wait 24 hours to see if there is consensus to consider the September photos at Wikimedia Commons (including the one atop this subsection), or not, before finalizing this decision.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well we do not have sufficient participation to reach a consensus on that question in the next three hours, so I'll go with the de facto consensus represented by ten days of no objection to the 10-day voting period, by 30+ editors. If we then reach a consensus to do so, the voting can be reopened.
I will oppose that, since, even if we pinged all participants, some would doubtless fail to come back and reconsider their votes. That would be problematic, since it would be improper to presume they would stay with their existing votes. Basically, that's a monumental mess you're suggesting. There are very good reasons to stick to a process and see it through, rather than changing horses mid-stream. We can always start a new vote and ping everybody, which is essentially the same thing but with far better organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

When a great deal of new information becomes available, as in this instance, we should at least give editors a chance to strike their votes (as I did). Why not extend by 24 hours and then count the !votes? I strongly suspect that many people who !voted for the new image (C) will want to strike their votes, as I did.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not extend by 24 hours and then count the !votes? - I believe I just answered that question. Sorry you didn't like my answer. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You'll be creating unnecessary article instability if you change the top image without giving people a chance to look at new alternatives. That's just my opinion, do with it as you will. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That's one perspective. The alternative perspective is that I'm following the agreed process and you're the one proposing article instability. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, please just close it as you had originally planned and disregard the attempted disruption and gaming. - MrX 11:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:, from my perspective your actions here are inappropriate These are as follows: overriding consensus on a whim and posting your preferred image on the article page, challenging the close which was established would happen ten days ago, challenging the closer without sufficient grounds and being argumentative about it, and then objecting to the close. This appears to be an attempt to disrupt the process, and this page is under Arbcom American Poltics 2 DS. I hope you can do the math, and please drop this. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised that there was any objection to the image atop this subsection. But several editors have already said it's better than at least one of the two images in the runoff. My article edit was reverted, and I have not contested the reversion. What I do suggest is giving !voters 24 hours to revise their !votes (as I did) in view of new information. To portray that simple suggestion as disruptive is absurd. You and everyone else are free to reject my suggestion if you wish. People are about to have their !votes counted despite new information that they haven't been given a chance to consider, which seems silly and unnecessary to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well what seems silly and unnecessary to you is really inconsequential at this juncture. And this process is not going to change course or stop just because you have an opinion. Consensus is not gong to be change because you have an opinion. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That's fine Steve, editors like me who fail to persuade other editors are essentially inconsequential and that is what I am here. That's fine, I have no problem with that, I'm not filibustering against you or denying your right to speak or your right to form a consensus against my opinion. But I do insist on striking my !vote prior to the deadline. I have no conflict of interest that prevents me from doing that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I will respect your strike if it's still in place at 08:39. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant - I didn't say you are inconsequential - I said your opinion is inconsequential at this juncture. At other junctures your opinion mattered, from what I can tell. And it would have been better said "opinion didn't seem to matter. Capice?Steve Quinn (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I changed my !vote to "E6". Good night.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I am going to briefly come out of retirement just this once, since I was involved in this discussion when it started. We just had a long drawn out tiring discussion on this for three weeks. Do we really need start this whole thing all over again when we are literally just hours away from voting being closed? More than 40 people have already voted and I don't think anyone is going snap their fingers because someone suddenly suggested a new photo at the last second. This is exactly the kind of thing I anticipated and why I left this place.(Although an admin made it more official since then.) I think Anythingyouwant's original vote should be counted regardless since he only struck it out due to a clear COI. Btw, I Oppose the new photo. TL565 (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

TL565 the answeer to your question is there is absolutely no requirement that we start this thing all over again with only a few hours left. Nor is their a basis for it. And there is not a sufficient rationale for negating a consensus of 40 people. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I knew someone would find a random photo from that set. Distracting microphone and weird lips should immediately disqualify. Full disclosure that I took C photo above, but don't believe this to be a COI, I am just giving my opinion on this distraction. Calibrador (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not sure if it was a sensible idea to start this considering the other one was about to close, Anyway it's now closed, we have consensus to use the other image so that's what we should stick with, I would suggest someone closes this. –Davey2010 10:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You see, this is the problem with the run-off voting that was implemented. It discourages consensus building, discussions, and suggesting better photos. In my opinion, this photo is better than both of the options in the run-off vote section. Perhaps many people that voted for C or even E would agree that this photo is better. But 2 photos were forced on us and the search for better photos was strongly discouraged. As for this proposed photo; I still don't understand why pics with a microphone photobombing Trump keep making it into the proposed photos. So I don't necessarily support this photo that much more than the other options. The vote between C and E was so close you could hardly say pic "C" has consensus. I don't know how we should move forward after this runoff vote. Either way, many people are going to be unhappy with the outcome. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we're past that discussion, given the opinions of TWO ADMINS and FORTY REGULAR EDITORS. I think I know a WP:STICK when I see it. Your silly WP:POINTy vote, resulting in weird-looking tally results with one decimal position, after I had contacted you about that 16 hours prior to end of voting, is quite enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Then why were you reverted when you changed the photo? It's obviously not up to you or me to have the final say in what the consensus was. We'll wait for it to be officially called by a closer. Until then, the status quo remains. Also, stop shouting at me please. As I noted before, participating in a voting system you designed doesn't mean they actually support that as a way to form a consensus. I'm not going to even bother reading the essay you linked to since it's just an essay. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm through trying to explain what should be obvious to an editor with your experience. Others are obviously free to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I'd like to see at least one editor verify my counts. I was pretty careful, but a lot of shit was changing during the final few hours, after I had done the counts. With each change, I had to adjust the tallies accordingly, and I could have made a mistake in the confusion. For that matter, I could have made a mistake in the original counts. If someone could take that on and respond here that would be awesome. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully the closer will verify that. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Anything's possible, but that was not the purpose of the "closer" request, as clearly explained in it. I think the word "close" has created a little confusion, since this is nothing like the typical close, so I'll try to avoid that in any future similar situations. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure your count is correct. I would like to know why all these voting sections have been closed and reopened several times. I don't understand why the photo has suddenly become such an issue. If the man wins, he gets another official photo, if he doesn't win, the one that's been there all along will be fine as nobody will notice. And I'd like to thank whoever decided to go for GA as that's what this article has been needing for some time. Thank you, to whomever it was. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Religion in the infobox.

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

Yes, there is consensus (closed RFC here) not to place a subject's religion in their infobox unless it's directly tied to their notability. I've gone ahead and removed it accordingly. —F₈E₈ (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

44*Ernio48 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I was excluding Cleveland's second termShadowDragon343 (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Forbes 500

Should the lead have been edited today as follows?

I think this was a counterproductive edit, and the words "wealthiest 500" should be restored. It sounds silly the way it is; if we want to say he's a billionaire then just say he's a billionaire (which is almost completely undisputed by reliable sources). However, it is much more noteworthy that he's among the world's wealthiest 500 billionaires. See Blankfeld, Karen. "Forbes Billionaires: Full List Of The 500 Richest People In The World 2016", Forbes (March 1, 2016). I don't think it's puffery any more than it's puffery to say in the Hillary Clinton lead "the first female", or to say in the Mike Bloomberg lead "6th richest person in the world", or to say in the Warren Buffett lead that "He was ranked as the world's wealthiest person in 2008 and as the third wealthiest in 2015", or to say in the George Soros lead "Soros is one of the 30 richest people in the world", et cetera.

As of August 31, the lead of this BLP said "Listed by Forbes among the wealthiest of the World's Billionaires...." On July 31, it said "Listed by Forbes among the wealthiest 400 of The World's Billionaires...." On June 30, it said: "Listed by Forbes among the wealthiest 400 of The World's Billionaires...." I haven't seen any firm consensus to remove from the lead that he's not merely a billionaire but also one of the wealthier ones.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters that much, but I'd support the re-inclusion of "the world's wealthiest 500 billionaires", as there are 1,810 billionaires according to Forbes. Trump has risen from joint-405th to 336th richest person in the world from 2015 to 2016 according to Forbes also, which is nice. Zaostao (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you give me one example where being the 336th best (in this case richest) deserves mention in the lead of someone's bio? Steve is the 336th best chess player in the world! John is the 336th highest paid CEO - brilliant! -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I did give several examples in the original comment of this section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Top 500 to distinguish from the 1,810 total, not a specific number. Anyway, I'd be pretty happy if I was the 336th best chess player in the world, i'd definitely want that in my[REDACTED] article—I'd also be rated nearly 2600 which would be very nice. Zaostao (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on this discussion, but I think it's appropriate to note that what an editor would "want" if they were the subject of the article is, if anything, an argument against, not an argument for inclusion. Remember, the goal is to be independent and neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald J. Trump Foundation

According to this new article in a reliable source "...Trump had found a way to give away somebody else’s money and claim the credit for himself." I think it deserves mention (paraphrased) in the subsection here. Thoughts. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does. That the NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, as "the regulator of nonprofits in New York", has opened an inquiry into the Foundation also deserves mention. Buster Seven Talk 06:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree the inquiry should also be mentioned here, although not as in depth as the main article. Sourcing for addition: -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding giving away other people's money, it seems to be covered already in this BLP:

This material was apparently added just before this talk page section was started, and I think the new section in the BLP can be shortened a bit per WP:Summary style. As for the inquiry by the New York State A.G., there is one sentence about it at Donald J. Trump Foundation. There are no charges AFAIK, and not even any public indication about what the inquiry into the foundation is about. So I don't think this particular article needs to mention it yet. This article already describes in detail a particular violation by this foundation:

That seems like plenty for now, and it ought to be more concise in view of WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The linked article about the Foundation is 4 days old. The Foundation was founded in 1988. The article is thread-bare with little history and even less information. Not very helpful or informative to our future readers. Time will tell. My guess is both mention here and at the Foundation article will expand. Buster Seven Talk 16:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed some of the content from the section which violates WP:WEIGHT. Also, wouldn't the Donald J. Trump Foundation article be the more appropriate venue? This would seem to be more Foundation related than Trump related.CFredkin (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I say above, The linked article about the Foundation is an infant considering the Foundation has over 25 u years of history. It is thread-bare with little information. Lets not send our readers to an empty closet. Buster Seven Talk 21:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that NONE of the Clinton Foundation controversies are currently included in Clinton's bio. They've been excluded based on the same rationale. I'm not sure why we should treat Trump's bio differently.CFredkin (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comparing the Clinton Foundation to the Trump Foundation is a false equivalency, unless you can prove that the Clinton Foundation violated tax laws, because the Trump Foundation did. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The Clinton Foundation controversies have also been referenced in far more reliable sources.CFredkin (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Per an August 11 news report, "the Obama administration rejected requests from three FBI field offices that wanted to open public corruption cases involving the Clinton Foundation". The fine levied against Trump and the Trump Foundation was not for giving money to Bondi, but rather for giving it from the wrong funds (i.e. from Foundation funds), and these two things should not be confused.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Right. Wrongdoing was found on the part of Trump, and none on the part of the Clinton's. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The Trump Foundation's problems are different than those of Clintons. No charges of acts of intentional fraud have been made against the Clinton Foundation. With the Bondi $25K: she requested the funding, it looks like the Trump foundation found a similarly named charity in Kansas that could be used for book-keeping entries (address and all) but the check mysteriously winds up in Florida instead of Kansas. The fine was for making a political contribution....a no-no for charities. Buster Seven Talk 21:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Depth of coverage on Trump Foundation and current NY inquiry

So we need to decide how much of the material belongs in this article per WP:Summary style. Here are 3 sources ( ) and there are others. Looking at the second source it states, "New York state's top prosecutor has made inquiries into Donald Trump's nonprofit foundation after questions about impropriety." Below is the additional material I think should be included at this article:

The same source states "...correspondence with the foundation began on June 9." Aside from stating the necessary initiation date, I don't think there is anything further to add until the inquiry is finished. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again, my concern is that this violates WP:WEIGHT for Trump's bio. Also, wouldn't the Donald J. Trump Foundation article be the more appropriate venue? This would seem to be more Foundation related than Trump related.CFredkin (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to look at WP:Summary style. We already know that the Donald J. Trump Foundation should be discussed in this article because it's his foundation, the only question is how much should we include. I think the dollar figure material I quoted above should be included here. The $25,000 has to do with a donation that was made to a political group connected to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (all nonprofits are barred from making politically-related contributions) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• First of all, no one objects that some kind of subsection and reference to the Foundation must be included. Yes, sure. How much info should be included in the summary? Well, the $2,500 penalty for failing to disclose the gift to the Internal Revenue Service is obviously the key fact of the controversy. Yes, it should be included. Overall, the current version of this section seem to be good at the moment. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I think this version is appropriate. Any more needs to be discussed to get consensus. One important point is whether the fine was against Trump personally, or merely against an entity like the Trump Foundation. I have no idea. If the former, then it might be worth including here, but if not then it should probably be keep in the article about the foundation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you don't have consensus to remove the material that is currently in the article. You can challenge the material all you like, but the first train has already left the station. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Am I allowed to express my opinion? That's all I'm doing for the time being. And the way things work around here is that people who insert new material need consensus to do that, AFAIK. That's your burden, not mine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but you can't WP:FILIBUSTER consensus, which is what you and CFredkin have been trying to do on all these related articles (admittedly, more CFredkin than you, but since you guys always travel together it gets sort of mixed up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

In addition to being undue, the following content is not supported by the source provided:

Through its tax returns, the foundation has reported support for organizations including Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy, the Clinton Foundation and the New York Military Academy. The beneficiaries listed by the Trump Foundation erroneously list some non-charities, such as a plane ride and gift valued at about $1000 for tennis superstar Serena Williams."

Also these edits were included in VM's blanket revert of my edits. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, but currently the first para in the section does not read like it's part of a biography. Also, substituting "charitable disbursements" for "expenses" would be more accurate based on the source. Any objections to restoring these?CFredkin (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Donald Trump donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Per this reliable source, we should mention something about it in the section. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any references to the Donald J. Trump Foundation in the source.CFredkin (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Just looked again and saw the reference to the DJT Foundation. I still believe this bit of content is undue per summary style.CFredkin (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

So the content IS in fact adequately supported by the source, yes? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my previous post was in reference to the bolded content in Somedifferent stuff's last post. The content in the talk quote above, which was included in the content that VM restored (and is currently still in the article) is not supported by the sources provided in the article. It is therefore a BLP violation.CFredkin (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more precise about which parts are not in which source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

He was talking about the green quote above that starts, "Through its tax returns..." --- Someone had put the wrong source behind it which I've now fixed -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's STILL a BLP violation.... the source for the second sentence indicates the donation referenced in your content was from Trump personally, not the Foundation.CFredkin (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You obviously haven't looked at the beginning of the source which has a legend explaining what each symbol stands for; the only one listed that didn't come from the foundation was the New York Military Academy (which I've now removed ) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And please post here the specific text from the source that supports your assertion that the Trump Foundation donated to Serena Williams.CFredkin (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is the source and here is the text: "In addition, many of the gifts on the list came from the charity that bears his name ... Some beneficiaries on the list are not charities at all: They included clients, other businesses and tennis superstar Serena Williams." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, conflating 2 paragraphs to create a false impression. I'm not sure what to say about that, except it doesn't seem like good faith editing. Here are 4 distinct paras from your source. (Actually the first para below is really the first 2 paras in the source.) They don't seem to support your assertion at all.

Since the first day of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has said that he gave more than $102 million to charity in the past five years. To back up that claim, Trump’s campaign compiled a list of his contributions — 4,844 of them, filling 93 pages.

In addition, many of the gifts on the list came from the charity that bears his name, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which didn’t receive a personal check from Trump from 2009 through 2014, according to the most recent public tax filings. Its work is largely funded by others, although Trump decides where the gifts go.

Some beneficiaries on the list are not charities at all: They included clients, other businesses and tennis superstar Serena Williams.

Trump listed a donation to “Serena William Group” in February 2015, valued at exactly $1,136.56. A spokeswoman for the tennis star said she had attended a ribbon- cutting at Trump’s Loudoun County, Va., golf course that year for a new tennis center. But Trump hadn’t donated to her charity. Instead, he had given her a free ride from Florida on his plane and a free framed photo of herself.

Serena Williams material

CFredkin, you're going to have to explain yourself better; what is being conflated with what? Here is the Serena source and here is the text: "In addition, many of the gifts on the list came from the charity that bears his name ... Some beneficiaries on the list are not charities at all: They included clients, other businesses and tennis superstar Serena Williams." "But Trump’s list was also riddled with apparent errors, in which the “charities” that got his gifts didn’t seem to be charities at all. Trump listed a donation to “Serena William Group” in February 2015, valued at exactly $1,136.56 ... But Trump hadn’t donated to her charity. Instead, he had given her a free ride from Florida on his plane and a free framed photo of herself." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Now CFredkin has just removed the Serena material from the article while this discussion is still taking place; that's very helpful and collaborative. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Um. It's not supported by the source you provided. Therefore it's a BLP violation. According to WP:BLP, the content should be removed until sourcing can be provided.CFredkin (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No dude, that's not how this works. What isn't supported by this reference? --- Here is what you removed from the article: "The beneficiaries listed by the Trump Foundation erroneously list some non-charities, such as a plane ride and gift valued at about $1000 for tennis superstar Serena Williams." --- Now what part of this is not supported by the source? --- From the source above: "But Trump’s list was also riddled with apparent errors, in which the “charities” that got his gifts didn’t seem to be charities at all. Trump listed a donation to “Serena William Group” in February 2015, valued at exactly $1,136.56 ... But Trump hadn’t donated to her charity. Instead, he had given her a free ride from Florida on his plane and a free framed photo of herself." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

What's missing from the source is a statement that the Trump Foundation "donated" to Serena.CFredkin (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Are you confusing Trump with his Foundation?CFredkin (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Now you're being straight up disruptive - the material you removed from the article didn't contain the word "donated" --- so now what's your objection? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The quotes in my previous post were not for emphasis. The word "donation" is not the focus of my objection. My objection (as I've stated repeatedly) is that nothing in the source supports the assertion that the Trump Foundation (as opposed to Trump personally) gave anything to Serena. The closest you've been able to come to supporting that claim is by combining two paras from the source to give a false impression.CFredkin (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Do the words "..the charity that bears his name..." lead you to the conclusion? Buster Seven Talk 01:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Description of donees from the Foundation Center

Does anyone object if the following material is restored? It was removed for no apparent reason.

References

1. "Foundation Center". Accessed September 14, 2016.

Yes. First, that's not what you actually wrote in the article. You wrote " According to the Foundation Center which maintains comprehensive databases on grantmakers and their grants, Trump's foundation gives primarily to "health organizations, youth development, and social services."" You can't inflate the authority of the source, and in the same breath, attribute bare data to the source to pass that authority on. That's original research. There are plenty of better sources available for putting such data in the proper context.- MrX 21:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, it is very likely that the information about who they give to is from the Foundation itself - probably from how it described its intended purpose in the paperwork when it was formed. It may have little or no relation to how they actually donate, and it is certainly not any kind of independent evaluation. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I went to the lead of the article about the Foundation Center to merely grab some descriptors. If people refer inline attribution to the Foundation Center without saying who they are or what they do, then fine, but it looks like y'all object to that as well. So, I will get a more reliable source. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

New sentence in lead paragraph about New Jersey Generals and/or Trump U

I disagree with selecting a couple of flops by Trump and putting them in the first paragraph of the lead: "He is the founder of Trump University and the New Jersey Generals football team." Per WP:MOSBIO, "Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Maybe no mention in the lead but the Generals could be mentioned somewhere in the article. I mean...really...how many guys can say they owned a professional football team in the New York City market. It deserves mention...not as a flop....just as a fact. I bought this up two weeks ago...I'm glad it resurfaced. Buster Seven Talk 16:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The Generals were indeed in the article already, as we discussed, and that's fine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Generals definitely not important enough for the lead. Trump U probably not. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Trump U probably not, as it's an incidental role, not integral to subject's notability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree on the Generals. I do think Trump U is important enough to be mentioned in the lead although not in the first para.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither seems notable enough to warrant mention in the lede.CFredkin (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course Trump U is notable. Why in the world would it not be? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anything. You say "...not integral to subject's notability". Which subjects notability do you mean...Trumps (as the subject of this article) is not notable to the University or the University is not notable to Trump? I'm confused. Do you mean Trumps role is incidental related to the University? Buster Seven Talk 05:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

His role as founder of Trump U is not integral to his notability. His notability stems mainly from other things.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Trump licensing his name for anything and selling substandard products kind of is what he's notable for. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

He'd be just as famous today if he had never set up Trump University. Only a small fraction of the media coverage of him discusses it. It's fine to describe Trump U later in this BLP, though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. How do you know? Trump's notability is that he is a businessman. This is one of his businesses. It is one of his businesses which has received a lot of attention. It is one of his businesses which is covered extensively in sources (yes, partly because it's subject to investigation and civil suits). I don't know what this "small fraction" is, that just sounds like something you made up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC

His "Brand" is what's famous. Nowadays that is the product:the Trump name. Even before the election cycle, Trump realized that his rumored success was the product. Trump University would be just another huckster scam without his name on it. It's in the news and will stay in the news because it has his name on it. Its not prominent in the news because of the three class-action law suits, but when those are adjudicated I'm sure we will hear about it. Buster Seven Talk 06:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I haven't "heard" or read anything about Trump U in the media in quite awhile. I think at this point, it is at the middle part of the spectrum pertaining to inclusion in this article. It seems, there has been other more prominent issues that have come to light during his campaign. I may be looking at this the wrong way, so I am open to input from other editors. In summation, I know Trump U is part of his bio, but it seems to have less prominence than when there was significant news coverage. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Just in the past week or so: , , , , , , ,

Of course it was even more prominently featured in the news when Trump made those comments about the judge, which many thought to be racist, but it's still there. In good measure because now it's linked to Trump Foundation and the "contributions" made to it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these Volunteer Marek. Like I said, I may have been looking at this the wrong way. These presented sources show that this issue has legs and is being sustained. The New Yorker has a nice opening: "Trump University: The Scandal that Won't Go Away".

"If news cycles were driven by issues of import, rather than what’s new, Trump University, the scandal-plagued learning annex which promised to teach its students Donald Trump’s secrets of how to get rich in real estate, would never leave the front pages and home pages of American media outlets. As I noted in a June post that was based on court documents, even some of Trump University’s own employees regarded it as giant ripoff. The idea that the proprietor, and principal promoter, of such an enterprise could end up in the Oval Office is absurd on its face".

And I forgot about his comments about the judge. I also forgot about his "foundation" donation in Florida -

"a twenty-five-thousand-dollar payment to a political group supporting the reëlection of Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of Florida. When Trump’s charity made the donation, Bondi, a Republican who took office in 2011, was deciding whether to launch a formal investigation into Trump University, following complaints by Florida residents who claimed that they had been bilked. Shortly after Trump’s charity made the donation, Bondi announced that she wouldn’t go ahead with the probe of Trump University".

. So, I am now rethinking my previous statement. Actually I have been proved wrong. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way to put either of these items in the lead without giving them undue emphasis. It's not that they aren't significant--of course they are--but mentioning them while excluding Trump's many other ventures wouldn't be representative. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice: Archiving changes

I have changed automatic archive parameter "minthreadsleft" from 2 to 4; this ensures a table of contents will be kept. MB298 (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD for List of books by or about Donald Trump

FYI, there's an Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion about List of books by or about Donald Trump. The discussion is here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The info box picture

So is the run off voting done? Are we doing Picture C or are we keeping it put? CatcherStorm 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@CatcherStorm: Runoff ends September 20. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed Trump Tower / Barbara Res passage

Today's GA fail suggested a citation for: "Favorable reviews of the building's design helped convince the city to approve the project. Trump hired Barbara Res to manage the building's construction, and she became the first woman to manage the construction of a skyscraper in New York City".

I am removing the passage because:

• Too tangential to a bio of Donald Trump. Particularly the bit about Barbara Res's career advancement, unless that's meant to show that he is not sexist because he did something that happened to advance the career of a woman. Which is not to say or imply that I believe he is sexist, I have no opinion on that.
• The passage is a copy-and-paste from this book and I'm not feeling inclined to spend some of my limited mental energy composing a rewrite for something so relatively unimportant to the article.
• WP:SELFPUBLISH. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Diff, FTR. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I can see why, as written, that it would not fit GA1. But it is historical that she was the first woman to be given the management of a skyscraper in New York City and that Trump is the one who gave her the job means it belongs in the article. I would be willing to edit it to GA1 standards. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Longstanding

I restored the word "longstanding", as in the birther craziness was already "longstanding" when Trump got involved with it in 2011. This was already discussed extensively at this talk page, and I don't think we should give readers the impression that the whole thing started in 2011. Here is an archived version of our Misplaced Pages article about the controversy from just before Trump got involved, and it's clear that it was already longstanding.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

$885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies

Not sure where this material should be incorporated into the article. Source is here --- Thoughts -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It probably does not belong in this article. The source says, "In seeking those subsidies, Mr. Trump is not that different from many other developers. But the level of subsidies he has received along with his doggedness in claiming them seem at odds with his rhetoric as an outsider candidate...." That's an issue about his campaign. TFD (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The following, from the same source, is not associated with his campaign: "But that book, and numerous interviews over the years, make little mention of a crucial factor in getting the hotel built: an extraordinary 40-year tax break that has cost New York City $360 million to date in forgiven, or uncollected, taxes, with four years still to run, on a property that cost only $120 million to build in 1980." This is discussing the Grand Hyatt.

The next paragraph states: "The project set the pattern for Mr. Trump’s New York career: He used his father’s, and, later, his own, extensive political connections, and relied on a huge amount of assistance from the government and taxpayers in the form of tax breaks, grants and incentives to benefit the 15 buildings at the core of his Manhattan real estate empire." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This is probably TMI for this article. We really need an article about the Trump Group. But for this article - probably not unless it becomes a much bigger, more widely reported issue. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)