Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MichaelVadon (talk | contribs)
42 edits
MichaelVadon (talk | contribs)
42 edits
Line 720: Line 720:
::::::{{ping|Prcc27}} See related discussion at [[WP:AN]]. The point of the RfC is precisely to enable discussion, so have at it. If that discussion actually proves beneficial, you and a couple of others will be vindicated (not your [[WP:POINT]] but your viewpoint) and the rest of us will learn something from the experience. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 22:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Prcc27}} See related discussion at [[WP:AN]]. The point of the RfC is precisely to enable discussion, so have at it. If that discussion actually proves beneficial, you and a couple of others will be vindicated (not your [[WP:POINT]] but your viewpoint) and the rest of us will learn something from the experience. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 22:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I authorized "Mandruss" to post the above message and vote. I have no idea how to edit the wikipedia and so I wanted someone with experience to perform the edit. I dont want to mess anything up here. Thanks again. Mike [[User:MichaelVadon|MichaelVadon]] ([[User talk:MichaelVadon|talk]]) 14:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I authorized "Dervorguilla" to post the above message and vote. I have no idea how to edit the wikipedia and so I wanted someone with experience to perform the edit. I dont want to mess anything up here and I simply dont have the time to sort through all this. Thanks again. Mike [[User:MichaelVadon|MichaelVadon]] ([[User talk:MichaelVadon|talk]]) 14:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


:::::::{{ping|Mandruss}} do you have a link for the particular AN discussion? I am having trouble finding it on the AN board. Thanks. [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]])
:::::::{{ping|Mandruss}} do you have a link for the particular AN discussion? I am having trouble finding it on the AN board. Thanks. [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]])

Revision as of 14:18, 22 September 2016

Former good article nomineeDonald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 18, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Page views for this article over the last 30 days

Detailed traffic statistics

RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements

There is rough consensus to implement the proposal.

I am closing this RfC following a closure request at WP:AN. By my likely inaccurate count, we have 33 supporting the proposal and 21 opposing it. That's not enough for consensus by itself, so I'll have to examine the strength of the arguments being made in the light of Wikipedia's policies and practices.

Almost all of the supporters of the proposal point to the reliable sources that indicate that the connection between many of Donald Trump's statements and reality is uncommonly shaky even by the standards of professional politics. Because the reliability of these sources is for the most part not contested, these opinions are based on valid arguments in terms of policy.

The "oppose" opinions, on the other hand, are more of a mixed bag. Roughly half make, in my view, valid or defensible arguments in terms of Wikipedia policies and practice: for instance, they argue that the lead of a BLP article is not the appropriate place to introduce controversial content not detailed in the article body; or that making questionable claims is so much part of politics that the proposal proceeds from false assumptions; or even that the presence of footnotes in the lead would cause problems. But the other half are, if not entirely without merit, inadequate to counter the proposal: Some merely allege error, bias or non-neutrality on the part of the proposal or proposers, without addressing how the quantity and quality of the sources that support the proposed text influences the merits of the proposal. Others ask why such changes are not proposed or made to the articles about other politicians. But this is an inapplicable argument, as this discussion is about Donald Trump and not other people, and the neutral point of view does not require that all articles contain the same or similar content, but rather that they reflect the consensus of reliable sources about their specific subject. This makes both of these lines of argument hard to distinguish from a mere "I don't like it" vote. For these reasons, I must assign much less weight to these opinions.

Consequently, I find that there is rough consensus (the usual Wikipedia standard for consensus) to implement the proposal. As far as I can tell from the discussion, the proposed content hasn't been challenged through reverts yet, so it doesn't need the "firm" consensus required by the applicable discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  19:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should the lead section, which currently says:

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

be changed to read (changes in bold):

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

The proposed sources are:

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

References

notes added by Anythingyouwant

NOTE: Dr. Fleischman has acknowledged that both sources above are rather old now (from 2015), and he points to the following two additional sources (though it is still unclear whether Dr. Fleischman objects to omitting footnotes from this lead which has thus far omitted them per WP:LEADCITE):

Please also note that this RFC about the lead is followed later in this talk page by a similar discussion about the body of this BLP (see Talk:Donald Trump#Working draft of a section about Trump's false statements).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support - His frequent false statements, as noted by Pulitzer Prize winning sources, have become a staple of his campaign [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].- MrX 18:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for adding "or false"- His covert, coded and often repeated rhetoric is most often deceitful and without specific regret afterwards. Examples are abundant and can be found with very little effort. Buster Seven Talk 18:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Fact checking organizations are often controversial. Indeed, I've seen accusations of a liberal bias many MANY times, and I've seen precious little refuting those accusations (except memes with pithy little comments like "The facts have a liberal bias"). That being said, I'm not at all convinced that those accusations are true. Politifact has given every candidate this season except Sanders at least one "Pants on Fire" rating. Factcheck.org has slammed Clinton, Sanders, Stein, Johnson and Trump.
That being said, I don't like using those sites as a source. They are too controversial, and there's not enough evidence that the criticisms of them are unfounded (I believe they are, but I can't prove it with reliable sources). In this case, I've read articles from CNN, PBS and NPR about Trump's numerous untrue statements. a quick google search shows many sources that could be significantly less controversial. I'm sure anyone willing (not me, nope nope nope nope) to put more effort into finding a reliable source for these statements will find some pretty good ones. So I'm okay with the proposal, but not okay with the proposed sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your position on the reliability of these fact checkers is consistent with WP:RS, which focuses on the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy rather than bias or controversy, but if this objection picks up steam, I agree, it could be easily remedied by adding additional sources such as the ones MrX has proposed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FactCheck.org is often cited by other reliable sources, and even The Federalist. One indication of reliability is WP:USEBYOTHERS. Of course, PolitiFact is one of the Pulitzer Prize winners, which suggests a degree of reliability.- MrX 18:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MjolnirPants, how about this TIME Magazine source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DrFleischman:, @MrX: I don't think you understood what I was saying. I personally feel that the fact checking sites do a wonderful job and are free from any meaningful bias. If there was an RfC on whether or not we can use fact checking sites, I'd !vote Yes in big, bold letters. But I can't prove it, because there are lots of other sources complaining about them, and few other sources defending them (it seems to be so widely held in journalistic circles that they are accurate that few journalists feel the need to defend them). So I don't like using them simply because doing so provides an excuse for editors who disagree with them to complain about how unreliable they are, and start a big stink about it. Given that the fact checking sources often cover the same material as other, less controversial sources, I will (until there is a clear consensus that questioning the reliability of fact checkers is pointless) always elect to use the less controversial sources. So that time magazine source is absolutely perfect, from where I sit. however, whenever there is no other good source for a claim, I say go with the fact checkers and be ready to defend oneself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, gotcha. FWIW here's another strong source, this time from Politico. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point MjolnirPants. It never hurts to have more and better sources.- MrX 21:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MrX: The Wall Street Journal has won seven Pullet Surprises — and it one of its editorial-board members characterizes PolitiFact as "fundamentally dishonest" for mislabeling opinion pieces as 'fact checks'. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is paywalled, but judging from it's lead, I'm doubtful that is makes such a sweeping generalization. Nor does it matter, given the abundance of sources at our disposal.- MrX 11:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: It looks like the Journal's editorial-board member does make the "sweeping generalization" that PolitiFact is selling mislabeled opinion pieces:
The Site Once Vouched for Its “Lie of the Year”
PolitiFact.com ... is out with its “Lie of the Year”...
We cannot fault PolitiFact for the lie it chose...
Which isn’t to say PolitiFact doesn’t function as a state propaganda agency. For in the past — when it actually mattered, before ObamaCare became a law — PolitiFact vouched for Barack Obama’s “Big Lie”...
PolitiFact ... includes the following acknowledgment: “In 2009 and again in 2012, PolitiFact rated Obama’s statement Half True”...
As the Washington Examiner noted last month, in October 2008 PolitiFact rated the same statement ... as flatly “true”...
Its past evaluations of the statement were not “fact checks” at all, merely opinion pieces endorsing ObamaCare...
But selling opinion pieces by labeling them “fact checks” is fundamentally dishonest.
--Dervorguilla (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's their opinion. Other publication see it differently. The Washington Examiner not a source I would rely on for "noting" anything concerning president Obama or Obama Care.- MrX 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MrX: No need to. The Journal is the largest reputable newspaper in the country. Both the Journal and a columnist at Time -- the largest reputable newsmagazine in the world -- see PolitiFact as "spreading false impressions" or worse. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dervorguilla: I'm sure you noticed that in the same Time article, the following was stated(referring to Politifact): "they’re generally doing a hard, important thing well. They often do it better than the rest of the political media, and the political press owes them for doing it." Gaas99 (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaas99: Note the limiting adverbs and the adversative conjunction. (Emphasis added.) "They’re generally doing [it] well. They often do it better than the rest... But..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Politicians make false statements. That's not exactly relevant to the lead of their bios.Eeyoresdream (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - per MrX - this has received extremely wide and deep coverage from multiple high-quality journalistic sources. Neutralitytalk 19:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I originally opposed, but given the discussion above and the strength of the sources, I think this two-word addition is justified. Yes, many politicians shade the truth or even outright lie on occasion, but Trump has carried it to a whole new level, as has been well documented by neutral reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's called politics. It is also my impression that it would be false to say that. If anything, he's been too honest for his own good. By the way, I also object to the use of the word "controversial" as it is POV. Instead, we should say, "politically incorrect".Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zigzig20s: Can you cite some reliable sources that support your reasoning, especially " he's been too honest for his own good"? It strikes me as very odd that you seem to think your "impression" should receive more consideration than Pulitzer Prize winning sources.- MrX 21:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom. The argument that Trump's falsehoods are politics as usual has no basis in our policies and guidelines and is directly contradicted by the cited reliable sources, among many others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The frequency and severity of the falsehoods stated by the Trump campaign have been the subject of discussion from numerous secondary sources. Sources appear to treat this as above-and-beyond the typical political truth spinning. NPOV directs us to reflect the sources in a neutral manner and the proposed wording does that. DUE directs us to mention it because it's been so widely and extensively covered. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be more specific? It seems to me it would be false; he's been more truthful than most politicians.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources MrX provided above are a good starting point. Some others: [11] [12] [13] [14]. I know of no reliable source suggesting that Trump is more truthful (or even equally as truthful) than other politicians. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those sound like opinion pieces. The Guardian is left-wing; could we cite Breitbart then?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't categorized as opinion pieces by the outlets. We cannot assume they are. Guardian is more leftwing, but it's RS. Breitbart generally is not because of its history of factual errors. (See RSN discussion archives). We are required to accurately and neutrally reflect RS, even if we don't agree with what they say. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of this specific Guardian article certainly sounds like an opinion piece. My worry is not that we can't cite them, but that citing them would make Wikipedia look bad/biased.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A few more links: PolitiFact's Lie of the Year was covered by other sources ([15]). "Donald Trump attempted to relaunch his troubled campaign Wednesday with a scripted speech fusing his anti-trade economic message with a series of attacks on Hillary Clinton that ran the gamut from harsh, to unprovable to false.". EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this sounds POV. Are we going to say that Clinton lies a lot in her lede? (Just google it.) That's what politicians do.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are allowed to be POVish (see WP:BIASED). It seems that sources have covered Trumps falsehoods more and say that he has more of them than Clinton. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Google "Clinton pinocchio". There's even a t-shirt. My point is that you're free to say Trump is the worst person in the entire universe by citing it, but ultimately that makes Wikipedia look bad. This should not be used as a political platform.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about a handful of falsehoods. We're talking about so many that it's become a regular subject of media coverage by reliable sources--not just a specific falsehood, but the overall pattern. A t-shirt isn't a reliable source. In any case, if you see the same thing about Clinton then you are more than welcome to propose a similar addition at Talk:Hillary Clinton. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zigzig, give it up. You are apparently repeating the Trump campaign line that he "tells it like it is". But the reliable sources are pointing out things he says that are FACTUALLY FALSE. And it's not just lies about his opponent, like "Hillary wants to create totally open borders" or she want to "abolish the Second Amendment". It's lies about simple, verifiable facts, like "We're the highest taxed nation in the world" or "GDP was essentially zero in the last two quarters" or "Americans are the only country that has birthright citizenship" or "South Korea doesn't pay the U.S. for our troops there protecting their country". It's lies about his own biography, like "Trump University has a "A" from the Better Business Bureau" or "The Art of the Deal is the best selling business book of all time" or "I got to know Putin very well when we were both on 60 minutes" or …. shall I go on? The Washington Post's "Fact checker" has awarded Trump their highest rating, "Four Pinocchios" (meaning a flat lie), on 65% of the statements they tested, and most of the rest are Three Pinocchios. In contrast, most politicians earn Four Pinocchios 10-20% of the time. [16] This is NOT a case of "all politicians lie". Trump has set a new standard, according to everybody who rates this kind of thing. --MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's called hyperbole. It's political speech. Perhaps this could go in the body of the text, but not in the lede. It is too POV and makes Wikipedia look biased. I want Wikipedia to remain neutral, and this would look bad in my opinion. But I've made my point--hopefully you will listen.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's way beyond hyperbole. According to Google, "hyperbole" is "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally". His comments are meant to be taken literally. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's political speech. Obama said he would close Gitmo. He hasn't, as it's the next best thing to keep America safe. But I bet voters believed him. This is what politicians do.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obama hasn't closed Gitmo because Congressional Republicans blocked all of his attempts to do so. It's a broken promise, but again, it was meant literally. Like Trump's statements. (And lol to Gitmo keeping America "safe".) – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting Obama was being "hyperbolic"? If not, I fail to see the relevance. Graham (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and since you keep bringing up Clinton, here is a head-to-head comparison from the Washington Post, as of July: For Trump: 52 claims were rated. 63% were Four Pinocchios, 21% 3, 10% 2, 2% 1, 4 % truthful. For Clinton: 36 claims were rated. 14% were Four Pinocchios, 36% 3, 30.5% 2, 5.5% 1, 14% truthful. [17] --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post has been at loggerheads with Trump. Of course they would publish anti-Trump pieces now.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
… are you seriously citing a t-shirt as a reliable source? Graham (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to some policy to support your position? Just saying the press is lying isn't sufficient as it is your personal opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest avoiding Nazi terminology if you'd like your opinion to be taken more seriously. This is a Donald Trump RfC, not a Donald Trump campaign rally, after all. MastCell Talk 00:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's German terminology, unless everything used by the National Socialists becomes "Nazi" related, in which case universal healthcare is Nazi ideology. Zaostao (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. False is false, and this is very well documented in sources above. That is what multiple reliable sources tell. Very simple. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support When something is demonstrably false (like the NFL letter he claimed to receive, or the "very top" Chicago PD people he claims to have spoken with, both of which have been disconfirmed), it's demonstrably false. Politicians obfuscate and tell half-truths, but totally false statements are another level. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Trump has indeed made false statements. That's true of all politicians. He's told some whoppers. That's true of other politicians as well (e.g. Hillary's "I remember landing under sniper fire....") I don't see how that's ledeworthy. In fact, I would argue that 2 factors mitigate in Trump's favor in this regard: 1) He's not a politician, so when it comes to policy or political issues, he may not have as firm a grasp on those facts as someone who has spent his/her career in politics, and 2) he responds to questions from journalists more frequently than some other politicians (when Hillary made her "short circuit" comment on 8/5/16, that was the first time she had taken questions from journalists in 244 days) and you're definitely more likely to make mistakes when not reading from a script.CFredkin (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The significance isn't the falsehoods themselves; rather, the significance as stated in all of the sources is the quantity of the falsehoods. The rest of your comment is irrelevant. The proposed content doesn't say or imply that Trump lied, and any argument along the lines of "cut him a break" has no place in our policies or guidelines. The quantity of falsehoods has received enormous press coverage, and that should pretty much cover it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The volume of false statements as documented by reliable sources is remarkable, and therefore clearly relevant. This is not "spin". These are outright inventions.Objective3000 (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support The high number of false statements is well document in diverse reliable sources. Those opposing this above have very weak and unconvincing cases with little substantiation. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong supportThe proposed change is strongly supported by reliable sources, most importantly by the reliable sources who specialize in fact-checking. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose – For all the complaints about Trump's tone during the primaries, we shouldn't let Wikipedia get infected by blanket generalizations and allow our lead section to attack the candidate's probity. Same goes for Clinton, naturally. What's next? "Donald John Trump is a notorious racist bigot child molester who is very likely to start World War III over a tweet." All this could be easily sourced, and still be utterly unencyclopedic. — JFG talk 03:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your logical fallacy is... Nobody is suggesting any of that stuff, and none of it could be sourced. This is also not about his "tone". Let's please stick to discussing the actual suggestion here (to add the two words "and false" to the uncontested statement that a lot of what he says is controversial). --MelanieN (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not seriously suggesting that editors would follow this particular slope (although we were almost there with prior discussions on alleged racism). I'm using hyperbole to outline that we should not let Wikipedia's tone get infected by a candidate's hyperbole or his opponents' rhetoric. To the point being discussed here stricto sensu, I maintain my strong opposition. — JFG talk 08:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JFG's argument is expressly contradicted by our BLP policy, which says that in the case of public figures, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The reason we don't have that parade of horribles in our lead section is because, as extensively hashed out on this talk page, there aren't reliable sources to support any of it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully we agree about avoiding such bolsterous statements per BLP and common decency. And the issue of Trump's tendency to blanket his discourse with dubious or misinformed statements should be soberly addressed in the article, in the same way that Clinton's apparent obfuscation and contradictions should be covered as neutrally as possible. I still object to defining any candidate as a liar in the lead section. — JFG talk 20:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your logical fallacy is... No one has proposed adding any definitions or anything about lies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lede is supposed to be a summation of the text of the article. So far as I could tell, the falseness or veracity of Mr. Trump's statements in interviews/speeches/on Twitter is not directly addressed in the text of the article (though two references include in their quotes some false/erroneous/hyperbolic statements Mr. Trump has made). Shearonink (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this issue was raised in a previous discussion. Editors are invited to fill out the article body with this material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aarrrgh!. Per Shearonink above, the lede is supposed to summarized sourced content in the article. The body of the article does not establish that Trump's false campaign statements are a significant issue in his candidacy. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but the place to develop that content is in the article itself, not by proposing wording tweaks in the lede. Additionally, there is no doubt that Trump's campaign has made many false statements, but that is a different issue than his making controversial statements. This should be explained, cautiously and with careful support, with respect to the nature of the campaign and what it has to do with Trump, the election, and American politics, not just adding the invective "false" to a throw-away sentence in the lede. In other words, if editors are willing to say this, they should be ready to do so as sourced content. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this shouldn't hold up development of the lead section. FWIW I believe there has been longstanding consensus to use the "controversial" language in the lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Shearonink and Wikidemon. If it is well sourced it should be included in the body of the article along with any existing opposing views (justification, replies etc) if they are also properly sourced so the final text has a NPOV. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the previous three comments from Shearonink, Crystallizedcarbon, and Wikidemon as not objecting to the RfC proposal provided that we also add (a few paragraphs?) of sourced detail to the body of the article. - MrX 11:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: In my opinion, if the information is added to the body of the article, consensus should probably be reached on whether it should also be included on the lead following WP:LEAD, and if so, how to include it in a brief and neutral way. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is the purpose of this RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -> Strong oppose per WP:PSTS policy, which cautions against basing large passages on opinion pieces. The A Wall Street Journal editorial board member has characterized PolitiFact as "fundamentally dishonest" for calling its opinion pieces 'fact checks'. Also, a Time columnist says it may be "spreading false impressions". --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of available sources are not primary sources by any definition, and only a couple are opinion sources. You have found one article in one source that impugns a statement in another source, but that doesn't negate the plethora of other sources that prominently state that Trump frequently makes false statements.- MrX 11:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I don't think that would be verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Comment - Trump and his campaign are immersed in falseness. The continuing campaign to sanitize any and every thing that may be derogatory to some editors preferred candidate is hurtful to the article and to Wikipedia's position as a place of reliable information. His doctor who mis-states his credentials, Menlania's educational and green card status, the letter from the NFL,"I sent agents to Hawaii", "I don't know anything about David Duke", "I can't provide my taxes 'cause I'm being audited", "I might lie to you like Hillary does all the time", "I was being sarcastic", "I'll pay your legal fees", "I have personally interviewed all the instructors" and so much more I can't even remember. This sanitizing effort requires 60% of the RFC editors to suspend their capacity to see and hear what they (and reliable sources) know to be lies and pretend they never happened. Buster Seven Talk 22:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Works for me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
While I'm opposed to calling Trump (or Clinton) a liar in Wikpedia's voice, I would approve Awilley's suggestion: Political fact checking organizations have singled him out as having made record numbers of false statements during his campaign. This states the facts unambiguously while maintaining a detached point of view. — JFG talk 06:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I see your point, but if we're going to include attribution, it needs to encompass to full range of debunkers: fact checking organizations; major newspapers, magazines and news programs; professors; and his friend, Mark Cuban.[18][19]- MrX 16:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
People are !voting on the RFC statement by Dr. Fleischman, not other material mentioned by MrX.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
On the contrary, if the blunt and disparaging word "false" is put into the lead without elaboration, then it requires both in-text attribution as well as citations, regardless of what's in the article body, and no such proposals have been clearly stated in this RFC, much less received any consensus in this RFC.
  • WP:LEADCITE: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus".
  • WP:LEADCITE: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."
  • WP:BLP: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."
  • WP:Citing sources: "In-text attribution involves adding the source of a statement to the article text, such as Rawls argues that X.[5] This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact."

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

  • Strong Oppose The RfC proposer knows better. He wants Wikipedia to take sides and become an arbiter or truth. This flies in the face of core policy. The proposed statement could not be allowed to remain in the article regardless of the outcome of this RfC, if the article is to comply with Wikipedia standards. Eclipsoid (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Hillary's false statements have absolutely no bearing on what we do in this article. Your reason for opposing doesn't seem to be grounded in any Wikipedia policy or guideline.- MrX 01:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • Comment what does "many" mean? The majority? A few? Most? I understand it's reliably sourced but I don't know if it makes sense for Wikipedia to use ambiguous language. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
Ernie "many" is how the reliable sources describe Trump's falsehoods, so there is no reason why we shouldn't either. "Many" and similar terms are used all over Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose That sort of wording would violate npov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Reywas92Talk 06:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support - Yes, "it's politics"; yes, all politicians lie. And if there's a huge number of sources which place their use of false statements as a major talking point of their campaign (not coverage of specific lies, but the use of false statements as a general) such that it constituted WP:WEIGHT to include it in a summary about the campaign, then I would support adding such a statement there, too. The sources look to support it here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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".[1] Was his statement true or false?
    • In a speech in June, Trump said, "For the amount of money Hillary Clinton would like to spend on refugees, we could rebuild every inner city in America." Politifact wrote, "There is no comprehensive tally of what it would take to deal with substandard housing and infrastructure, but we quickly found a backlog of about $225 billion in projects [emphasis added]."[2] Was his statement true or false?
    • In a CNN interview in May, Trump "Frankly, [Hillary Clinton] doesn't do very well with women." Clinton has consistently being polling at historically high levels with women during the campaign.[3] 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).[4] 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)[reply]

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: "[D]id he endorse me, or what's going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists."[20] So, in context, he was saying that he didn't know anything about David Duke endorsing him. You seriously think Trump expected anyone to believe that he did not know what a white supremacist is? Sheesh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"nothing he says in exact words can be proved to false". Sorry, CCamp. Sorry, Anythingyouwant. Even if you think Graham's examples are possibly open to interpretation, there are many, many things he says that are simply, objectively false: 1) at least 17 times (and counting) he has insisted he never said something that he documentedly did say.[21] 2) "South Korea doesn't pay the U.S. anything for out troops there." WRONG. 3) "The U.S. is the only country in the world that has birthright citizenship." WRONG. 4) "Illegal immigration is at an all time high." (It's actually the lowest since 2003, and the lowest from Mexico since the 1940s.)[22] There are dozens and dozens of these things that are simply, factually wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's said a lot of inaccurate stuff. But a huge portion of it has been exaggeration, which he's flatly said he engages in. For example, per our Wikipedia article about jus soli, "A study in 2010 found that only 30 of the world's 194 countries grant citizenship at birth to the children of undocumented foreign residents, although definitive information was not available from 19 countries."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
User:MelanieN, was it a lie when you quoted Trump as saying "The U.S. is the only country in the world that has birthright citizenship"? I can't seem to find that quote on google.[23] If you consider the percentage of humans who live in countries that have birthright citizenship, omitting the United States, the percentage is miniscule. AFAIK, the actual honest quote from Trump is this: "almost every other country anywhere in the world doesn't have that". Which is true, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And guess what - Mexico IS one of the countries that has birthright citizenship. So yes, his statement (even with the later added qualifier "almost") is false. [24] --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied at your user talk page.[25]Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong oppose POV, subjective, and biased. Will the same addition be made to the Hillary Clinton article? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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). –Davey2010Talk 01:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Weak support for the "many of" language/weak oppose to the "or false" wording. Look, whatever one's disposition to the man or devotion to WP:NPOV, there is no getting around the fact that WP:reliable sources beyond counting have labelled this man controversial and pointed to his willingness to make salacious accusations, many of which do unravel in the light of even basic fact-checking; I don't view it as particularly partisan or political that a lot of editors find it appropriate to represent those sources. And yet, when we are talking about a subject like this--who gains a great deal of constant media exposure because, A) the general scale of attention one gets when running for the office he seeks, 2) he is an idealogue/lightning rod, and 3) he openly courts this kind of attention--it becomes a difficult balancing act in judging the WP:WEIGHT of what reliable sources are saying.
I think most educated people agree that this man likes to tell some whoppers (and also, as has been noted above, that on other occasions he is bluntly honest, though frankly that is incidental to how we characterize the mistruths). But I think the "or false" addition, as proposed, is just too broad and prejudicial for the lead, where providing the level of additional information necessary to contextualize this statement is infeasible. As a global citizen, I would like to see many of the falsehoods and misrepresentations the man promotes challenged, but as a Wikipedian, having that phrase end that statement just feels like it lacks nuance, neutrality, and encyclopedic tone--even if I do think it is a factual and accurate description of the man that I would not challenge another person for endorsing, outside an editorial context. However, there is no doubt that the weight of sources can support the statement that many of his statements have been controversial. Indeed, it seems as if very few of his public statements have not raised immense controversy. I would even support language to the effect that his campaign has been characterized by controversy. Snow let's rap 09:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is sufficient reliable sourcing to place this in the realm of simply calling a spade a spade, and it is verifiably different than pretty much any other major party nominee in recent history. Wikipedia should not refrain from plain statements of sourced fact because of false claims of neutrality. But I agree that it should be attributed in some way, and I also strongly agree that it needs to be developed further in the main text outside of the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Do we outright make unqualified assertions such as "[X] has made many statements that are false" in the ledes of BLPs for other controversial figures just because a large number of reliable (yet in many cases biased) sources might have declared so? I'd hope not. What we instead might state in this case — is that many of Trump's statements have been "characterized as false by a number of sources", which is exactly the truth and is what I expect would be done in other circumstances. We should not as an encyclopedia collectively state outright that these statements are objectively "false" any more than we should do so in the cases of other controversial figures, especially in the lede, and especially in this case where we're dealing with a present-day, highly divisive, polarizing figure, as well as sources that are potentially politically biased. I think some of you might have trouble seeing this from an objective standpoint because of strong political biases. Imagine outright stating, with no clarification or qualification, in a matter-of-fact sense that "Many of Richard Dawkins' statements are controversial or false" in his lede just because a significant number of reliable sources (most of which would happen to be religiously-biased) might claim so. It would be ridiculous, and this is the same thing. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 19:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very valuable distinction that I think is vital to the issue being examined here; any statement judging Trump to have a proclivity to make "false" statements must be properly attributed. And I just can't see how we can feasibly parse who is undertaking these evaluations, nor summarize the context in which they are making them, in the limited space available in the lead. Sometimes the weight of sources, no matter how great, is just not enough to justify placing something in the lead, if doing so would create a situation where (because the necessity for brevity above the fold) that information would have to be presented in an inelegant or potentially misleading manner. Snow let's rap 06:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The complete lack of necessary context to keep such a statement neutral in any real sense. We're talking about highly politicized topics here; treating each possible case that might be used under the "well, it's sourced..." argument as if they were all instances where truth and falsehood was a clear binary, or areas where reasonable people couldn't disagree does not accurately reflect the complexity of these stories. I agree that aggregating them together to make such a broad and non-contextualized statement as proposed is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS; even to the extent that we have sources suggesting his untrustworthiness in broad terms, there remain significant issues with WP:WEIGHT (and WP:NEUTRALITY broadly in using them as the basis for such a broad and critical language in such a factual way, despite the variety of opinions that exist amongst reliable sources (which, realistically, all the editors who have ever edited this page (or ever will!) can only check a fraction of, leaving our source selection vulnerable to confirmation bias. We simply cannot treat what amounts to a judgement of character as if it were some sort of long-established empirical fact; I join others here who have pointed out that, at the very least, NPOV requires that we say something to the effect that "many of his critiques have claimed that...", and even that has it's issues.
Look, I'm going to be real for a moment here: most Wikipedians are fairly educated individuals, and polling has shown a pretty stark rejection of Trump by those with a high degree of education. Ergo, I take it for a given that a statistically significant number of editors here have a dim view of the man and his positions. Indeed, I'll go further and bring it to point in question here: I think most of us probably view this man as a manipulative and polemic ideologue, willing to say anything to stir people up or otherwise serve his political agenda and, above all, an obsessive need for self-aggrandizement. Additionally, most of us probably have the impression that the man is so simple-minded that he fails to understand when and where he lacks even a basic understanding of topics upon which he often makes divisive, emotional statements. I'm sure there are Trump supporters amongst us, but I'd be surprised if that didn't basically summarize what most of us think of the man. So of course, when there is a wealth of sourcing out there of people saying basically the same thing, or debunking specific statements made by Trump, there is an urge to embrace what we view to be the obvious truth and say "Hey, look, we're just relaying the facts, and we have the sourcing to support it." Or, to put it as people often do in these situations, to say we are just calling a spade for a spade.
But Wikipedia's voice is not for stating our own perspectives, no matter how confident we are in them, and I'd argue that the stronger our certainty on a particular topic, the greater our editorial duty to make sure that certitude does not bleed into the language of our encyclopedic prose. We can (and should) raise those instances where the factual veracity of Trump's statements have been challenged, where those challenges have been discussed in reliable sources. We can even discuss those who have criticized Trump's relationship with the truth in broader terms--and again, should, where acceptable sourcing exists. What we cannot do is lend our voice to discuss these stances as unqualifiable and empirical fact. Any statements regarding challenges to Trump's assertions must be clearly attributed and contextualized. And because, in this instance, we can not efficiently do that in the lead, a broad claim that he has a proclivity towards telling falsehoods simply should not be placed there, in my opinion. Those who would like Trump's statements to be treated with the utmost scrutiny (and believe me, I'm amongst them) will just have to be content with the language that his statements are often "controversial" and hope that this is an instance where readers will diligently research the facts (either here or elsewhere) to gain a complete understanding of the arguments.
And honestly, given the political nature of this topic, and the entrenched opinions people have on the man (one way or the other), I don't think you're going to serve the average reader of this article by calling this man a liar in essentially outright terms. You're either preaching to the choir when you do that or convincing someone to take an adversarial view of the article. I say lay out the specific facts in the main body of the article and let people utilize their own critical thinking skills to come to their own conclusions. We're much more likely to educate our readers, in the aggregate, with that approach than adopting polemic language, no matter how convinced we are that it reflects reality.
TLDR: Encyclopedic tone. Snow let's rap 04:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Support with attribution per WP:NPOV. EllenCT (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in order to sound neutral. Pwolit iets (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose. Responding to a note from a few days ago on my talk page. It's not clear to me if this is moot at the moment as it seems to have been closed. I oppose this kind of language, but would prefer a sentence saying that "the truthfulness of many of his comments has been widely disputed since the commencement of his campaign," or something to that effect. I don't believe Wikipedia should make such statements in its own voice in situations such as this, even though I personally believe that indeed he has lied extravagantly and often. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Objection to closing this RFC after only four days

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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.[failed verification] --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[failed verification]

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)[reply]

Content dispute, not editor conduct. Relevant resources are Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Try their user talk page. If you can't reach an agreement there, raise it here without framing it like a mini ANI complaint. Or, since it seems pretty innocuous and inconsequential, you could just ignore it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: I do not agree that there is a question as to whether the silent alteration was harmful conduct. The policy is easy to understand. Talk page vandalism: Illegitimately editing another user's comment.
Nor does there now appear to be a question as to whether the alteration may have had actual harmful consequences. The RfC closer was unmistakably misled to believe that "the reliability of these sources is for the most part not contested, [and so] these opinions are based on valid arguments..." Both the comment and the alteration went to the heart of the RfC. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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

Need an uninvolved admin to look at this situation

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Closure review

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

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[Unsolicited speculation.] What does "firm consensus" mean? It may allude to WP:CONACHIEVE. Had the proposed edit ever been "adapted" (altered or limited) to bring in many dissenters?
Or to WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Does the consensus calculation take into account the expressed concerns of dissenters who stopped responding to the discussion? (Such concerns may sometimes be the most legitimate of all, as those editors may be the least "emotionally or ideologically invested in winning".)
Or to WP:CONLEVEL. Did the proposing editor post notices at closely related articles, at relevant WikiProjects, and at Village pump forums?
Otherwise you may be looking at an "ordinary" (weak) consensus, which isn't likely to hold for long in a page where disputes may have (overt or covert) ideologic origins -- i.e., a page where WP:CONADMIN comes into play. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read through the arbcom remedies and couldn't find clarification there. I have therefore asked the admin who created the template to clarify. [30] --NeilN talk to me 13:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RFA, "as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 65% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances." That seems like a traditional "firm consensus" at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I was mainly pointing out that there's more than one consensus standard at Wikipedia, and surely some level of reasoned dissent should be able to bring article changes to a standstill. Moreover, I see absolutely no consensus that the two footnotes (dated 2015) proposed in the RFC are adequate, and no consensus that footnotes should be inserted into this lead, even if the rule is ordinary consensus instead of firm consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

Official photo

Extended content

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.

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

Not tiptop.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's official, and it's an improvement. Right? Shall we go with the full picture, or a cropped one? I favor the full one, because that's really the official one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not official. They simply took the photo from my Flickr, and it is not superior to the C photo above. It's the work of a webmaster simply looking for photos to use, and in one case if you scroll down further on that page you can see a scrolling arrow on the right side of the photo, where they quite obviously just screenshotted their screen and inserted the photo. Calibrador (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Calibrador: Nothing at the donaldjtrump.com site suggests that your March 2013 photo was taken by the Trump campaign (which didn't even exist back then). From June 2015 on, however, this photo actually has been (in both the legal sense and the Wikipedian sense) one of the "official" photos published (or republished) by the campaign.
See Black's Law Dictionary ("official. Authorized or approved by a proper authority <a company's official policy>"). If you say "it's not official", you're (in theory) making a claim that you're a proper "authority" -- meaning, that the Trump campaign has delegated to you the power to act legally on its behalf. (Black's.)
More on this interesting issue at Spotlight on Gage Skidmore, Political Photographer, Creative Commons (June 17, 2016). --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, I agree that the official photo of the campaign is a good compromise. The cropped version should be used for infoboxes and other areas where a Trump photo needs to be within a box of some type within an article. I still prefer the current, longstanding image in the Trump article infobox, but the cropped version of the one you have brought here is a good replacement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's cropped though, the flag becomes much less visible, and you lose some of the officialness. Whether it's the work of a rogue webmaster or the work of a coordinated campaign hierarchy, it's what they've decided to use, at least for now. Note that they have cropped the photo slightly at the bottom, so we could too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero support for my suggestion here. In contrast, there was clear consensus for image C above, so I will go ahead and insert it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there wasn't clear consensus for C over any other photo. In fact, from what I can see, it's 9 for C and 9 for E (AKA "current photo"). That's not a consensus by any sense of the imagination. Even 8:10 wouldn't be a clear consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Winkelvi, please revert yourself. As to image C versus E, the tally is an overwhelming landslide, 12 to 7, meaning over 63% favor C. Preferring C over E:
  • Jean-Jacques Georges
  • Snake bgd
  • Calibrador
  • Anythingyouwant
  • MrX
  • Display name 99
  • ShadowDragon343
  • Devorguilla (-1 for C versus -5 for E)
  • TexasMan34
  • Zigzig20s
  • TL565
  • Darthbotto

Preferring E over C:

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

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

Update: Now 13 to 7 (65%) favoring C. If we factor in the ambiguous comments from Objective3000 and Buster7, we have 64% favoring C.- MrX 02:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look again. There are comments by editors who expressly stated they preferred E or stated they didn't know what was wrong with keeping the current photo. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Winkelvi: Besides those listed above, who else had made a comment that should be considered as preferring one photo over another?- MrX 01:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I already stated, look at the discussion entire. Before the !votes started. Some are interspersed, but the opinons for the photo that was already present are there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Winkelvi, do you intend to keep on reverting the image, without naming anyone who's not on the two lists that I compiled?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look for the other opinions stating they wanted the original photo to remain? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked for all opinions comparing C to E.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are having trouble counting, I'll go the good samaritan route and assist you: Writegeist, Chase, MelanieN (she noted another photo was "pretty good" but expressed her desire for the current photo to remain), Proud user, CFredkin, JFG, Knowledgekid87, Objective3000, Winkelvi for E. Snake bgd did not express favor for C, he simply said he thought the photo should be updated - that's minus one from your list; Dervoguilla likes D, so that's another off your list. Which brings us to 9 for E, 10 for C. Not a "landslide", not even a consensus - we don't count votes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN should not be counted for either pic unless she clarifies; she said "I don't think we should use either of these pictures [A or B]. Can't we find one where his eyes are open? The one currently in the article infobox is better than either of these." and then when C was presented she said "Yes, this one is pretty good." Objective3000 merely said "Support whatever is already there without looking. How many times has this discussion restarted?" which indicates that Objective3000 did not compare the two pics and would be happy with leaving either one there. Snake bgd said "Agreed it should be updated" in response to "I like this one [C] better : it could actually replace the current one in the infobox." Dervoguilla liked B and D, but also definitely expressed a preference for C over E: "Pic A: +3. Pic B: +5. Pic C: -1. Pic D: +1. Pic E (current): -5." So, I think you're clearly wrong on all counts, User:Winkelvi.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant: I updated my analysis yesterday. "Points: Microphone absent = +1. Eyebrows not elevated = +1. Low-contrast background = +1. Teeth, eyes, gaze, date = 0 (inconsistent). Scores: Pic A: +3. Pic B: +3. Pic C: +1. Pic D: +2.5. Pic E: +1. Pic F: +1."
The "official photo" (Donald_Trump_speech_2013.jpg) also scores +3. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, he won't tell you because they aren't there. He just pulled a similar stunt on Talk:Mike Pence. Go ahead and restore the photo. This is a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TL565 (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Enough already! You are now clearly hampering the process because you don't like it! Stop playing games! TL565 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now he's BSing on this page. He just doesn't stop does he? TL565 (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Winkelvi: I did. Besides the users listed above, one dismissed the question entirely (Stemoc); one said "support whatever is already there without looking" (Objective3000); one expressed a preference for a photo that is neither C or E (1990'sguy); one selected C then stuck his comment (Buster7), and one said "Yes, this one is pretty good." referring to C (MelanieN). This seems like a firm consensus to me. Would someone like to do the honors? - MrX 02:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So... you are seriously asking someone to ignore the discretionary sanctions rule placed on this article or are hoping someone will do it as a proxy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the evident consensus in the tally of comments above, anyone who places image C into the article will be on solid ground, and if you feel like pursuing some ridiculous quest to obstruct that, you can expect to have your conduct in these related articles thoroughly examined.- MrX 03:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also must note some of the E votes are just people saying "I don't like Gage Skidmore." and should hold little weight for something like this. TL565 (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TL565: Is there any evidence of users saying "I don't like Gage Skidmore"? Otherwise this is WP:OR and should hold no weight. Chase (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One example here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=738465430&oldid=738464393 TL565 (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase my question, Do you have any proof of a user that is stated above in your "consensus" that they said this, otherwise, why state it at all, if we arent using that editor to state our claim? You named someone that doesn't even have anything to do with what is being discussed here. WV didn't even use that user to support his claim. Chase (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Question!? Why are we discounting the people that preferred a different picture? @Anythingyouwant: Your percentages count for people who had an opinion on either C or E (which the percentage is a little skewed by how you did it). If we took into account everyone's preference, your percentage would be much smaller. Because not just 20 or 22 people had an opinion on a photo. Much more people did. Why aren't we taking their preference into account when discussing majority? Which is what you are trying to establish with this "over 50%" tactic. For example, take into account the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Donald Trump had to receive over 50% of the delegates to get the nomination. Say we only took into account the delegates that voted for trump; Trump received 1,441 delegates (Pic C), Cruz received 555 (Pic E). If you only take into account those delegates, which is what you went ahead and did, Trump won 72% of the vote, but if you take into account the other delagets he actually won 58% of the vote. Do you see how skewed this becomes? Chase (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When exactly should consensus be declared and who gets to declare it? It's seem to be a vast uphill struggle to get any picture replaced lately and I supported the current photo for a while until now. TL565 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why another photo shouldn't be instated until this discussion ends. Based on a clear consensus, not by a made up on, or by an uninvolved major third party (administer). Or everyone agrees that a vote is suffieicient, in which case we give everyone the chance to vote, including the people that voted for other picture, if Pic C and E are the final two. There is a reason Pic E is the picture. It withstood long discussions, and it shouldn't be removed easily. Especially with a lessthanorequalto picture. Chase (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a discussion is not simply to look at the number of votes, it's to weigh the pros and cons of the arguments and reasons presented by each side. The primary reason given for E, if a reason is even given, is that it is because it's the current photo, and the "current photo is fine." If the current photo was fine, then there would not have been a discussion to attempt to replace it every couple of weeks. Several other of the votes for E either gave no reason, gave the simple explanation of it being "better," or admitted to not even looking at the photos being discussed and supporting E because it is the incumbent photo. On the other hand, a case was made by several of those supporting C for why specifically the photo is better to illustrate the subject as the main photo for the article, all of which you can read above. A consensus doesn't mean 100% of people have to agree, and if one side gives better reasoning and arguments than the other and that is still ignored, then there is a big problem. It's obvious that the consensus exists to replace the photo currently in use. And the only other photo that has received significant consensus is C. Calibrador (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Calibrador: Yes, let's ignore the question that I asked and state thousands of meaningless arguments that don't even relate to the conversation that I proposed. But since you continue to iterate that same argument over and over and over until its beaten to death, honestly, the current photo doesn't need to have a reason for support. It's already had a discussion about it and has had stated reason's why it is a good photo and should be on the article. If anything, the arguments for the photo being presented should have better reasoning. It has passed the test of getting onto the article yet through a discussion. Consensus has NOT been reached to replace the current photo with photo C. Also, you are the one that counted votes for photo C and for photo E. Please refer to my first statement of how your majority consensus is biased. You can't pick and choose to benefit your preference, thats not how wikipedia works. Chase (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I could not follow your incoherent, rambling analogy. I must be stupid, sorry for my ignorance. Calibrador (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are just being hostile. My point was that out of all the people that were stating a preference, you were taking a portion of those to skew a percentage in your favor, and leaving out the people that chose a different picture. Taking into account ALL of the preferences would have changed your percentage. Chase (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know what you are referring to, I only came up with one count/summary as a part of an off-hand comment, and it wasn't meant as any sort of official tally. Calibrador (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't meant to be anything official why have you used it to refer to a consensus and implementing it into the article? Chase (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Used what? I never used a tally as the basis for the existence of consensus. Refer to my argument above that you claimed I've made over and over and over and over again. Calibrador (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here; The majority you were speaking of is obviously the percentage and votes that were arrange by Anythingyouwant. Chase (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use Anythingyouwant's list, I've barely even glanced at it only to look at the substantive conversation taking place below it, I used common sense. Calibrador (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe the most controversial discussion about Trump on Wikipedia is about changing a goddamn picture. How long should this drag on? TL565 (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has all the earmarks of an "official" RfC. An RfC can - and often does - go on for up to 30 days. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Winkelvi: Per WP:CON policy, this is a consensus-building discussion, not an RfC. For helpful background material see WP:TALKDONTREVERT policy. A consensus-building discussion tries to resolve a dispute in a way that reflects the encyclopedia's goals and policies while angering as few contributors as possible. Editors with good social and negotiation skills are more likely to succeed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity plea

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

@Mandruss: A directly related discussion is underway at the Consensus policy talk page. Comments welcome. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There ain't no sanity clause!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dervorguilla: Thanks, I think I'll sit out the policy debate, at least for now. Can't say I really understand how current policy bears on this poll, but I do know that things went a lot smoother when it was used to decide the last Hillary photo dispute. That's good enough for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the consensus was for picture C?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There should be but certain people are determined to drag this as long as possible so it gets archived and swept under the rug. TL565 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this really has to end. If there is consensus for Picture C, we need to update the infobox and be done with it. HRC has a US flag in the background and so should Trump. We want Wikipedia to be seen as a reliable, non-partisan source of information. Right now both candidates are not treated equally as far as their infobox pictures go, and that makes Wikipedia look bad. Those of us who love Wikipedia--please let us stand with the consensus and go with Picture C. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(0) @Zigzig20s: Former Senator Clinton's official senatorial image in her politician infobox is not a Wikipedian precedent for Trump's personal image in his person infobox.
(0.1) Sadly, Clinton is now suspected of manifesting a growing physical disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President. So Trump's pic may soon have to be compared with Sen. Kaine's, not Sen. Clinton's. And Kaine's tie and collar are centered, not askew.
(1) Willkie's personal image in his person infobox counts as the most analogical Wikipedian precedent for Trump's. Willkie's infobox image has no "US flag in the background"; nor has it since it was created nine years ago.
(2) The Trump entry in Encyclopædia Britannica counts as the most analogical tertiary source for decisions about the Trump entry in Wikipedia. Its § Politics image (Skidmore, CC by 2.0) does have a "US flag in the background"; its lead image doesn't.
(3) Nor does the official image in the most official source: Trump's company biography. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 04:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Support

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

I didn't include people that didn't specifically say Support, for example I like this one or The current one should be changed was not included. Chase (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CCamp2013: I like this one is a nonconformist way of saying Support and should be treated as such. Assuming it's clear enough which "one" they're referring to. Same for other things such as Yeah I agree, agreeing with a preceding support. The added hassle of parsing all this out, and the potential for ambiguity, are reasons for the structured poll I suggested above, but it's necessary here. The current one should be changed is largely useless for our purposes, unless you wanted to allocate 1⁄4 to each of A, B, C, and D, which in my opinion wouldn't be worth the effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: Most of the ones that said "I like this one" or "yeah I agree" stated it about multiple ones, so that is why they were not included. Until they make it more clear. Chase (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CCamp2013: Then we should start over and do it the right way. Costs very little. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: I have no problem with that, I was just showing that there was zero consensus established yet. I was also trying to start the discussion about chosing a system to establish the consensus. Chase (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CCamp2013: I thought I started that discussion in the preceding subsection. I see nothing wrong with a structured poll with weighted multiple choices and pinging of previous participants. The only question remaining in my mind is whether we need two rounds of voting, lest we go with an option that received only 35% of the vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: I feel like for this picture to acheive consensus, it needs to garner at least 25%50% more than that of the closest percentage or 50%, which ever comes first to determine if the second round needs to be had. If that makes any sense. Chase (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CCamp2013: If we get ourselves that deep into it, we'll be debating this until Christmas (or least until after the election). Just go with two rounds and be done with it, one round with all 5 choices, and a run-off with the two leaders. One week for each round. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: I am fine with that. That'll make this whole process a lot easier. Chase (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fairly evident who the two leaders are. Calibrador (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CCamp2013: Your opinion? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. A round 1 might change the voting somewhat by bringing in additional participants, but unlikely enough to change the leaders. I have opened the run-off. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 'Dervorguilla, ½' to B, 'Dervorguilla, ½' to C; removing from "Stated no specific support". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about you not include the vote that stated "Vote for whatever is currently there without looking." They did not look at the proposed photos whatsoever, as they admitted. Calibrador (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Calibrador: It doesn't matter their reasoning, support is support. Just like supporting a photo because it isn't taken by a certain person is also valid. Chase (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

In some kinds of discussions, some see a difference, some don't. In something like this, absolutely none. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Calibrador (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, because it would give some people more say than others in the outcome. If we gave more weight to "Strong Support", I promise you I would !vote "Strong Support", as would anyone else with a lick of common sense. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What if some people are more indifferent than others? Calibrador (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the weighted-multiple-choice system I described, each !voter would have 6 votes to allocate between 1, 2, or 3 choices. But they wouldn't be required to cast all 6 of their votes. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i'll support the current one ..not a fan of images where the person is looking AWAY from the camera and at the same times looks like he just silent-farted, i'll take the one with 1 of the 2..--Stemoc 08:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Run-off voting

Old "results" - not official and have no bearing on the current state of the discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 13:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VOTING RESULTS

C – 128.3 votes – 51.8%
E – 119.3 votes – 48.2%

I am installing C in the article per a combination of these results, prior discussions with others (details available upon request), and my judgment. My edit summary will be: Installing new infobox image per voting results (51.8%). If you feel the results do not show sufficient consensus for change, revert and a closer will be requested to make the call.

Discarded as out-of-accepted-process:

A – 2.6 votes
B – 1.8 votes ―Mandruss ☎ 08:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit disputed, closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of project and talk page participants
Note: Members of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics have been notified of this poll per guidelines found at WP:RfC[31]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Members of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections have been notified of this poll per guidelines found at WP:RfC[32]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Members of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States have been notified of this poll per guidelines found at WP:RfC[33]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Members of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism have been notified of this poll per guidelines found at WP:RfC[34]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Members of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics have been notified of this poll per guidelines found at WP:RfC[35]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Members of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump have been notified of this poll per guidelines found at WP:RfC[36]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Members of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government have been notified of this poll per guidelines found at WP:RfC[37]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Members of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography have been notified of this poll per guidelines found at WP:RfC[38]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Members of Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump have been notified of this poll per guidelines found at WP:RfC[39]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Commenters and talk page watchers at Talk:United States third-party and independent presidential candidates, 2016 have been notified of this poll per guidelines found at WP:RfC[40]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Commenters and talk page watchers at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016 have been notified of this poll per guidelines found at WP:RfC[41]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Commenters and talk page watchers at Talk:Mike Pence have been notified of this poll per guidelines found at WP:RfC[42]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should Image C or E be used in the lead? To indicate less-than-strong support, feel free to divide six votes between C and E, as was instructed up to September 20. ~ Rob13Talk 13:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • C6 C5 E1 - Least unphotogenic of the two, includes a smile for those who vote because "he seems like a nice man". And his tie and collar are centered between the lapels of his coat. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Minus 1 vote because it's too narrow. Aspect ratios for comparison: Hillary 0.80:1, E 0.75:1, C 0.67:1. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6 - Donald Trump may or may not be justified in his anger, that is obviously not a question to be debated here. But I think most of us would agree that he is angry, and that he shows it. A lot. A career politician is an expert at masking their emotions, but Trump makes a point of letting it all hang out, and that's in fact one of his defining characteristics, you might say a trademark. I feel E better represents both the man and the candidate for president. I don't know that you would necessarily call that expression an angry one, but it's closer than C. And we could probably improve on E, but these are the two choices. NPOV is not about cross-article parity, and it does not require us to show Trump smiling because we show Clinton smiling. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen Hillary angry too (more bitchy though, with her eyes bugged out -- Russians as I understand it perceive such facial expressions indicative of mental illness). Trump has an angry side, also a visionary side of prosperity & safety for all Americans. (Hillary has an angry side based on her rage over entitlement denial. And as far as a positive vision, even David Brooks, famed Trump hater for the New York Times, recently stated she has failed to articulate why she wants to be president. [Oh yeah, equal pay for women, I forgot.]) IHTS (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 - He is looking at the camera and not off to the side. The lighting is not too bright thus not making his skin an off-color shade of red. He is not leaning over the podium. The flags behind him give off a background focusing on him. Finally it's more recent, taken during the General Election.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6 Longstanding here and has been used by several television ads for the election, so is public-recognizable. He's a consistently serious guy during speeches, photo reflects that, therefore, is more representative of who he is as a candidate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 09:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 The photo is professional, high quality, gives a more neutral expression rather than an obvious frown in the other photo, the background with the American flag greatly enhances it over the other photo as well. As noted, it is also more than a year newer and taken during the general election. The subject is looking almost directly toward the camera, and is not hunched over leaning forward into the podium as with the other photo. Calibrador (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Although this vote is not inappropriate, per discussion including one admin, I think it's reasonable to disclose that this user is the photographer of C. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6. Looks professional, US flag in the background, as good as it gets.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E4, C2: I would prefer E (per reasons I mentioned above) but can tolerate C; would support C if flag/microphone was removed. --Proud User (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6 - Looking at both images properly - C is more or less of him smiling whereas E looks like he's more serious, I'm also sure that E has been used on UK tv however I'm not 100% sure but regardless of that E IMHO looks more professional out of the 2 so gets my vote, Thanks,. –Davey2010Talk 13:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6-The facial expression and bodily position (smiling, not leaning over) appear more natural. The presence of U.S. flags in the background adds color to the photograph. Display name 99 (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 - I had suggested a run-off vote earlier but withdrew it. I think it's time for an update. E may have been okay during the primaries, but C fits better as a GOP nominee and better reflects the current state of the race. After so many complaints about the picture for months, hopefully this won't be the case with picture C. TL565 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Removing "vote" because this is just a waste a fucking time. TL565 (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 per Display name. Trump's facial expression is more natural and his head isn't tilted awkwardly like it is in the other option. C is also more recent, which is preferable if all things are equal (though C would still be a better choice even if this weren't the case). Calidum ¤ 14:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6 The initial image is fine, why was it changed when this discussion hasn't even been open for 24 hours? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know I'm not supposed to respond, but it was actually changed before the run-off vote was even posted. I had no idea the image was switched until you mentioned it. TL565 (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with E for 10 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Do this right and according to what's usually done or don't do it at all. While discussion is occurring, the version that was in place when discussion began is what's supposed to remain. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • This "discussion" has been ongoing since 04:35 2 Sep UTC, in multiple sections, with no clear consensus for any single image, and E was in place at that time[43]. E is now in place, no known intent to change that, just as you so forcefully insist, thanks for setting things straight. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 Flag. No smirk. Buster Seven Talk 15:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 per Calibrador. The image is also more aesthetically pleasing than E. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to reconsider per this comment by an admin on Calibrador's talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]
He may have a COI, but I still agree with his rationale. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6 E represents Trump: The Brand well and I like the reactionary caption for it in this discussion. C is more presidential but the turkey neck is unflattering. Zaostao (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6. Agree with Zaostao, the turkey neck is unflattering. SW3 5DL (talk)
  • C6 : higher quality, more flattering, more neutral, more presidential, etc. I thought we had already voted about this... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6, because the present image ought to remain in place until the new batch of very high-quality photos at Wikimedia Commons are considered.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC) C6 : higher quality picture. A better picture may become available later that's more recognizably Trump, but this one seems a definite improvement. Skin tone is more normal (not orange). Pic is a year more recent. I don't think the facial expression in C is smirking, but the facial expression in E is kind of odd.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) New pictures are now available from September 17, 2016 and they include better images than C or E. See new subsection below.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 : We've got a flag in this one, Trump is looking at the camera and it's less awkward than the current one. CatcherStorm talk 18:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6 : I consider this photo to be the most professional out of the two. In most publications and likewise media there is a stereotypical "face pose" that a ton of model have, the no smile soft stare. Just type "models" in at google and you'll see what I mean. This is for multiple reasons; most of the advertisements are trying to sell something and they want they want a neutral expression, which is exactly what we are trying to achieve here. Other reasons include; this type of expression reduces the amount of wrinkles the subject has, tends to look softer and more appeasing, and looks more natural. One the subject of less wrinkles; no person wants more wrinkles. As you can see from comparing both pictures, Picture C clearly shows more wrinkles than Picture E. The wrinkles in Picture C are from him smiling, but smiling is not a neutral point of view, although it is preferred on wikipedia for some reason. Most would argue that he is frowning in Picture E, however, I disagree. If he was frowning, you would also see wrinkles, because frowning uses more muscles than smiling does. This means that this is his face at rest, which is natural because most people are usually in their natural state of expressions compared to either smiling or frowning. Just like the models in a lot of advertisements and on the google models page. The face in Picture E has a more softer tone to it than Picture C, which is more neutral. Also, I want to point out that Picture C makes the subject look more washed out than Picture E. Which if you have ever watched Donald Trump he has more of a Orange tone to his skin and we should portray him as he his normally recognized by the public and the media. His hair in Picture E is also combed and more structured than in Picture C, which to be honest looks like a rats nest. The microphone in Picture C is also a problem, it cutes off his tie along with being washed out, while in Picture E, you can clearly see his tie. He is also squinting slightly in Picture C and you can clearly see his eyes in Picture E. I probably have a ton more I could say, but I leave it at this. Chase (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6: I don't think C is the right image to offer up as a replacement, especially since I'd have preferred A (or B by a long shot if it wasn't a tinge blurry). The status quo image gives a better contrast between Trump's head and the background, and seems like more of a natural expression. C's expression looks forced. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 First its new, second its more official and more natural. Flag doesn't change anything. Snake bgd 19:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6. Looks like him in a serious moment. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 best Trump photo so far, recent, good focus, smiling, I think is the best. TexasMan34 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flip a coin This is not a sarcastic comment. Seriously, I have lost count of how many discussions there have been on this issue. It doesn't matter what decision will be made, because the discussion will restart in another week or so. It should be ruled that this is a final decision. Objective3000 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Flip a coin" may not be a sarcastic comment, but it's not a helpful one unless you can explain how we should decide who should flip the coin. I'm not aware of a way to flip some virtual coin on a talk page. To illustrate my point, I have just flipped a coin and it came up C. All in favor of accepting my flip? Hmmm ... it seems those in favor are an exact match for those who voted for C. So the coin flip was an improvement how, exactly?
      As for "restart in another week or so", it's common practice to avoid revisiting any consensus within a week, or anything close to a week, as I'm sure you know. Anyone who tried to would be widely ignored or flamed. But the question of how long this should stand is a question that does not have to be answered here, today. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No picture at all The extent of this discussion (and run-off voting?) is ridiculous. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we are ridiculously reaching a resolution with a minimum of fuss and ill will, contrary to Wikipedia tradition. Sorry you disapprove. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like a lot of fuss to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well which fuss are you referring to? You used the word "ridiculous" in this section, so I assumed you were referring to this section. There is little fuss occurring in this section, which assures a consensus on 20 September, barring a close tie, with a minimum of editor time required in the interim. An experienced editor thanked me for starting this, saying "It is now orderly, clear and concise". I call that a win for the article and the project. A few disagree, a few who inexplicably feel they are smarter than 27 editors combined. Go figure. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • "There is little fuss occurring in this section, which assures a consensus on 20 September" Well, actually no. There will not be consensus, there will be votes tallied. You set this up in your instructions so that there would be no discussion and discussion leads to consensus. What you are going for is votes and the weight of each. That's definitely not going to lead to a consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • The issue has been at WP:AN for about a half hour, with support for this process method voiced by the one admin who has commented so far. Any further discussion here is now pointless, and voting should proceed with the assumption that no sin is being committed here, pending a different resolution at AN. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is me making note of you totally missing my point and, instead, becoming defensive over something I never said nor implied. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 best framing, smiling, flag in the background makes it seem like an official portrait.LM2000 (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C5 C6. Taken by the same professional photographer who took three of the four bio pics used by a competing tertiary source (Encyclopædia Britannica) and (since June 2015) by the subject's own campaign.
Centered tie and collar, as in (1) his campaign bio pics, (2) his company bio pic, and (3) the lead pic in the Britannica bio. Also as in (4) the lead pic in the person infobox in the most analogous WP person entry, "Wendell Willkie".
Relaxed eyebrows, as in (1), (2), (3), and (4).
Compare with the old Willkie pic, where the eyebows are elevated and the tie's askew.
B1. Professional photographer, centered tie, relaxed eyebrows, and no microphone, as in (1), (2), (3), and (4). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC) 03:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Between 17 September 2016 and 19 September 2016, notifications were made to DarthBotto, Ddcm8991, Yopienso, SW3 5DL, Christian75, Steve Quinn, EvergreenFir, Objective3000, Jack Upland, Writegeist, Graham, Prcc27, and (by email) the author of Pic E (Pic C's author had already voted). WP:APPNOTE guideline (OK to notify all the editors who participated in past discussions or the Wiki editors most known for expertise); WP:TALKDONTREVERT policy ("Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6 – Clear and crisp delineation of face on background. Serious, attentive pose of subject. No self-promotion of a particular photographer. — JFG talk 09:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6 - kinda lost in where to vote, so posting in both places, the major issue with C is that he is not actually smiling, he has what we call a 'forced smile', its near to a smug than a smile....if we wanted a pic of Trump actually "smiling" and not looking at the camera, I would have gone with this one so lets just stop saying that Trump is smiling in C, I have seen serial killers smile better in their mugshots ;)...--Stemoc 10:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support A per reasons I gave in the section below. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)(Edit comment: A: 2.6 votes, B: 1.8 votes, C: 1.3 votes, E: .3 votes.) Prcc27🌍 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6CFredkin (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 is more recent and much better resolution. Jonathunder (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6 Nothing wrong with current photo Nations United (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support E6 Trump's appearance has hardly changed in the last 13 months; there is nothing wrong with current photo and E is in a fairly neutral emotion. MB298 (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C4 E2 C6. They are two entirely different projections. (In E Trump is engaged in a townhall exchange; in C he appears to be basking in an environment of support.) Other political candidate BLP lead images normally have neither projection just a smiling straight-on shot (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz). So given the two options, which is the more appropriate projection? Who knows. Which projection do I "like" better? E. Which photo is technically better (resolution, currency)? C. Which is more representative of the current Trump campaign? C. So C. IHTS (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6. He's smiling, looks better, is more indicative of his popular image. E makes him look like he is seriously contemplating but in a posed fashion. -- GreenC 11:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I changed the 'E' image on Commons on the 12th (it was protected due to a edit war back in March) to a higher resolution version without knowing that this conversation was going on, due to being reminded about an old request to do so. It's the same image, but a 'slightly' wider crop, some very minor color adjustment (less orange), and far higher resolution. If anyone thinks that was a controversial change, please poke me over on Commons (or ping me here) and I'll change it back and put the higher resolution version under a different filename. Reventtalk 08:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, double checking, the protection expires tomorrow, lol. Reventtalk 08:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up.
Given the differences in aesthetic taste, computer displays, and possibly even human visual perception, including the effects of ambient lighting in the room, I feel that such ultra-fine tweaking of photos is a waste of time. This is not to say that all tweaking of photos is a waste of time, by any means, only the ultra-fine stuff. A very slight gain to user A often looks like a very slight loss to user B. And in fact I prefer the previous version. That said, at the size presented in an infobox, I doubt the difference is significant enough to worry about.
I reserve the right to update my position when all of those factors have been standardized, including bionic eyeballs for all editors and readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 I wonder if we would even seriously consider running a photograph of Hillary Clinton with an analogous expression to E.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6 – Trump's hair in C looks messed up compared to E. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E5 C1 - The contrast and lighting on E are better. His head against the blue background, more uniform facial lighting, and the colors make it easier to "read". C is better for its facial expression, but the multi-color, multi-patterned background makes the subject harder to "read". The contrast between the head and the background isn't as sharp. This contrast concern is especially an issue for low-vision people and folks using small screen devices. It's not a bad picture by any means, just that for an infobox where the goal is to provide readers with quick, relatively effortless information, E seems to do a better job. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C6 - 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. MrX 19:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E6 The blue in the background appears to be the most complimentary for his picture portrait when I view the enlarged image. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C2 E4 Looks more like an American in the first one, but more like a cat I used to know in the second. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, September 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • C6 - E makes it seem like he's staring off into space. C is much nicer to look at, the smile and the American flag are a bonus. WeaponOfChoice1 (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C4 E2 - I have comfort with both the options, but I admittedly have a preference for the new alternative. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 07:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will vote for the status quo image E. Pic C has an unflattering neck and I'm certain Trump would not appreciate his neck out like that. In fact, most customers would reject this photo quickly. I certainly would not enjoy seeing my neck out like this.
Mr. Trump has always been very serious and rarely does he smile. He has constantly brought up issues in a serious manner. He enjoys portraying himself as a strong man and smiling he doesn't do often. Smiling is also not Presidential IMHO.
Out of many photos that I've put out there in the public domain various publications have selected this photo.[1][2] Merchandisers, such as the Trump bobblehead maker, have selected photo E.
[Vote & comment posted on MichaelVadon's behalf. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)][reply]
Information found at the Pic E filedesc summary: description="Mr Donald Trump New Hampshire Town Hall on August 19th, 2015 at Pinkerton Academy in Derry, NH by Michael Vadon"; author="Michael Vadon". --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So now that this is an RFC I'm a little confused about if this is still only a place to vote or if we can actually have discussion here. I'm not going to propose any new photos but I will say this: if we could do something about the microphones that would be great. Consensus is often about compromise and I don't see how only giving us photos with mics in them to choose from is a compromise to the people that have stated that they'd prefer a pic without them. So, I definitely think cropping the photos should be considered. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: See related discussion at WP:AN. The point of the RfC is precisely to enable discussion, so have at it. If that discussion actually proves beneficial, you and a couple of others will be vindicated (not your WP:POINT but your viewpoint) and the rest of us will learn something from the experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I authorized "Dervorguilla" to post the above message and vote. I have no idea how to edit the wikipedia and so I wanted someone with experience to perform the edit. I dont want to mess anything up here and I simply dont have the time to sort through all this. Thanks again. Mike MichaelVadon (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: do you have a link for the particular AN discussion? I am having trouble finding it on the AN board. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk)
@Steve Quinn: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A quick admin ruling needed at Donald Trump ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just close this nonsense already. Photo C will not win since it's not near unanimous. Why the fuck is "voting" being extended when there is no such thing as voting on Wikipedia? Just accept the fact that the current image is never going to change. I'm not going to waste another month on a fucking image that will just go nowhere, so I'm done with this place for good. This was the saddest thing I ever saw on Wikipedia. TL565 (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, your inexperience is showing (or you're just being hyperbolic). There are many, many FAR sadder things than this at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
8 days is nothing considering that the default duration of an RFC is 30 days. If you disagree with my interpretation of wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MelanieN&diff=738722590&oldid=738721765 TL565 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Chase (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • You can't get local consensus at an article's talk page to disregard wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • @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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia p&g, not photo evaluation. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment: @TL565: "Hey now, Hey now! This is what dreams are made of." Don't be discourage! This is what Wikipedia is all about! We need you! Don't leave us!Chase (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That doesn't matter; this is not a democracy. Eliminating options to choose from and disregarding wikipedia 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Trump on September 17, 2016

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, [44] thanks for bringing it to my attention.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That seems to confirm my conclusion above. Please see runoff.- MrX 14:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit this is better than option "C", but I still prefer E. Chase (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It looks silly like he is mid sentence in a speechShadowDragon343 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I object to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Mandruss, please just close it as you had originally planned and disregard the attempted disruption and gaming. - MrX 11:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I will respect your strike if it's still in place at 08:39. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Incidentally, I changed my !vote to "E6". Good night.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. –Davey2010Talk 10:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hopefully the closer will verify that. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Mandruss: I can confirm the numbers that you counted. I got the same thing. Thank you. Chase (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CCamp2013:  Thank you very much! ―Mandruss ☎ 17:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting tired of a new image being suggested every week or so - Lets pick a picture, and move on as I feel that like 3 GA articles or so could have been made by now off the energy wasted on these discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in the infobox.

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

Yes, there is consensus (closed RFC here) not to place a subject's religion in their infobox unless it's directly tied to their notability. I've gone ahead and removed it accordingly. —0xF8E8 (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's Presbyterian. Here's an article about his childhood church.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
44*Ernio48 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was excluding Cleveland's second termShadowDragon343 (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did give several examples in the original comment of this section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 wikipedia article—I'd also be rated nearly 2600 which would be very nice. Zaostao (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Donald J. Trump Foundation

According to this new article [45] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I agree the inquiry should also be mentioned here, although not as in depth as the main article. Sourcing for addition: [46] [47] [48] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 ( [49] [50] [51]) 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 [52] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.[511] 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."[511]

CFredkin (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Also, I don't see it mentioned in the discussion above. I think it should be removed per Summary Style, if not as a BLP violation.CFredkin (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So the content IS in fact adequately supported by the source, yes? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can you be more precise about which parts are not in which source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 [53] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [54]) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here is the source [55] 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)[reply]
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.

CFredkin (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Serena Williams material

CFredkin, you're going to have to explain yourself better; what is being conflated with what? Here is the Serena source [56] 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)[reply]

Now CFredkin has just removed the Serena material from the article [57] while this discussion is still taking place; that's very helpful and collaborative. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
No dude, that's not how this works. What isn't supported by this [58] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do the words "..the charity that bears his name..." lead you to the conclusion? Buster Seven Talk 01:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Also, what must be considered is that the Foundations record keeping is questionable. For instance, the donation to Attorney General Bondi's Justice for All in Florida was on the books as a donation to a Kansas charity, And Justice for All with the Kansas address noted. Somehow the money got to Florida. Probably just a bookkeeping error. A more thorough statement would be:

.

I doubt that the Trump Foundation informed the Foundation Center of the full extent of the Trump Foundations "giving". Buster Seven Talk 06:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The Generals were indeed in the article already, as we discussed, and that's fine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Generals definitely not important enough for the lead. Trump U probably not. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Neither seems notable enough to warrant mention in the lede.CFredkin (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Trump U is notable. Why in the world would it not be? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just in the past week or so: [59], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The info box picture

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
@SW3 5DL: No objection from me, with a different source. That one is SELFPUBLISH. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

$885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies

Not sure where this material should be incorporated into the article. Source is here [67] --- Thoughts -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The article currently says, "Donald negotiated a 40-year tax abatement for the hotel with the city, in exchange for a share of the venture's profits. The deal helped reduce the risk of the project and provided an incentive for investors to participate." The New York Times article implies it was a secret sweetheart deal, but in fact the Grand Hyatt was about to close, the negotiations were public knowledge and there was actually animosity between Trump and Koch. (Trump called Koch a "moron.") The city continues to profit from the deal and could actually sell its future revenues. I don't know who came out better, but Trump could not have got investors without the deal and New York City would have lost tax revenue had the hotel closed. It is not actually news, Trump wrote about it in The Art of the Deal and it is in various biographies about him.
Here is how other New York Times reporters describe the deal in another article: "Reviving the city from its fiscal hole, Mr. Koch handed out lucrative tax cuts to developers, including one that Mr. Trump used to turn the shuttered Commodore Hotel into what became the Grand Hyatt on East 42nd Street — a crucial step in the rise of the Trump brand."[68]
TFD (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can see this is a theme throughout his business career, I would like to see other views on this. As I was reading the article, I was wondering how New York City benefited. These 15 buildings are responsible for hiring workers, managers, and I assume executives; which means nearby businesses and restaurants receive customers from this pool of employees, and from those who stay at the hotels and those who live in the condominiums.
The supply chain also employs workers, managers, and executives and sells products to all of Trump's holdings. If any of these supply chain businesses are based in New York they pay taxes; if any of those who are employed reside in New York they pay taxes; and if New York has a sales tax, then when any of these persons purchase items as they go about their daily lives they pay the sales tax, and so on.
I can see perhaps mentioning this in Trump's campaign article if this theme is at variance with the image he is projecting. However, according to the article, one of his mantras is that he hates to pay taxes and he has acted in such a manner. And I am not sure that "$885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies for luxury apartments, hotels and office buildings in New York" is at variance with the image he projects either. Editors who regularly work on this page would know better than me. In any case, maybe the campaign article right now. Then, if this turns out to have legs, well then in this article also -imho. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NYC currently has a sales tax of 4.5% and commuter tax of 0.375%, including on hotel rooms.[69] There is a 5.875% hotel occupancy tax[70] and 3-4% income tax.[71] Also, improvement of properties leads to an increased tax base and greater tourism and business activity. Higher employment in NYC also leads to lower city welfare rates. Trump also provided free rent at 40 Wall St. to Jesse Jackson's organization. Whether or not the city's approach to real estate investment during the recession of 1980 was advantageous to them is an interesting question, but I think is beyond the scope of this article. I think though we should take the view that it was considered a mutually beneficial policy at the time. TFD (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested an article about the Trump Group. Turns out we do have an article called the The Trump Organization. Some of this stuff about the tax breaks (without any judgmental appraisal of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing) could probably go there. MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image

@Davey2010: You are not wasting your time, however, a closer has been requested. So we must respect that and that means, the consensus will not be decided until the closer decides it. Chase (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CCamp2013 - I have nothing against you but what difference does it make if an nac closes it and an admin ? .... Either way the image is going to be readded and going down this route is simply wasting admins time, It's pure and utter horseshit it really is, If consensus is to use C we should as a community say right C it is ... not act like children saying "err lets wait for the teacher" which is essentially what we're doing here, Right I'm off to have a cuppa before I self combust. –Davey2010Talk 16:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: I quite agree, however, to avoid any edit warring we need to leave it alone until it can actually be forced. And we all know that some people who supported E will edit war to have their picture back, more so than people who wanted C. At least we have a reason for the time being to leave it at E, previous consensus, then at C, the new unofficial consensus (which is so close and that's why a closer is even being asked for). If the decision was something like 55% or greater than I would understand. Chase (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my AN request, this is the approach that was suggested at VPP days ago. I knew we would probably end up with a close vote, and I sought guidance there. They declined to be pinned down much, and in fact I got a response from only one editor, but this is the best I could come up with based on their comment, which was: "I've got it. A discussion didn't have to have an RFC template to get a close. WP:Closing_discussions#Which_discussions_need_to_be_closed says When a discussion involves many people and the outcome is not clear, it may be necessary to formally close the discussion. It also says It may be useful to close Requests for comments, but that's a separate statement in another paragraph. If the outcome isn't clear enough for one side to acknowledge it's over, a uninvolved close can still be requested. Alsee (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC) emphasis added - We all know a 51.8% !vote would not represent consensus for change in a more normal situation, and the question was whether this situation was enough different to play by different rules. That's the purpose of the "closer" request. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure who this was referring to, as I have read the comments over there as well and the structure that you put it was a bit confusing?, but yes I understand the request. One user has requested a closer, so that is what we must do. This is why I put the image back to previous consensus until that answer is resolved and we can detour others from edit warring. Chase (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I failed to indent that correctly. I was responding to Davey. Feel free to fix my bad indent and remove both our comments to avoid unnecessary clutter. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CCamp2013 - I'm back, all calm & collect , I apologize for ranting at you, I actually assumed the community would be cool with it, I hadn't really thought anyone would edit war over it but perhaps I'm putting too much trust in this place! ,
Mandruss - Ah right I hasn't spotted the discussion otherwise I would've chimed it and probably wouldn't of gotten so riled up over it!, I mean perhaps I'm looking at it differently to everyone else but to me the 1.8% is for C period - It's not much however it's just over 50 but then again it's all about the discussion too which again looks more for C than for E, Ah well if an admin close is preferred then that's what we'll do :),
Again I apologize for the melt down, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, these things can very easily get impossible to comprehend, even when we try really hard to avoid that, and they often do. The important things are AGF and reading comprehension, and you possess both. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately, good AGF judgment; i.e., avoiding both false positives and false negatives as to bad faith. Not easy when all you have is words on a computer display. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor tweak

At present the lede reads:

Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false

Clearly this should be

Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, false, or both

I am sure this is a simple oversight in the original drafting, since it is obvious that many of the statements are controversial precisely because they are false - the two are not mutually exclusive and are very often combined. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Something along these lines was mentioned during the RfC.- MrX 14:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's unnecessary, and undue emphasis. The word "or" already has an inclusive sense. For example, "If a football coach exclaims: 'We'll beat either Penn State or Army,' his assertion is not false if the team wins both of these games."Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Compare with the first 3 search results for "or" prefix:Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "...linked by this page's menu or listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents..."; "...use the scientific or medical name"; "...employ formats or units inconsistent with these guidelines or with other formats in the same article." --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am trying to wrap my brain around this. On the one hand, the press saying "statements have been false" seems to be the same as "controversial" anyway - because the "falsity" of the statement automatically generates controversy, which is covered by the press. Then saying "or have been controversial", well this would be anything not deemed false that causes a stir large enough for the press to cover. So, adding "or both" seems extraneous, redundant and UNDUE. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Completely undue for the lede of such a high-profile BLP. And as above, a falsehood usually generates controversy so i'm still against the inclusion of "or false", let alone a snide "or both hehe" addition. Zaostao (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unnecessary, as false things already usually generates controversy and the "both" part can already be inferred by any reader reading into the linked section. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump Discussion

There is currently a discussion at the Village Pump (Proposals) that may be relevant to the subject of this article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by Ad Orientem per WP:SNOW (essay), 20:44, 21 September 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pic

Trump in September 2016

I was away from my laptop computer for a few days, but have now had an opportunity to crop the image at right. I will request that the Wikimedia Graphics Lab advise whether the microphone shadow could or should be removed, and will update this comment accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

  • WHOLEHEARTEDLY OPPOSE Chase (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chase, you said above: "I have to admit this is better than option C, but I still prefer E." Why do you prefer E compared to this new one? To me, he looks dead tired in E, plus orange, the lighting is bad, he's not looking forward, there's no flag, et cetera. All of that is fixed in this new one. I admit, it would be better if the microphone was absent, but pic E hides more of his neck in darkness than this new pic hides behind the microphone. I like that the new pic is more of an action shot than a portrait (and thus does not include a fake grin).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Anythingyouwant, Honestly, the man's orange. He gets a spray tan or whatever he does, but he is orange. That should not be an argument against pic E unless he was seriously the color of an Oompa Loompa. That would be too orange. He has in this pic what some refer to as a "Derp'" face. Also, why does there need to be a flag? Flag or not is irrelevant and a baseless argument. The lighting being bad is subjective and I do not agree. As for him not looking forward, he actually is... Just not pointed to the camera. In my opinion, E is the best option at the time that we have. Also, this discussion is meaningless because there is an RfC that is probably taking place about the photo. He probably is tired also. He is running for president. Pic E is by far the most neutral pic we have. Chase (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I learned a new word today: derp face. Which the Urban Dictionary defines as "A facial expression reminiscent of one who is retarded". He just looks happy to me, unlike the miserable tired person in image E. Anyway, thanks for your feedback.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for illustrating that THIS IS ALL FUCKING SUBJECTIVE. In other words, your comments are not going to convince me that he just looks happy, and my comments are not going to convince you of derp face. You're not going to take a closer look, open your mind completely, and suddenly see the derp face. Human psychology doesn't work like that. And I strongly suspect that 80% of Republicans would see happy and 80% of Democrats would see derp face. Which is why DISCUSSION OF INFOBOX PHOTOS IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. There, I think I've said it clearly and concisely, and I can just link to this diff if I need to say it again. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is it about DJT articles that spawn so many, many sections about his image? Isn't there something more important to discuss? Objective3000 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What spawns it is that our top image is presently very crummy, unlike, for example, the top image at Hillary Clinton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Calibrador (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The microphone obscures his tie knot. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now I can't get past "'Derp' face" (laughing heartily). Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Derp face" works well for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC no longer needed

Chase has expressed a concern that "there is an RfC that is probably taking place about the photo". If so, it's not listed at RfC:Biographies.

Nor is it needed -- we no longer need to get a "firm" talk-page consensus, whatever that was supposed to mean. A very "weak" consensus is good enough to let us break this long deadlock.

Some of the discussion contributors may reasonably believe that we do have at least a weak consensus; some, that we don't. Others may be ambivalent. Perhaps we should just poll them. We may get a clear answer; or we may not. But I tink it would be interesting to find out. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC) 06:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dervorguilla, It has already been decided to have a RfC. Chase (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our choice of methodology was rejected at WP:AN. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CCamp2013: Interesting. The current Jill Stein RfC has its own section heading ("RfC: Factually inaccurate and misleading claims") at Talk; and there's a notice about it at RfC:Biographies.
(I'm not criticizing anyone; there may well be something special about the Trump article or RfC. I just don't understand what it is.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
It was initially listed only at Politics, I've added Biographies. With any luck it's just a matter of waiting until the bot shows up to list it at Biographies. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=740667296&oldid=740666953

Leave a Reply