Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 47

Electoral Vote Count
It looks like two presumed Trump electoral voters voted for someone else, so although the anticipated vote count was 306, in the end it only ended up being 304. Citation: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/19/us/elections/electoral-college-results.html

I'm not political enough to know how the official counts are supposed to be recorded, but it seems like the lower number is the more correct one (as weird as the whole system is anyway), and should be reflected in the main article here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.187.193 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Corrected per main article,, thank you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted this edit, which I believe deserves discussion. On election day, Trump obtained 306 pledged electors and Clinton obtained 232. Then, on December 19, seven people defected, resulting in 2 lost votes for Trump and 5 lost votes for Clinton, and yielding a final score of 304 to 227. The main election article makes this distinction clear. In the sentence that was edited, we refer to electoral votes gained on November 8, so it should remain at 306. I have no objection to adding a more detailed explanation, but then again this article is already long… — JFG talk 01:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "On Election Day, November 8, 2016, Trump received 306 electoral votes to Clinton's 232 votes. The counts were later adjusted to 304 and 227 respectively, after defections, formalizing Trump's election to the presidency." &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The above suggestion from Mandruss would be OK. Personally I would also be OK with simply listing the 304 and 227 figures, which are the votes he actually got. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wording approved, thanks. Please link "defections" to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election. — JFG talk 02:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  02:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Signature
Since Trump is now a President, the signature in this article should be an official one, if one is available.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.165.93 (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I happen to agree. Eventually one of his recent Executive Orders, in scanned form, will surface. — Blue  Jacaranda    (TALK)  — 05:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. Current signature file is clear and legible. Trump hasn't changed his signature since being elected. — JFG talk 14:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose something specific. If you can't find anything, the discussion is pointless. If you can, it will at least give us something to sink our fangs into. But it would be unlikely to pass unless there was a significant difference in the signature (different other than width of lines and other things that are dependent on the pen used, digital image effects, and so on). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No mentions of Donald Trumps stand on torture
The article doesn't mention Trumps radical view that torture is a valid and an often preferable method of interrogation. Can we source and include this please? 81.225.40.25 (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a biography. That kind of thing would belong in one of the "Political positions" articles. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At present, the BLP says: "He favors capital punishment,[508][509] as well as the use of waterboarding, which is a form of torture.[510][511]" I would advise shirtenibgvthus shortening this by removing the last six words.  Those words may (or may not) be correct, but it's best covered in other alWikipedia artyicies Wikipedia articles, like the political positions article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What is shirtenibgvthus, and what are alWikipedia artyicies? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They are authentic internet gibberish. Sorry about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know about alWikipedia artyicies, but I may start using shirtenibgvthus. The English language continues to evolve, and every word was once used for the first time. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  15:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on including "false" in the lede
Close requested 15 January. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The current wording has been in the lede since September and was based on this RfC: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 26. Recent discussion here has suggested it may be time to take another look at that wording. Based on that discussion I propose four options. (The number of references may be excessive; that could be trimmed before putting it into the article.) MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Option 1: Keep the existing wording:
 * Options
 * Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false.

Option 2: Remove "false" from the existing wording.
 * Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial.

Option 3: Proposed new wording:
 * Trump made many controversial statements, and a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated by fact-checking services as false.

Option 4: Same as proposed new wording #3, but with an additional sentence (proposing two versions, exact wording to be worked out if this option is chosen):
 * 4_A. Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any other candidate.
 * 4_B. Along with his existing status as a celebrity, such statements resulted in Trump receiving more media coverage than any other candidate."(Added Dec.15th)

Option 5:
 * Trump made false statements 78% of the time according to the Washington Post. (see Washington Post reference listed in the box below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamen1 (talk • contribs)

Option 6: NEW Same as #1, but with attribution (non-WikiVoice) due to the generalization and quantification:
 * Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies have been characterized as controversial or false.

NEW
 * Late addition: Option 1A
 * Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false.
 * Late addition: Option 1B
 * Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false   but those news sources do not accuse Hillary Clinton of controversial or false statements.
 * Option 1B is to provide context and because I believe Wikipedia editors may be trying to make that inference. There could be an option 1C that adds "but those news sources also accuse Hillary Clinton of controversial and false statements" but I don't know if that is true. Usernamen1 (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey
You can comment briefly on each option if you wish, such as "prefer option #X", "option #X is acceptable", "Oppose option #X". Threaded discussion should go in the next section for ease of reading.
 * Option #1 as that best fits WP:NPOV since multiple high quality WP:RS reflect that view. We can cobble at least a dozen sources to support this. Would compromise with option #3 if necessary, but the excessive wordiness and qualifications seems too much. Strong oppose to #2 as it is, at best, incomplete.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2 I think the word "false" may well be excessive, as to declare something "false" means, more or less, that the person/entity doing the review made a thorough review of all relevant facts and determined that the claims were, in fact, false. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases of politics, it isn't the case that all relevant facts are necessarily always available. I might also support option 3, if perhaps the word "false" were changed to "unsupported," which I think is probably a more accurate description of the conclusions of the reviews which have been made. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: The phrasing of option 3 is unfortunately, vague. "...and a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates" leaves open exactly what are we comparing, and would be improved by saying something like "compared to the statements of other candidates," or "compared to those of other candidates," or similar. 4, being dependent on 3, I can't support based on problems with 3. 6 might work, but might need some clarification that it is referring to statements he made in the campaign, unless data as it comes in supports that his accuracy remains as weak as it had been during the period between the election and being swore in and, possibly, in office. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Option #1 - as EvergreenFir said, this is amply supported by multiple, high-quality, reliable-sources, and is extremely important in the context of Trump's career. The historic significance is underscored by the large number of sources describing the level and consistency of the false statements as unprecedented. To omit it would be extremely misguided. Like EF, I would compromise with Option #3 if necessary, but it is needlessly wordy. I strongly oppose #2. Neutralitytalk 05:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option #3 because we need to have a neutral tone. Alternatively, I wonder if an alternative to "false" could be found that better describes the issue, e.g., "unsubstantiated".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option #4 I think we should mention that they are false, as it is non a violation of neutrality policies if they are. However I do agree with that should have the extra sentence to clarify why it happened, but I believe it could be more concisely written as Partly as a result of his existing celebrity status and not as Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity which was proposed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option #1 It is what it is, and Wikipedia is not censored. We don't need to hide or obscure this important fact with weasel words. I acknowledge John Carter's point that some of what Trump has said (and the subsequent fact checking) is open to interpretation but there's a sufficient number of unequivocal, blatant falsehoods to warrant the current wording with no fear of bias. WaggersTALK  15:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option #1 Backed up by multiple WP:RS and WP:CENSOR.Casprings (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option #1 This would seem pretty straightforward. Not only is it amply supported by reliable sources, but also it has been a relatively stable sentence in a contentious article for over two months. For editors concerned with the word "false", perhaps it might be better to rewrite the sentence to instead use "falsehoods" (a common word used by fact-checking organizations). Arguments for removing "false" are pretty absurd. Multiple reliable sources over a long period support the position that Donald Trump lies on a regular basis, so I would say it is a kindness to Trump to say that many of his statements are "false" or "falsehoods" when it is clearly understating the egregiousness of his legendary mendacity. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's only been stable because we're not allowed to change it. I'd be edit warring right now if it wouldn't result in a ban.   Morphh   (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option #1 That's what the RSs say. Objective3000 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option #1 per all of the above except the "not censored" part. This has nothing to do with WP:NOTCENSORED as I understand it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option #3 per WP:DUE. Substantially the same as #1, but clearer. I think most readers understand that the major fact-checkers are as close to Objective Truth as we ever get, so this is not the usual attribution as "someone's opinion". They understand that those evaluations are the results of reasonably rigorous research, and that they haven't survived as major fact-checkers without fairly good track records for accuracy. Option #3 tells the reader where we got our information, and that this is not merely the consensus view of a group of Wikipedia editors. Further, the words "a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates" are important. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Prefer #4_B/4_A + #3, would accept #3 alone however... against #2 as whitewash, against #1 as logically a sin of false numerical equivalence, #6 is a slight improvement, #5 is good faith but suffers from over-specificity and selection bias . The fundamental bug in option#1 is that is says "many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false" which can logically be simplified to say "many of his statements were false". The problem is not the word 'false' here, that is not disputed, the problem is the word 'many'.  Compared to what?  Compared to other candidates?  Compared to the 1804 election when candidates were accused of being satanists?  According to whom?  WaPo?  Rival candidates for the Republican nomination?  Too many questions here.  Option#2 avoids the problem, by keeping 'many' but removing 'false'.  Option#4-and-#3 attempts to solve the problem, by splitting 'many...controversial' away from the 'some...false' language, which is an improvement.  It is still weasel-words, but it is no longer as biased.  It is hard to argue that Trump never said any outright false things, or against their being relatively enough of them that it deserves mention in the lead-paragraphs.  It is *also* hard to argue that he said an EQUAL NUMBER of controversial things, as the number of things he said that were outright false; practically every single thing he said was controversial to somebody, whereas the things he said that were false did not rise to *quite* such quantitative heights.  Option#1 conflates two things together, and omits that they are substantively distinct in quality AND quantity.  To be crystal clear, I do not particularly care if 'some...false' is the qualifier used.  I would also be happy with 'many...controversial' followed by 'an unprecedentedly vast number of...false' statements, because that gives the flavor of what we are talking about here.  Trump is much more controversial than other candidates, and also much more prone to falsehoods than other candidates, not just in 2016 but in the past N generations.  But it is unfair to paint his quantity of falsehoods, as being equal in number to his quantity of controversial statements.  That is what option#1 does, and what option#3 (plus #4) attempts to correct.  I consider this to be a question of following the WP:Accuracy_dispute guideline.  Like the comment by EvergreenFir and Neutrality mention, I am happy to see the wordy choices of "a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated by fact-checking services as false" be cut down, and I see little wrong with saying "a relatively large number of falsehoods".  Or taking a cue from John Carter, "a relatively large number of unsupported statements and outright falsehoods."  But the key word is 'relatively' here, and the key structural change is splitting 'false' away from 'many...controversial' as used in the just-prior sentence-clause.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated to cover #4_B, #5, and #6 (see insertions above). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)  ...oppose #1_B since it is just flat inaccurate, #1C is not an improvement because it begs the question of why the differential happened and says nothing about the steepness of the differential, plus is probably undue weight since it was Trump-versus-other-repubs for the majority of his campaign June 2015 to May 2016 and only a two-way campaign after Sanders suspended, aka June 2016 to early November 2016. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Option #6 (just added), but could agree to Option 3 and 4. Would also be fine with including fact checker attribution to 6 and I'm fine with alternative terms to false.  Added a new option 6, because I didn't like any of the others.  We can't leave #1 because it's in WikiVoice and the generalization of the body of statements and the selective assessment of statements is someone's judgement, which makes it subjective.  It needs to be attributed outside of WikiVoice  Morphh   (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option #1, seeing as nothing seems to have changed regarding its validity. Oppose #2 strongly unless someone can demonstrate that the veracity of his statements has changed; if it hasn't WP:DUE requires the inclusion of the material. The "reference frame" of NPOV compliance (=when an article is neutral) is set by reliable sources, not by some kind of "balance". About #3, it seemed to me that the veracity of claims is based on comparing the number of falsehoods to the total amount of claims checked, not necessarily between candidates. #4 is claiming that the large number of falsehoods in his claims is merely a matter of the base rate fallacy, in these terms - if nobody can substantiate that the base rate fallacy is indeed the reason why so many of his statements have been deemed false, oppose #4 as a misrepresentation. #5 seems like it may run afoul of WP:UNDUE unless that percentage - and only that percentage - is discussed by many other sources. About #6, I don't think the comments on the veracity of his statements fall under the scope of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV at all. And if memory serves, when people talk about Trump's statements being often incorrect they are talking about the statements being incorrect, not just about people calling them incorrect. So unless that memory is incorrect, oppose #6 as well as a misrepresentation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option #6. Not #1. Option Zero per JFG . Historical note: Trump purposely made many statements that were false, outlandish, and offensive so as to divert Clinton into focusing her campaign message on his temperament rather than on economic change, causing her to lose the Rust Belt. Michael Scherer, "Donald Trump: The Person of the Year", Time, December 19, 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 04:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Option #1 because it's true and not any less neutral than the other options. However, I would accept option #2 as well because "controversial" can encompass the falsehood of many of his statements in his campaign. κατάστασ  η  04:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - Though option 6 would also handle the statement being too broad and vague a statement phrased as fact -- which does not fit with WP:V where support is Op-Ed viewpoint expressions.  Actually my impression was that Hillary was the one more characterized as 'deceptive' and that Trump was more 'controversial or offensive' (and sometimes just called nuts).  Markbassett (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 and don't really think this RfC is warranted since we already had one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 It is certainly well-sourced and the mainstream media agrees fully, which is how Wikipedia works. Plus, it highlights for the reader and draws Attention with a capital 'A' to the in general political sensibilities of Wikipedia editors, their consensus and their completely understandable animosity towards pretty much everything Trump says. Although we cannot explicitly alert the reader to the nature of Wikipedia consensus and how it is reflected in political articles, indirect indications such as this will suffice as an alternative and serve a useful purpose. Marteau (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1, largely per EvergreenFir. Option 3 is not terrible, but it's wordy and amounts to putting the source into the sentence, which shouldn't be necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * not option 4 Due to the heated nature of this talk page, I am now limiting comments only to the first 1-2 sentences of the lede except I am making a small exception. Option 4 raises issues that appear to be opinion. That is not to say that other options contain opinion but attention was given to other non-celebrity candidates. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - It's is not our role to call out things as "false" or "true", it's not even for us to say that things are "controversial". These are opinions, and carry that kind of weight when we use those phrases. We can point out that people disagree with Donald Trump or have made claims to the contrary of what he has said, but any phrasing such as the words I put in quotes denotes a kind of opinion, a choosing of sides as to who is right and who is wrong. Even Hitler's Wikipedia page introduction does not use the word "controversial" to describe him, it relies on facts of what was done and by whom and to whom. Simply say that people disagree with Donald Trump and have opposed him, and have done with it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option Zero – Remove the sentence entirely. Given the walls of text consumed in this new debate as well as in prior ones, this sentence looks irremediably flawed. The article text in the campaign section accurately explains his way of speaking, the exaggerations and untruths, the findings from fact-checkers and the impact of this unprecedented approach on Trump's coverage, with the New York Times going so far as admitting to drop "normal" journalism ethics because Trump's campaign was "not normal". I have not seen a proposal yet which would accurately reflect this part of the article contents in the lead section, as we should. Instead, we've got this blanket characterization that "many statements were false" backed by 5 different citations (as if we have to prove it to readers) and no space for a finer analysis. Yes, Trump says weird things, which contributed to his popularity and his eventual election, but also to the backlash against him. No, his words should not be taken literally, and Wikipedia should not fuel the fire of controversy. — JFG talk 07:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1/4: Preferably without "controversial", as that is a separate issue which is harder to quantify objectively - i.e., something like "He frequently made false statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies. Partly as a result, and partly due to his existing status as a celebrity, Trump received more media coverage than any other candidate." zzz (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 4 is my preference, Option 3 is also fine. I don't much care for #1 (because it generates too much argument) or #6 (we don't have to soften "controversial" by saying "characterized as", everybody agrees his statements were and are controversial), and I oppose #2 (because it omits "false") and #5 (inappropriate for the lede). --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 4B - This wording contrasts Trump with other politicians in the past and explains why his "False" statements are important. By leaving "Opinion 1", it creates an illusion that Trump is the only candidate who had said controversial and/or false statements. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2 as the term "false" as it used is POV. The fact that we even have this discussion points out that "false" is not unequivocal.  It is by definition, therefore, a non-neutral POV.  That cannot be erased by how passionately people hold that view so it needs to be removed.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 as it is concise and accurately states what fact checkers and major RS have said. Strong Oppose to Option 2 as it is misleading and post-factual.Daaxix (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or Option 4. Option 1; WP:DUE. Option 5 is inappropriate, Option 6; same reason as Option 1.  Adotchar | reply here  10:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option #2 or just remove that line totally. Something like this would never get into obama's page that he lied about obamacare. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/) KMilos (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:OTHERSTUFF. !Votes which are not based on policy but merely personal preferences are appropriately discounted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a relevant example of Wikipedia's WP:SYSTEMICBIAS that Obama's "Lie of the Year" award would never be mentioned in his BLP. Why not hold all BLPs to the same standard?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 or 3 or 6. Saying that a lot of his statements were controversial already strongly implies that the statements were considered by many people to include false material.  But if we keep "false" in the lead, it should not be in wikivoice (even better than that would be to replace the controversial word "false" with a specific example or two of his most egregious falsities).  If "false" is included in wikivoice then we need to properly reflect reliable sources (per option "3")  that "many" is relative to other candidates (especially Clinton).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1, supported by reliable sources, no need to sugar-coat it. 201.27.125.81 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - The preponderance of sources have not backtracked on their original reporting and fact checking in which they concluded that Trump has made many false statements. In the original RfC, fully 33 editors supported the current wording, and their arguments were seen to have more weight than the 21 who opposed it, by a large margin. The only thing that has changed since September is that Trump is now the President-elect. That fact does not change anything about how we should describe the conclusions reached by numerous reputable sources. Sources continue to amplify the fact that Trump "has little regard for the facts" ; that he continues to make false statements ; and in opinions expressed in reputable publications, that he outright lies.. Our responsibility to our readership is to present unvarnished, verifiable facts without sweetening their meaning with euphemisms (option 2), and word salads and equivocation (options 3, 4, and 6). It's ironic that our definition of reliable sources is based on reputation for fact checking and accuracy, yet while no one has challenged the reliability of these many available sources, they still express doubt that the sources actually checked facts. Astonishing.- MrX 15:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 This is a declamatory statement of mainstream-documented fact. False is a factual statement, not a moral judgment. It's not clear why we are revisiting this, and I hope we don't make a habit of it. SPECIFICO  talk  21:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or Option 3, both are well referenced and well documented and matter of fact and satisfy WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Sagecandor (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - existing wording is concise and accurate. --Pete (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 If people are uncomfortable with the word 'false," they should take issue with the source of the statements, not dissemble reality to suit their comfort levels.  RL have been overwhelmingly clear in documenting the atomic basis of Trump's many lies.  This wording wouldn't even be controversial hadn't he become a politician and improbably enough, the presumed president elect.  (I'm user AgentOrangeTabby, but can't reset my PW right now).  71.91.30.188 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or remove entirely. Unnecessary non-neutral commentary, exists only to poison the well. -70.162.247.233 (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * None; my thoughts mirror 's almost to the word. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  14:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - Concise, supported by reliable sources, and gives WP:DUE weight reflecting the relative importance of this topic. Option 2 and 6 are acceptable, but I still favor Option 1. Options 3-5 are too lengthy for the lead. If we cannot reach consensus, then I would also be fine with removing the sentence entirely. Edge3 (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 There is no question about this. There has already been plenty of discussion about this and the previous RFC.  Cited from multiple RS, obvious, factual. Do I really need to go into detail here? It's the truth and we don't need to whitewash it.  Centerone (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2 This is a POV violation that, even if it may be true, could go in the header of any politician's article, such as other 2016 US election candidates, yet Trump's is the only one that has it. --Baladoxox (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 3 (See comments below): It should not be in the lead while not covered in the body of the article, or at least linked to, and None of the above is not an actual option. Because of fact that, "Trump made controversial statements that have been attributed to falsehoods.", it should be covered in this article, just not using the word "Many". Apparently #1 is the consensus choice but only until another RFC that will eventually come to pass. Using this sentence in the WP:Lead section ("Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"), is controversial. What are we using as justification that it is a "basic fact" for inclusion in the lead only? There are a multitude of reasonings (policies and guidelines) against using the apparent editorial consensus wording "Many/many", and WP:Bias is only one. Even "IF" there are 560 (I consider this "MANY") false statements (from a source), using "Many" would beg someone to count (certainly tag the word) how many statements he made overall, to quantify "Many". There is reason to question five references (this is a WP:BLP) as being "many", because even fifty references, (out of how many references concerning statements he made?) is considered subjective. Why do we need it in the lead at all? Otr500 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to me you are really advocating "option zero" to remove this sentence entirely from the lead, unless a lot more of Trump's discourse evaluation is included in the article. As I noted earlier, the text we have in the article is much more nuanced than the lead sentence, however most editors don't seem to mind the discrepancy. — JFG talk 08:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One would think it would be a given, content not being in the lead (option zero) not covered in the article. Since that option is not on the table, likely from the previous discussion(s), it is apparent editors want it included. At least one editor correctly but unsuccessfully argued my point, that content, especially when controversial, should not be in the lead when not in the body of the article. I think that consensus, or WP:IAR should be examined very closely concerning this and it "should be" far more critical concerning a WP:BLP. It is my opinion that any previous talks, especially when covered by DS, should be decided erring towards full BLP protection. That does not appear to be the case here, and I was not involved in previous discussions. IF we use IAR as reasoning, that it is to make article improvements, then I would think we are sliding down a slope that consensus trumps policies and guidelines, because exceptions can be used as reasoning. Problems are that, 1)- this is a high profile BLP, 2)- certainly controversial and, 3)- covered under WMF madates subject to DS. This would seem to be enough reasoning that these discussions should have been moot yet here we are. In light of this, I suppose, we are left with capitulation and collaboration, at least until others deem it expediant to "follow the rules".
 * That content has been allowed in the lead (not covered in the article), by silence, it would seem, would not matter when such content is contested with valid reasoning including policies and guidelines. Since none of the above matters I argue that we should try to make any editorial violations worded as best as possible realizing that consensus can change. The word "Most" (editors) is a lot like "Many" (sources) and subject to vague interpretaion. I suppose I missed being placed in the field with "most" other editors. I just don't understand why something as relevant as up to 560 "lies", "falsehoods", or whatever we choose to call them, are not important to be in the article but "MUST" be included in the lead, and it is so important it has to be in the third paragraph above Trump won the general election.
 * Anyway, you guys have fun with this. I think I am going to bow out and go visit some of the other 5 or 6 million articles where, if nothing else, common sense might have a better chance of prevailing Otr500 (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 1 is the only neutral-point-of-view option. The other options are all clear non-neutral point-of-view pushing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 1A is the best option in that it is NPOV, supported by sources, and appropriate given the remarkable underlying events. Oppose option 2 as blurring the lines between this and other situations, which the sources make clear is not appropriate. Oppose option 3 as kinda creating a weasel-wordish, primary-research-ish count comparison; also "fact-checking services" rings strange as a subtype of sources, appearing in the encyclopedic voice. Strongly oppose options 4a and 4b as conflating a couple of different parts of the narrative of the election with this issue; also, not sure it is a consensus in the sources. Oppose option 5 as undue weight on a single source and the oddly specific statistic from the source. Strongly oppose late addition Option 1B as strange and unclear -- it sounds like the encyclopedic voice may be accusing the sources of bias for not having done so, which I think is the opposite of the author's intention; also, original-research-ish. Option 6 is least objectionable, but significantly inferior to option 1A since the relevant fact is that, unlike other candidates who are accused by others of saying false and false-ish things, this candidate has said multiple things that were flatly false. (Summoned by bot.) Chris vLS (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 1 / 1a (no opinion on the sourcing-difference between them). If I had to compromise on an alternative, then #3 and #6 are viable. First, we set aside discussion of Trump's particular statements or why they have received attention. The focus here, which probably everyone accepts as uncontroversial, is that there has been an extremely unusual and extremely noteworthy number of Reliable Sources saying Trump has made an unusual number of false statements. This is relevant encyclopedic NPOV information. That pretty well rules out #2 as treading close to a policy violation. Oppose #5, it singles out a single source to present a percentage that is misleading to the point of silly. Oppose #4, the sentences are awkwardly written and I doubt a cleaned up version should be packed into the lede. Alsee (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 1 — The others are inaccurate or biased. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 13:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - RS are crystal clear on this. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 0 - It's a subtle POV by relative weight, even if it's true, but one which seems more relevant and neutral than it otherwise would be because it is so recent. In comparison, we currently summarize the seven paragraph section covering a six year period from 09-15 in a single sentence: He considered running as a Republican for the 2012 election, but ultimately decided against it. But for some reason we think that five sentences regarding what he said on the campaign deserve similar weight, which it doesn't. Currently the lead on this article (in this regard) is more strongly worded than even the lead on the main campaign article, which simply says, Some of his remarks were controversial, but in comparison has lengthy extensive coverage of what those remarks actually were, to the tune of an order of magnitude more coverage than this article. Remove it entirely, and interested readers can be directed to the main article on the campaign. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 1A Clearly and verifiably false statements can be called that if the sources saying so are reliable. ValarianB (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (as of 1/31/17 I am changing my vote from 1 to 1a). ValarianB (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 3 or 6 I'm fine with anything with due attribution. Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Option Zero: not needed in the lead. If there must be sentence in the lead, there is no sugarcoating it: Trump lied, it is well-documented, and honestly some examples are so egregious that we don't even need sources for attribution (though we need sources to decide it is due weight to include). So option 1. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 18:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Option Zero Remove entirely as WP:UNDUE for BLP. This would be appropriate to include in the article Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, however. DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 2 It is the most neutrally worded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.85.163 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 2 I would suggest option 2 or option 6 as they are the most neutral. Some of the others sound too politicized. Blahtherr (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Irrespective of references, "false" inevitably reads like the judgement or opinion of the person who wrote the article. For this reason, wording such as "were evaluated by fact-checking services as false" is preferable. 109.146.248.18 (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we take this as a comment in favor of option 3? --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I interpret it as meaning "definitely against option#1" with some implied lean towards #3, but they might also be happy with #4 or #5 (they don't say). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggestion – RfCs with several options to choose from rarely end up with a convincing consensus. I would suggest proposing only one variant. Alternately, a more elegant solution might be to remove the iron-clad "this wording has consensus" notice in the code, as it refers to a campaign-time RfC and it is obvious from the discussion above that consensus has changed to a point where there is literally neither consensus today for that wording nor against it. Hence I would suggest closing this RfC as an inefficient process and just let editors play with the wording as they please. Sure, there might be some warring but there also might emerge some creative solution acceptable by most editors. — JFG talk 07:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's going to be difficult for a new consensus to emerge with a multiple choice RfC, but has the past has shown us, editors frequently make ad hoc proposals in RfCs anyway. I firmly disagree with letting editors play with the wording, given how difficult it was to arrive at the current consensus, and the recent influx of WP:SPA and sockpuppet accounts.- MrX 14:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with MrX. Something this contentious needs the structure and order of the RfC process, and letting editors play with the content often results in the content being determined by those with the most endurance, not a good way to determine content. If the RfC could be better framed, start over and reframe it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, to abandon any consensus version and just let editors "play with the wording as they please" would be incompatible with the Discretionary Sanctions in effect at this page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the RfC being held is just fine, although the outcome will be ambiguous (because people will leave short comments only giving their opinion on one aspect). Once this RfC is over, rather than implementing immediately whatever the closer believes was the outcome, it might be a good idea to do as JFG suggests, and have a yes-or-no type of RfC on whatever language is the "winner" from this multi-choice RfC process.  We may end up with option#1 being the winner from this discussion, and then have a yes-or-no discussion about whether option#1 is still the consensus... and if *that* future discussion ends in no consensus for change, well then, in some ways we wasted our time.  But simply having the shortlist of four (or five) options, that THIS current RfC has formulated, is itself helpful; it narrows down the problems people have with the extant September-consensus wording.  Which will be useful a year from now, when and if this comes up again.  Nobody said wikipedia is an efficient process!  JFG should know that from participating in earlier talkpage discussions here.  :-)   Sometimes wikipedia takes a long time to get anywhere.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes wikipedia takes a long time to get anywhere - Yes, and that's even without requiring separate debates about whether a consensus is in fact a consensus. That's probably why that is never done (to my finite knowledge, that is). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know it all too well, that's part of the charm of this project… Believe it or not, some topics are thornier than Trumpianisms. The epic New York titling debates of 2002–2016 last resulted in "no consensus on whether we have consensus to agree that there is no consensus". For your entertainment: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. — JFG talk 22:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, it has been done at least once. Short of spending hours researching that at my slow reading speed, it looks to me like certain editors' disruptive refusal to accept a legitimate uninvolved close because it didn't go their way. The solution is policy that forbids that, while providing some recourse to deal with editors who show a lack of competence to close complex debates (that doesn't appear to be the case there). It is axiomatic (but invisible to many) that inadequate process rules result in monumental time sinks around relatively unimportant issues like the title of a single article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree - don't like how it was set up. It guarantees that it stays the same. I added Option 6, but not sure if it's too late for people to review it.  The problem with current wording should have been laid out as you can see, people are just going to say it's supported by multiple RS without seeing the problem that the current wording violates NPOV and BLP.  Morphh   (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * About the "option 5" proposal, to cite a percentage of false statements given by one source: I think that is appropriate for the article text but not for the lede. The reason for having it in the lede is that it has been WIDELY reported, by many sources with different numerical results, but the common conclusion that the number of false statements is unusually high compared to other politicians. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been suggestions to replace "false" with "unsupported" or "unsubstantiated". That would misrepresent the sources, which evaluated his false claims by the "pants on fire" standard, meaning provably false - as when he denied ever having said something that he clearly did say. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the problem altogether with this RFC. The problem wasn't the word false, it was the use of WikiVoice and quantifying it with a weasel word "many", then applying it to a generalization.  As many have said, the RS support that he made false statements.  That's not the problem with the sentence.  It's taking a judgement about those cherry picked statements and stating as fact a generalization.    Morphh   (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I need to point this out, but the sources used as RS are media organizations that openly supported Clinton. And there are plenty of sources with Trump's team calling them dishonest.  So it adds an additional POV element to it and I think !votes that say "the sentence is supported by the RS" should be measured when we're talking about stating this in WikiVoice.   Morphh   (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your providing equally research-based reports from independent reliable sources demonstrating that Trump did NOT, in fact, tell more lies than the other politicians in this year's contest. ("Trump's team" doesn't count. They are neither independent nor reliable. Of COURSE they disagree - what would you expect them to do?) As for the editorial position taken by the papers, that's irrelevant - as long as they are sources with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and independence of the news/reporting side from the editorial/opinion side. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MelanieN well, you could perhaps visit the Fox fact checker, but really the 'fact-checkers' are just not the level of normal journalism reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and independence you seem to think, they are just Op-Eds from external writers to the paper for example Washington Post is in DC which voted 95%+ Clinton. It's an innovative serial format to make use of web journalism, and perhaps worthy to have regular sniping at politician blurbs besides SNL, and for WP use may have WP:WEIGHT of prominence.  But it's not due for much more credence and there are enough criticisms on the web about bias and folks taking this too seriously somewhat mentioned at Fact checking.  There's just no overall evaluation, or consistent stated basis of evaluation or even of which statements to pick -- it's apparently just whatever of the copious choices spouted that a writer thought most entertaining to review and if it's not badly written ranting or making stuff up it might go forward.  I don't even have to go into the fine difference between 'fact', 'evidence' and 'truth' here -- I just have to point to RS sections on WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED.  Markbassett (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, fact checkers are NOT "Op-Eds". Sort of the opposite in fact. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how we approach sources. Also, this "Washington Post is in DC which voted 95%+ Clinton" is just ridiculous. Are you seriously saying that we should judge the reliability of sources based on what state/area they're located in? Might want to re-read WP:RSN. In light of such comments your !vote should be appropriately discounted since it is based on complete ignorance of policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Marek I'll respond in some detail.  Fact checkers are opinion articles that should follow guidelines according to my cited WP:RS section WP:NEWSORG.  I'm pointing out that stating this line as an article opinion (or else not having the word inquestion) would be more faithful to the WP guidelines and faithfully setting out the cites and that it is only a particular kind of cite involved.  Particularly applicable of WP:NEWSORG I think are the bits
 * "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. "
 * "Whether a 'specific' news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis."
 * "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections."
 * And as an opinion of statements the WP:RS section WP:BIASED also applies, note particularly "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." and "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source."
 * For the Washington Post ... allegations of it as biased or part of general media bias has been mentioned in prominent places such as Media_bias_in_the_United_States and MediaMatters.org, so regardless of what you or I may feel, the WP:BIASED guide says to attribute the statement. It seems loosely credible -- the paper is writing from a DC-located viewpoint, has an editorial board that endorsed Clinton including with statements like Trump was "bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America's enemies," and said if he's elected president, "he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world"  here.  Though the paper also noted she had issues and printed things like that she tells dreadful lies.   (Being a DC paper, perhaps critiquing her skill relative to the rest of DC rather than condemning it ? ;-) )
 * The Washington post fact-checker series associated to the paper differs from say the Politifact in that it's a 2-reporter series with a link for outsiders to provide topic suggestions that they pick at will from, includes numerous unrated articles and sort of public information items ('guide to detecting fake news', 'everything you need to know about obamacare', 'what may come up in the debate', etcetera).  What they say about how they try to run it is as a 'reasonable person' feeling.  They also state that differences in coverage for Trump versus Clinton do exist, with more looking at him since he said more.  Demonstrably they only did 3 looks at a Clinton line in October for example...
 * Secondary views that are negative about their accuracy have been given -- both structurally that the concept is mostly to criticise which drives into inappropriately doing scores - like rating a SNL skit - or indulging in soapboxing like denigrating Cruz saying (correctly) that the tax code is longer than the bible with "This is a nonsense fact."  The George Mason University study about Politifact would seem also true here.      Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * MelanieN, The sentence doesn't say anything about other candidates, nor what statements were selected and analyzed. If we were looking at a specific lie, then we could try to find a source that gives a different POV or accept it as such.  What we have here is a generalization and quantification, which is fine and IMO an accurate one, but it doesn't make that judgement a undisputable fact.  Trump's team can absolutely give their POV on any particular example to say how they think the statement was taken out of context or whatever.  Turning it into a generalization can only be combatted with equal generalization, such as the media is dishonest.  And there is no shortage or RS on that point, particularly with regard to the RS being used to support the statement.   Morphh   (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm absolutely okay with Wikipedia's voice being used to say "false" because it is an undisputed fact. We don't need "the sky has been characterized as appearing to be blue." -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Question about option #6, "have been characterized as controversial or false": I don't think anyone contests that they were controversial, do they? I think it is only "false" that is at issue here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In today's highly polarized American politics environment, it's difficult for a high-level politician to open their mouth and say anything remotely meaningful without it being controversial. I would consider "controversial" a low-value word there, almost noise. In my opinion the word does not convey the meaning supported by RS and appears to be a compromise word that could be dropped with little or no cost to the article. Not that I'm suggestiing yet another option, that can wait for another day and another discussion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MelanieN - I think 'characterized' is supported as it means only that something was  prominently said which is where multiple prominent op-eds would WP:V even where the content is disputed or coming from biased sources.  It also is reflecting as noteable a characteristization that it was not the usual platitudes.  I think even the Trump camp has characterized the statements as controversial, and even in WP  discussions so ironically 'controversial' seems non-controversial.     Markbassett (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is your measure of "many" (a large number relative to truthful statements) a subjective term an undisputed fact? You're using an assessment of select statements (likely controversial ones) which were analyzed by fact-checkers.  That's fine, but you can't use that stick to measure the body of his statements without any attribution in WikiVoice.  You can't call someone a habitual liar in a BLP in WikiVoice without it being an absolute undisputed fact - like the capital of France is Paris type of fact, not the weasel worded generalized quantified BS we have now.  Morphh   (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This sounds like an argument for option #3 (and I see Mandruss has changed his opinion from #1 to #3). Option 3 cites exactly where we are getting the information - from fact-checking organizations - and the reader can evaluate how much weight they give to the reports of fact-checking organizations. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I voted for #3 as well and I like the #4 addition. I think Dervorguilla added an excellent quote from Time Magazine that is appropriate for the sentence context. My thought with adding 6, was that it was a minimal change to 1 which would make it compliant with policy by taking it out of WikiVoice.  Morphh   (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Morphh! But it would be more accurate to say, "Dervorgulla's excellent paraphrase from Time magazine..." :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My measure of "many" is an undisputed fact. Trump makes false statements more often than truthful statements. In fact, the scope of his lying has been described as unprecedented. Many reliable sources (example) go so far as to state lying was part of Trump's campaign strategy. The language we are considering with "option 1" is very generous, because it should say "most of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were lies." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a reasonable "reality check" would also indicate that we should probably best avoid using clearly prejudicial or judgmental terms, like "lies" without the best conceivable sourcing, particularly when dealing with a BLP who has a tendencey to sue. Some of the other comments above by you, such as the one about how he makes more false statements than true ones, seem to ascribe to you a truly amazing degree of knowledge regarding every word spoken by the man, as it would only be someone who has such amazingly detailed knowledge who would be in a position to be able to determine the relative frequency of accurate and inaccurate statements. And the only "reliable source" among the "many" you allege exist about how "lying" was a part of the campaign strategy is from an editorial, which we rarely if ever consider truly "reliable" for anything other than the opinions expressed.
 * I am no fan of Trump myself, far from it, but I have to say that some of the comments being made here seem to me to be possibly be problematic in and of themselves, and might merit some sort of review, particularly if they assert things which, apparently, even the sources produced don't necessarily assert. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not me making these statements. It's reliable sources. I linked to several in my comment. Reliable sources almost universally agree that Trump's public statements are more often lies than truths. That's just a documented fact. That's why I chose "option 1", because any watering down of "false" would be an egregious failure of our duty to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that #3 waters anything down; if anything, it adds weight to the statement. It is not the usual hedging that we associate with attribution. I ask that you consider my !vote argument with an open mind. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Scjessey - re whether "undisputed fact"...    Plainly 'false' is disputed even inside the current TALK.  More of interest for article phrasing seems whether it is improperly stating an evaluation as an objective fact, is too vague such as whether this mixes in hyperbole and stupidity or which flavor of 'false' or what percentage of true there is, is unclear why the norm of a politician deception is noteworthy for this particular case, and so on.   Since the article word seems putting forward a paraphrase specifically of the fact-checker content, then I think any article use of it should make that clear and reflect the WP:NEWSORG guidelines in both handling and attribution stating it as a specific kind of opinion.   If the article line is looking for a generally not disputed overall characterization, then I think both parties have said 'controversial' and perhaps also 'sometimes offensive', but clearly disagree about 'false'.   If you think the line is not to be only about the prominence of Politifact et al, then WP:NPOV applies and both positive and negative words would go in according to how prominent they were in use -- and I'm seeing "bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, ..." so 'false' might not make the cut..   Cheers   Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, disagree that the word 'false' is disputed, by most people commenting here, at least. (If it was changed to 'lies'/'liar' then it would be disputed, especially in Scjessey's extremely loose formulation/summarization that we could theoretically say in wikipedia's voice "over 50% of sentences Trump spoke during 2015 and 2016 were lies" because that is both mathematically incorrect *and* incorrect in the connotation that every false statement by Trump was intentionally false, as opposed to being false-on-the-basis-of-unsupported-by-evidence, false-on-the-basis-of-hyperbolically-decorating-the-plain-truth-for-'impact', or the more usual sort of false-on-the-basis-of-being-incorrect-without-further-clarification-of-meaning as well as false-by-accident.)  There is little question that sources *do* very much say Trump said *more* false things than other candidates, in percentage terms and in absolute terms.  But it is also the case that, as you point out with your list of negative-words, the bulk of the sources tend to criticize Trump's statements in terms of how controversial they were, WAY MORE than in terms of how truthy they were.  The main thrust of proposal #3, as I see it, is to stop lumping the 'many...controversial' things in together with the *different* kind of 'relatively-many...false-things-according-to-fact-checkers'.  (Personally I believe we could strip the according-to-fact-checkers-bit, as long as we keep the 'relatively' qualifier.)  It is correct to say that the quantity of false things was nowhere NEAR the quantity of controversial things, but it would be borderline-non-neutral to simply remove mention of the high relative percentage of false things compared to other candidates (as #2 does in my view), just as it is inaccurate to lump the false things in with the controversial things as #1 does ("Trump has many apples or bananas" is the problem here... we need wikipedia to be saying that Trump had way more apples relative to other candidates, and also-comma had more bananas plus a higher percentage of bananas relative to other candidates.)  Saying that without being too wordy is difficult, but #3 is a good start.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Most fact-checker organizations use the term "false" with great specificity, when referring to statements that Trump has made that are untrue. There appears to be significant agreement on this talk page that "false" is the most appropriate term. Trump has also made statements that are offensive for a variety of reasons, so the catch-all "controversial" seems appropriate. Again, there appear to be significant agreement on this talk page that "controversial" fits those instances. I would also suggest an argument can be made for using "lie", for those instances where Trump has obviously deliberately said something he knows to be false, as opposed to something where he just didn't have his facts right, but I have chosen not to pursue this line because it is unlikely to get consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Scjessey - the difference in an article wording TALK is that WP:V for both 'controversial' and 'offensive' exist from Trump and critics, so that wording would be regarded as commonly said (i.e. common meaning both say it).  Whether a campaign sub-story (cites Dec 2015- Sep 2016) re 'false' still has enough prominence now to suit the lead would perhaps drive it out, and if it stays perhaps it will be rewritten for this or other reasons.  And in a year or so other things may crowd it out anyway.    Markbassett (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: Based on a discussion elsewhere, I have added an alternate wording to option #4. If this option is chosen, we can work out the exact wording later. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks much 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Two general comments in response to the above: 1) We are talking about the lede sentence, so detail and explanation are not appropriate. The detail and explanation go below in the text. The lede summarizes what is in the text. It is unusual to have citations in the lede, but that was recommended by the closer of the previous RfC. 2) It is simply incorrect to state that fact-checking sites are "op-eds". Quite the contrary, they are research-based reporting. They take a statement and compare it to reality. If someone says that Obama proposed admitting 200,000 Syrian refugees, and Obama actually proposed admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees, then the statement's truth or falsity is not a matter of opinion. If someone insists they never said something, and there is video proving that they did, that again is not a matter of opinion. That is the kind of statement that fact-checkers evaluate. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * While it is true that fact-checkers are not op-eds, they can suffer from bias, in particular selection bias where they decide which statements NOT to fact-check (thus altering the final percentages by disproportionately deep-digging for new falsehoods and/or by disproportionately eliding truthful statements on individual candidates). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of it is extremely nitpicky, like saying Trump falsely used the term "acid wash" when referring to "bleach bit" software, or falsely said Obama drew a "line in the sand" in Syria when actually Obama called it a "red line".Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * NBC News is not what MelanieN is calling "fact-checking sites". But I have no doubt you could cherry-pick some extremely nitpicky stuff from the fact-checking sites. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could, and will if anyone would like. NBC does fact-checking, so it seems like a fact-checking site, but maybe Melanie meant sites that exclusively do factchecking.  Might I suggest that we focus on Trump's biggest falsity, and then consider it for inclusion in the lead, instead of including a vague assertion that smacks of namecalling?  What we have now is equivalent to "liar, liar, pants on fire", and it might be better to say that Trump insisted the Earth is flat (assuming he said so), and leave it at that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Melanie - the applicable policy for an evaluation isWP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."   Without an attribution it's neither clear what the line is referring to and the line is not following WP guidelines.
 * Secondly - the question of if this is a now past time item or something about a campaign no longer due elevation, may have lead somewhere -- about two thirds of commenters want to reword or delete the line. But it seems those are coming from many aspects and are scattered.  It might narrow things down to ask which one folks LEAST want and then pick between the two remaining and work on the specific from there.
 * And -- you really are giving a fantasy above about fact checkers, but it's not the RFC so I'll suggest you simply accept input was given that opinions about statements are opinion pieces and move along. If you must debate how bad they are more than I've already provided above, then post to my TALK page and we'll see if we can pursue cases.   Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:Anythingyouwant, to answer your question, I do mean "sites that exclusively do factchecking" and that is the kind of source that is provided. And no, User:Markbasset, I do not accept your assertion that evaluating the truth of a statement by checking it against observable reality is an "opinion", any more that it is an "opinion" for a scientist to make a measurement, or a teacher to evaluate a test answer as correct or incorrect. I know that a prominent Trump surrogate recently claimed that "there are no such things as facts anymore," but I do not accept that - and I don't think Wikipedia does either. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi User:MelanieN, I don't understand why we would want to prefer full-time fact-checkers to part-time fact-checkers, assuming they are both at reliable sources, but in any event the former can be just as fallible as the latter.. If we want to refer to one as opposed to the other, can we please do so more clearly in the proposed language for the lead? Also, what do you think about the idea of mentioning one or two of Trump's biggest whoppers in the lead, instead of merely a vague accusation?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not MelanieN, but I'll answer. It would be backwards to put a couple of examples in the lead instead of the concise summary that is currently there (see WP:LEAD). Trump's reputation for making false statement is not only documented by fact checking organizations. There is a very large body of sources to draw from. The American Enterprise Institute is not a reliable source for checking facts from actual reliable sources.- MrX 16:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What MrX said. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MelanieN -- Please base on WP guidelines -- WP:NEWSORG is the WP guidance that states any analysis is to be presented as attributed statement, i.e. that persons opinion, and WP:BIASED allowing attributed opinions. As to your beliefs re their nature ... they go against WP guidelines and are demonstrably not a match to the actual pages behavior or considering the points of their critics, particularly the selection bias of their picking is not an overall on the person or organized but seems largely an hot-item-of-the-day being critiqued however they want to.   Seems a decent thing to have a place to ridicule politicians -- but also they seem just getting ratings, lack methodology, and just would not rate highly as sources by WP standards.
 * For example: (a) "exclusively do factchecking" nope ...  Washington Post fact checker current first 19 items are 8 (42%) unrated articles; and even of rated items I see one condemning the internet at large about Pizzagate, and one aggregating up prior items to a worst of 2016 and not a direct check of someone ; and (b) "checking it against observable reality" -- note the lack of written guidance re methods of selection or mechanism of evaluation and subjective scoring.   Looking at their first attributed piece "Trump’s outdated claims that China is devaluing its currency" ... they say "China hasn’t devalued its currency for about two years" ... not saying the specific fact there, and since the fact was August 15 of 2015 their "about two years" is exaggerated.  That the Chinese currency controls still exist or that no devaluation steps have been needed since dollar has been rising lately were not mentioned as considered, nor is any alternative way to view the statement or any input of the other side.  I can go with outdated a bit re 'devaluation' being a year ago, but why they awarded this 4 bad marks of a 'whopper' is unstated and unsupported by any literal metric or method -- it's just their subjective pick.   Neither the 'about two years' nor the worst possible rating seem to meet WP norms of documenting, nor would the lack of other views pass the WP norms of NPOV.
 * Look, the Post site is just two columnists in a DC market or viewpoint that are writing items to get ratings for their website ... it's a nice enough thing but they're not claiming to be infallible or objective and WP guidance would not give these two columnists a ranking higher than scholarly pieces for the same topics.  That at least one scholarly study cited another such site as biased and that other NEWSORG articles flame some of their pieces as ridiculous are demonstrable facts.  WP practice does report notable opinions as a notable opinion and so this seems a reasonable prominence to be in the article -- but not as an imagined prefect measure of truth.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your view of fact checking sources seems to be in the minority here, probably because it's founded on broken logic like source "not claiming to be infallible or objective". I suggest you raise your concerns at WP:RSN.- MrX 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What MrX said. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What MelanieN said. Objective3000 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What MrX, MelanieN, and Objective3000 said. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MarkBassett is pointing out that fact-checkers, just like journalistic organizations in general, can be *biased*. Fact-checkers are almost unique, actually, because their specific mandate is to cherrypick statements which can be proven false.  "Donald Trump held a campaign rally in Ohio during December 2016" is obviously a statement, and it obviously has a truth-value (it might be pants-on-fire or it might be mostly false or partially false or whatever).  In this case, it is *slightly* controversial because I said 'campaign rally' and technically the campaign season is over, and it was a presidential rally or maybe a presidential-transition-rally, but since it was paid for with leftover campaign funds, I'll rate the statement as Almost Entirely True.  Point here is simple:  telling MarkBassett to take his concerns to RSN is wrong.  The problem is not that fact-checkers are non-reliable (by wikipedia standards), the problem is that we have to be very careful not to say things like "according to fact-checkers Donald Trump is a fucking liar" as some commenters seem to wish we would, when in fact the only way to neutrally phrase it is to say "according to fact-checkers Donald Trump makes way more false statements than other presidential candidates".  Note that we CANNOT say, without violating NPOV, that "according to fact-checkers Donald Trump makes way more false statements than Hillary Clinton" unless we are positive that fact-checkers as a group are not suffering from systemic bias.  MarkBassett is arguing that is NOT the case, and his argument is not invalid.  But just as there are limits to how far you can go, with known-to-be-biased sources, there are also limits on how far we ought to restrict ourselves:  comparing Trump vs Clinton is dangerous, because there is evidence that fact-checking-organizations as a group suffer from bias towards one of the parties, or at least, bias against Trump's party.  Comparing Trump to not just Clinton, but to all 25 candidates (repub/dem/L/G) in the 2016 cycle, and especially to all 100+ major candidates since dedicated fact-checking organizations became a fad, and saying that "Trump makes more false statements relative to other candidates according to fact-checkers" is a perfectly valid summarization.  But we have to be careful here, and communicate to the reader what we are actually saying, and what we are actually not.  "Trump makes many false statements" is way too weasel-wordy of a summary, we need to be precise, even if that means we need to be a bit more wordy in our summarization.  As simple as possible but no simpler.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see the words "liar" or "Hillary Clinton" anywhere in the options, and I'm lost as to why you are going to such great lengths to argue against language that is not on the table in this RfC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Mandruss, the wording was quasi-proposed, in a running argument which started on the 14th and mostly ended on the 15th. So my going to such great lengths, was to try and convince people that were using unsupported / falsehoods / untrue / lies / damn lies / statistics, as if they were identical (and in particular as if fact-checking was unbiased enough to back up *any* of those terms rather than just merely some of them used carefully), should be considered unwise.  We have to be careful with our language, because linguistic precision is the coin of the realm here on wikipedia.  Only way to achieve neutrality, only way to avoid endless arguments about whether sentences need to be reworded, and so on.  Here is the backtrail, in case you care still, and so that it is all in one place should the topic of 'liar' come up again in the future at some point -- not bluelinking these usernames since I'm just verbatim quoting what they said, here on the talkpage earlier in this thread.
 * "...Trump did..., in fact, tell more lies than the other politicians in this year's contest [per fact-checkers/etc]." ... --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "...the Washington Post ... endorsed Clinton ...also noted she had issues and printed things like that she tells dreadful lies. ... Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "...You can't call someone a habitual liar in a BLP in WikiVoice without it being an absolute undisputed fact - like the capital of France is Paris type of fact, not the weasel worded generalized quantified BS we have now. Morphh (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "...The language we are considering with "option 1" is very generous, because it should say "most of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were lies." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "...I think a reasonable "reality check" would also indicate that we should probably best avoid using clearly prejudicial or judgmental terms, like "lies" without the best conceivable sourcing..." John Carter (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "...Reliable sources almost universally agree that Trump's public statements are more often lies than truths. That's just a documented fact. ..." Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "...If it was changed to 'lies'/'liar' then it would be disputed, especially in Scjessey's extremely loose formulation/summarization that we could theoretically say in wikipedia's voice "over 50% of sentences Trump spoke during 2015 and 2016 were lies" because that is both mathematically incorrect *and* incorrect in the connotation that every false statement by Trump was intentionally false..." 47.222.203.135 (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "...an argument can be made for using "lie", for those instances where Trump has obviously deliberately said something he knows to be false, as opposed to something where he just didn't have his facts right, but I have chosen not to pursue this line because it is unlikely to get consensus." -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * and then my own hypothetical above, wherein I argue that fact-checkers CANNOT be used to support 'liar' because they care nothing for intent (and are biased via the combination of selection bias as well as media bias besides)
 * To be 100% clear, nobody (not even scjessey who was quite clear on that point) was attempting to add the liar-option, and I expect nobody will. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Partial self-correction, there is a new option containing "Hillary Clinton", added after your comments above. Still no "liar". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

- Re: 1. Your editsum seems to say that my revert was improper per WP:TPO, but the RfC options are "public domain" and your additions are not "somebody else's comment". 2. As I stated in my editsum, Option 1 is for "status quo", "no change", and there is reason or benefit to muddying that water with an Option 1B that in fact requires a change. 3. As you have it now, Options 1 and 1A are the same option, adding to the confusion. 4. Your new option 1B could just as easily be a new option 7. 5. You are creating a mess (similar to the mess of an RfC you started at the WikiProject, which had to be aborted) and I respectfully suggest you use more caution until you have more experience with the organization of complex discussions and RfCs in particular. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Option 1B gives some important perspective than 1A lacks so if an option 1 is chosen, strongly consider 1B. I am not certain which option and am not entering in an extended discussion but merely raise a consideration worth pondering. Usernamen1 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC) (Note: I moved this comment from the "Close early" section to the "Discussion" section where it belongs. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC))
 * IMO Option 1B should be called Option 7, and I would appreciate it if you would change it to an Option 7. It is NOT just a minor variation on Option 1. It is not like 4a&b, which are basically equivalent; they say the same thing in slightly different wording, with exact wording to be worked out if that option is chosen. It is assumed that people who choose 4, 4a, or 4b are favoring virtually the same thought, and will accept any negotiated wording that conveys that thought. But your option 1B is not equivalent to option 1, not at all. It introduces an entirely new idea (which may or may not be sourceable). If someone supports option 1 (your 1A) that does mean that they would be equally happy with 1B; I suspect many would oppose 1B (or 7). Anyhow, I second what Mandruss said. Please do not disrupt this discussion by introducing multiple new options, especially after so many people have already commented. Please leave the Options section alone (unless it is to change 1B to 7), and limit your comments to the Comments section. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I authorize MelanieN to make those requested changes described immediately above. In an attempt to withdraw from the article, I am abandoning all efforts and edits in this article with the exception of the first paragraph, which I have devoted significant time and wish to see it to a resolution. I could change my mind and expand into more areas of this article but choose not to. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * - mmm think 1 is 'zero change' so you are talking an option 7 here... and for wording might need a relook. "Many of" has been discussed as vague, and "but those news sources do not accuse Hillary" isn't the case and is dragging offtopic a bit.  Would it suit your context point if phrased 'unusually' such as "His statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were noted by media coverage for being unusually controversial or false" ? Markbassett (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * What MarkBassett said... There's also a rather troubling piece by journalist Bryan MacDonald (in RT), “Facebook’s ‘Anti-Fake News’ Plan Looks Like Effort to Curb Alternative Media”. It quotes the widely repeated Breitbart story about PolitiFact."“As Breitbart observed: ‘When Trump said Clinton wants “open borders,” PolitiFact deemed his statement “mostly false” — despite the fact that Clinton admitted as much in a private, paid speech to a Brazilian bank on May 16, 2013. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”’”"May I have your thoughts as to the accuracy and verifiability of factchecker–checkers relative to the factcheckers whose fact-checking they check? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

In any case, Markbassett's latest comments do not seem inconsistent with Option 3, which is my current !vote. My support for MrX above was meant as opposition to the apparent (or perceived) claim that we should omit the word "false" because fact-checkers are not reliable. I stand by that opposition until somebody shows me something relatively objective that says fact-checkers have a serious reliability problem—something like a peer-reviewed academic analysis from an institution not well-known as being a partisan think tank. Without that, we might as well skip the debate and just democratic-vote, since that leaves us with only our personal opinions and those of the sources we cherry pick to support them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - Did somebody propose Facebook as a fact-checker that we should pay any attention to? If not, I'm missing the point there. And are you really citing one "widely repeated" error (if it's in fact objectively an error) as somehow indicative of PolitiFact's overall reliability? If not, I'm missing that point too. If the one error is so rare that it needs to be milked to such an extent, that would tend to suggest more credibility, not less.
 * No comment. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * More focusing on discussing article text and WP guidelines of the RFC topic... Even if the Bio lead would still retain this now-past bit of a particular subset of reporters at the lead level, my input was that the wording issues about it seem too broad and vague a statement phrased as fact, which does not fit with WP:V so I recommended option 2 (remove) though note option 6 (attribute-voice) would handle some.  I have explained this was based on seems vaguely talking with wording dominant or tied to fact-checker sites but not stating that, which runs counter to WP:RS section WP:NEWSORG ("reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact"), that as crafted it is a general line where WP:NPOV directs other adjectives should be presented (""including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight").  If my input or reasons are unclear RSVP, otherwise just accept that there was an input like this.  Markbassett (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

too broad and vague a statement phrased as fact - I reiterate, the word "false" in Option 3 is not phrased as fact. Only Option 1 phrases it as fact, all other options that include the word avoid the use of wiki voice for it. I assume you understand the concept of wiki voice—if something is not in wiki voice, it is not a statement of fact. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do have trouble parsing a lot of your language, so it's quite possible I fail to understand you. Option 3 makes no statement of fact except to concisely state what fact-checking organizations have said (which easily passes WP:DUE) and attributes the statement to them. Do you claim that that is not an accurate concise statement of what they have said?


 * } In ranking, Option 2 and 6 came off better.  Option 3 attribution and vagueness made it look worse than option 1 though it improves the part for wikivoice aspect.  The word "services" and the cites shown convey it as meaning not about websites Politifact et al.   But mostly the "relatively large number" seemed adding an additional vague and odd phrase on top of the existing issues.  It's just not clear to me what that meant to say or if it's even the right paraphrase for cites or theme perhaps also said 'noted for extreme falsehoods'.  The 'relatively large number' could go into 'relative to what' of is it 'relative to who' or is it meaning percentage of what he says or relative to how magnitude number for a richter 8.3 whopper or what.  So to me overall Option3 just looked like a worse wording choice.  Perhaps a more generic phrasing of it as 'unusual' instead of reltively large number' Markbassett (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

1. The cites can be changed and in my opinion are not actually a fixed part of any of the options. 2. The meaning of "relatively large number" is explained in the wording: "a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates". What could be more clear than that? 3. All concise statements are necessarily "vague". That includes your current preferred option, Option 2: "Many [how many?] of his statements in interviews [what interviews?], on social media [what social media?], and at campaign rallies [what campaign rallies?] were controversial {controversial to whom?][what do you mean by 'controversial'?]." I can't imagine prose suitable for the lead that could pass your vagueness test. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * } Umm ...
 * Being casual about finding cites later doesn't sniff right.  Is there a specific, fixed thing trying to be said there or not ?   In any case, this was discussing the options listed with context of cites provided, not as hypothetically other words and other cites could be made.
 * As to what would be more clear than "relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated' Well I though if it can be read as "one more fib than Hillary" or "they chose to evaluate him more often than anyone else" it's not only vague but inappropriately so.  In any case I saw it as ADDING a potential new mess so that's why that one didn't suit me.  Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Markbassett: At this point, you're not only repeating the same arguments, you're actually recycling some of the same sentences. You argument is largely premised on the idea that fact checkers are biased, so their fact checks are an opinion, and opinions must be attributed. gave the best refutation of that when she wrote " Quite the contrary, they are research-based reporting. They take a statement and compare it to reality."
 * Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that fact checkers are not always correct. To support that, you provide a single instance of Russia Today citing Breitbart. I rest my case.
 * Some folks seem to think we can't use the word "many" because it's vague. It's not vague; it's an imprecise generalization, but it has a clear meaning that is understood by any third grader. I explained this in more detail in the previous RfC.- MrX 13:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Side note: Given Markbassett's difficulty understanding the language of Option 3, it might be better worded as follows: "Trump made many controversial statements, and fact-checking services evaluated more of his statements as false than those of other candidates." The phrase "relatively large number" would be eliminated. But that decision does not need to be made in this RfC (or any RfC), and we certainly don't need another option. The RfC is not about copy editing questions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If 3 (or 4) is chosen, we can certainly tweak the wording as long as we keep the same meaning. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Mandruss - My comment was WP:NEWSORG quote, and if you've chosen to not hear that and a lot of side questions got put in, is perhaps your issue more than mine. Look if you cannot understand I saw three as worse than two then you're not respecting 'Mark honestly sees 3 as worse than 2' or not looking to do WP-based discussion.  Meh -- say your piece, and listen for others to make their points. Markbassett (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I cannot believe people are still arguing about the accuracy of "fact checkers". A few right wing opinion sites (like Breitbart) complain about them, but no serious organizations have done so. They are highly regarded reliable sources, because they would lose all credibility if their material wasn't unimpeachably accurate and are thus self policing. It's time for this line of argument to die, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Use of "Many" in the lead: Many should never be used because it is an unknown quantity and five references (out of all the reliable news reporting agencies) is not a true quantifier. The use of "many" is loaded language and a slippery slope because there are sources (many?) that claim (and possibly 5 might be reliable) that Trump may be the Antichrist". Should this be in the lead? Should any mention that he is considered a liar be in the lead especially when not included in the body of the article? Is it weasel words? Is it original research? Is it SYNTH? Is it labeling? I submit: Yes, yes, yes, and yes. There is no section in the article concerning the current content in question at all. The article and section Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 does use "many"; "Politifact named "the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump" as its "2015 Lie of the Year", but that is not one of the references in the article. Was there celebrations in the streets (or rooftops)? Certainly not "thousands and thousands but some evidence that there may have been more than one-- in New Jersey.


 * If there is an article (with section) on "Campaign misstatements"? Why is some mention (link) excluded from the article body? The WP:lead states "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.". Are we considering the sentence a "basic fact" as justification for article lead inclusion?


 * I could go on but Markbassett did a pretty good job in his comments about certain "fact checkers" and bias. The above mentioned "Campaign misstatements" includes "...fact-checkers "have to be really careful when you pick claims to check to pick things that can be factually investigated and that reflect what the speaker was clearly trying to communicate.". As a BLP we are mandated by the WMF, as well as policies and guidelines, to "get it right", ---or we should "leave it alone". Otr500 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many seems like a perfectly good word to me. And, it is the word used in the sources. There are no cases of WP:RS claiming that Trump is the Antichrist. No, there were not thousands and thousands of folk celebrating 9/11 in the streets of Jersey City. As for claims of biased fact checkers, this is not the page to argue about what is or is not a reliable source. Objective3000 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I miised it. Which of the five references uses "many"? I didn't see the word in any of them. It still seems to me to be a vague and ambiguous word. We are using it to list that Trump has told "many" lies (whitewashed of course), supported by five references. Why not use what the references state? If Trump was given the title "King of Whoppers" by FactCheck.org or the PolitiFact.com 2015 Lie of the Year award then why not use that? Do we not use attribution for this reason?
 * Why, out of all the material in the four paragraphs in the lead, is there the one statement, not supported in the body of the article, that has to have five references? I submit it is because it does not belong there without supporting mention in the main article, or at least a relevant link? I think it is fair to mention and question this. Can we not add something in the article to make the sentence lead worthy? All the sections except religion (and how is the "Health" subsection related to the "Religion" section?), including some sub-sections, have "Main articles", "See also", or "Further information" listed. Something so important, that it just has to be listed in the lead, that also happens to have an article subsection on alledged "misstatements", doesnt' deserve mention in this article?
 * If there is some reason we don't want mention, in the body of the article about these "controversial or false" statements, then at the least, how about "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false". Otr500 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the word "false" is vague and not adequately supported by the cited sources. A more accurate summary of the sources would say something like "more than Clinton" instead of "many". See the subsection immediately below for more info about how we are taking sources out of context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

We should not take material out of context from the sources
We are grabbing a word ("false") from cited sources without context. Per Wikipedia guidelines, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." An existing footnote in the lead is this: Cillizza, Chris. "A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false", The Washington Post (July 1, 2016). This Cillizza source says this (emphasis added): "Now, there's some context that's necessary here....Trump has been fact-checked 38 more times than Clinton. And, yes, PolitiFact was the one deciding what statements to fact check. This is not a comprehensive guide to the relative truthfulness of every word uttered by Trump or Clinton in this campaign. But, the number of times his statements have been ruled 'false' or 'pants on fire' is still substantially higher than it is for her." Editors here seem oblivious to the problem with omitting context that the reliable source says is "necessary". That is a major no-no anywhere in any Wikipedia article, not to mention in the lead where we have the most controversial sentence of a high-profile BLP. Editors will not even allow this context within the footnote, much less in the text of the lead. If we include the necessary context, then the sources are reliable, and otherwise they are not (the Cillizza article says "news" in the URL, and WaPo identifies Cillizza as a "reporter").Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a good point, and indeed, the whole reason MelanieN re-started the discussion about the 'many...controversial and false' sentence was *because* of these types of concerns. And yes, as mentioned during the subsequent discussions, fact-checkers do suffer from selection bias.  So the original suggestion was to say something like "many controversial statments [per everyone thus no qualifier in wikivoice], and also relatively many [compared to other candidates in 2016 and also historically] false statements according to fact-checkers."  Which is an improvement, because it lets readers know WHO said 'many false [statements were made by Trump]' and also lets readers know that this was a relative-to-other-potus-candidates metric as opposed to an absolute percentage of all Trump's statements for instance.  So the question is, how to rephrase the language in the lead-paragraphs, to properly reflect what the sources actually say?  Not that easy to do!  47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's no consensus about how to include context that the sources say is necessary, then "false" should be removed from the lead. The word "controversial" already implies that many of his statements were widely considered false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We'll have to see how the RfC closer adjudicates the issue (if anybody has the courage to do it at all). In my opinion, any finding of "no consensus" should result in the removal of the entire sentence from the lead. Trump's "controversial or false" statements are properly analyzed in the campaign section and editors have not been able to agree on a reasonable summary of this analysis in the lead section, despite months of discussion. This fact alone proves that inclusion of this sentence is in itself too controversial for the lead. — JFG talk 06:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Close early?
My summary of !voting to date follows. We could apply a weighted split-vote system in an attempt to be more precise, but in this case I think looking at only the first-stated !vote is sufficient. As we have a prior consensus for the current language (Option 1), and as the trend here seems clear enough, I think we should consider closing early. RfCs are automatically de-listed after 30 days, but there is no requirement to run one that long. By my reckoning Option 1 has 51.4%—only a slight majority, but a sizable plurality considering that there are 8 options (including Option 0). Comments?

(Tallies current as of !vote by user 70.162.247.233)

1 - 18 - EvergreenFir, Neutrality, Waggers, Casprings, Scjessey, Objective3000, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Volunteer Marek, Marteau, Mike Christie, zzz (Signedzzz), Daaxix, 201.27.125.81, MrX, SPECIFICO, Sagecandor, Pete (Skyring), 71.91.30.188 (AgentOrangeTabby) 1B possibly but not 1A - 1 - Usernamen1

2 - 7 - John Carter, Markbassett, Judgesurreal777, DHeyward, KMilos, Anythingyouwant, 70.162.247.233

4 - 4 - Emir of Wikipedia, 47.222.203.135, MelanieN, Yoshiman6464

3 - 3 - Jack Upland, Mandruss, Adotchar

6 - 3 - Morphh, Dervorguilla, κατάσταση (Katastasi)

Not 4 - 1 - Usernamen1

0 (remove sentence) - 1 - JFG

5 - 0 &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not quite yet Thanks for the tally. But the RfC has been open only 5 days. Wouldn't a week be a normal minimum time to keep it open - recognizing that some people edit only on one or two days of the week? Let's look at this again on the 19th. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PS and in the meantime please keep the tally current. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Roger wilco. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Btw it looks like there are actually four !votes for option "4" (which has two slightly different wordings but is still the same option). So option 4 should probably be listed above the options that had only 3 supports. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's hard to see the benefit of two sub-options with no discernible difference in meaning. Fixed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a discernible difference, not to my own eyes, but to some people: read the notvote by Emir of Wikipedia saying they support #4, but without the 'partly as a result' portion (materially changing the meaning!), and the final comment over here by Jo-Jo Eumerus where they are okay with #4_B but see #4_A as a "misrepresentation" which is attempting to 'explain away' the prior sentence.  Although I personally do not see much difference between 4_B and 4_A, they both sound the same to me, at least two wikipedians interpreted the phrases as being very distinct (and interpreted them differently from Mandruss and myself it seems!).  I also think that whether to insert #4A/#4B as a supplement to the existing intro-sentences, is a distinct question from how to phrase the existing sentence about falsehoods, but that is a structural problem with RfC's where people only notvote for one single option.  Speaking of which, although as yet they haven't modified their notvote text here, Jo-Jo Eumerus on their user-talkpage indicated that they would support #1 followed by #4_B (although not by #4_A).  Does not change the tally above, since (structural limits again) as written #4B can only piggyback on #3, of course.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with MelanieN that keeping the RfC open is preferred. There is always hope that new eyeballs will appear, who can sway the consensus with their wise input... plus from a practical standpoint closing this RfC early, actually changes nothing in mainspace, since the 'winning' option by nose-count is already in mainspace... so why hurry up and close something that results in no difference for the readership?  Leave it open please.  Lastly, although this nose-counting is not WRONG per se, it is just nose-counting.  What matters is whether the arguments are policy-backed.  Notvotes like "we already had an RfC months ago with different people participating" are obviously not policy-based arguments!  WP:PRECEDENT does not apply, so I think the RfC is in reality closer than the nose-counting would indicate.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Keep open per RFC guidelines" . WP:RFCEND states that the default is an RFC open for 30 days. With an article like Trump, extra caution should be taken. Therefore, keeping it open for the full 30 days is wise. Usernamen1 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, nose-counting was never intended to be the end-all, but it is useful information for discussions of early close. Absent some purpose like that, I would never produce tallies because I think they can influence !voting. But now that this section exists, I plan to keep the tallies updated per MelanieN's request unless we prefer to remove or hat this section. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll suggest keep it open more for the said comments and different views as long as they come. Such as the topic of if the line has become dated, the comment that 'controversial' somewhat overlaps 'false' (or my 'offensive'), about whether the line is conveying this as at all unusual, if it's meaning fact-check sites or what, etcetera.   I'm also dubious about counting into !votes or early ones who didn't see the later-appearing options, and  201.27.125.81 seems odd... Ehh.  input provided, for what its worth.  Markbassett (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mark makes a good point about ongoing discussion. Even if the "voting" has slowed down, active discussion suggests that the topic is not ready to be closed. When I summarized the "counties" thread here, it was because nobody had added anything for five days. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - Given the responses here, this seems likely to go the full 30. My experience with these highly contentious issues is that people will continue to discuss as long as discussion is open, long after discussion has become circular (we're already partly circular after one week). There are infinite ways you can state the same argument, and new participants are always arriving, fresh and ready to receive the baton from their exhausted predecessors in the cause. In that case there is little benefit to the tallies and I suggest hatting the subsection. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn close
(old) Closing rationale The issue at hand in this debate is how to include a certain sentence about the behaviour of a politician in the lead. This means that any such inclusion must conform with the strict standards of WP:BLP. These are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research.

First, concerning point of view. This policy has a large significance in this debate. Among the things stated on the relevant page, it is written “This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.” Therefore, I will try to interpret both the vote on the proposals and the policy. Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ states that “The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias.” As discussed below, if many news agencies report Trump’s statement as false and/or controversial, then it is not against policy to include such reporting.

WP:ASSERT states “When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution.”, and also states “When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion.” Therefore, we must determine if the statements were false (to match the criteria of fact), and whether them being controversial is a subjective opinion or not (to match the criteria of opinion). As pointed out many times, neutral fact checking sources have concluded that statements made by Trump were false, and they created controversy. Both those points are proven beyond any and all reasonable doubt.

Finally, for this issue, Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ states that “Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them.” This page does not engage in the debate, but rather repeats a statement made by reliable sources.

For the issue of original research, it is clearly stated on WP:NOR that “To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.” The sources presented in the original post do describe the statements made by Trump as inflammatory, false, controversial, etc... Therefore, including such writing in the article is not OR.

The issue of verifiability is similarly resolved by the above paragraph.

Thus, the conclusion is that including a sentence about Trump’s statements is appropriate. The remaining issue is which one is the most appropriate. The vote on the matter gives a sizeable majority to option #1, keeping the sentence as currently written. Option #3 is the runner-up. This brings up the issue whether references to other candidates in elections are appropriate on the biography page of one of them. I don’t think so – such comment is better placed on the page describing the actual elections. Thus, I conclude that there is consensus to keep the current wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.196.103 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Reaction to the close
Sorry,, who are you to close this very complex RfC without even signing? Your detailed rationale is interesting but looks like a supervote to me. I believe this action is out of process, unless you are an admin who forgot to log in. , as the RfC opener and an admin, can you take a look at this situation please? — JFG talk 18:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think IPs can be pinged, if that was your intent. They seem to be still lurking here, so they may see this in the page history. But the only sure way to communicate with an IP is by posting on their user talk page. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * — JFG talk 18:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, JFG. First of all, there is nothing wrong with 69- closing a discussion. They are not some random IP; they have been editing here over this signature since last August and have made hundreds of edits in a wide variety of articles. IMO they are entirely capable of closing a discussion, which does not require an admin, and their rationale shows a clear understanding of policy. Then there is the question of the timing. I do notice that during the past week we were still getting additions to the "survey" section, including one just a couple of hours before the close. So it could be questioned whether the discussion was ready for closure. On the other hand, it has been open for 6 weeks; closure was requested 2 weeks ago; one could wonder if discussion is EVER going to die out to the point where we could regard it as concluded. It has to be put to bed at some point, and 6 weeks should be long enough for any discussion. Overall I endorse this closure. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the IP's edit history, I do not see any experience at closing discussions, much less a very complex, subtle and sensitive discussion like this one. And I see walls of text on WP:AN/I about a content dispute over some Bach cantatas, where article contributors on both sides of the dispute feel that the IP is being disruptive. This user, no matter their good intentions, should stay clear of assessing consensus on anything until they accumulate enough experience. — JFG talk 19:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Melanie, JFG makes a fair point on the IP's talk page (I asked the IP to respond here to avoid splitting this between two pages, but they apparently either failed to comprehend my request or ignored it). JFG's point was: The problem with your close is that you do not provide a reading of the participants' statements and arguments, but rather you conduct your own policy analysis about the question, referring to the actual discussion only in passing. - If the closer's policy knowledge is all that's required, it raises the question of why we spent all that time !voting and debating. We could simply ask an uninvolved editor to come decide the question for us. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rationale, 2.0: There doesn't seem to be consensus to change (given that a majority are in favour of keeping the current wording), thus WP:SNOWBALL seems to apply (in addition to the thorough arguments made that this is BLP and the we should stick to facts and NPOV). I've undone the close, by the way. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, since this was already discussed and the previous closer deemed that there was consensus to keep the current phrasing, which speaks even more of WP:SNOWBALL 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a misinterpretation of SNOWBALL, which refers to situations where the outcome is so obvious that there is no point in allowing the process to play out. "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." This process has already played out, save the close. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to IP 69 for agreeing to revert their close, and sorry if my reaction sounded a bit harsh; this was definitely a good-faith attempt at closing this complex discussion, and I am grateful for IP 69 to have risen to the task. Unfortunately this closing rationale was not an analysis of the discussion proper but an assessment of the question based on personal interpretation of policy, contrary to the spirit of WP:Closing discussions. For completeness, let me state that my own opinion on the RfC question had no bearing on my challenging the closer's decision process. — JFG talk 22:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you guys browbeat user:69- into undoing their close. But we've been waiting 2 weeks for SOMEBODY to close it, and I for one thank 69- for trying - even if they got shouted down by people whose option wasn't chosen. The bottom line should be, was this the appropriate close? 69- said "there is a sizable majority for option #1", was that correct? Here is my tally:
 * Option 0 (remove the sentence entirely): 9 prefer, 1 would accept, 0 oppose.
 * Option 1 (sentence currently in the article): 26 prefer, 1 accept, 4 oppose
 * Option 2: 8 prefer, 1 accept, 9 oppose
 * Option 3: 9 prefer, 4 accept, 4 oppose
 * Option 4: 6 prefer, 1 accept, 7 oppose
 * Option 5: 0 prefer, 0 accept, 4 oppose
 * Option 6: 3 prefer, 4 accept, 4 oppose
 * Option 1B: 0 prefer, 0 accept, 2 oppose

Given the above, is there really any doubt about the outcome of this discussion? Option 1, the sentence currently in the article, is the only option that drew anything like consensus - nearly three times the support of any other option; still twice as much if you add "prefers" and "accepts" for the others. (Disclosure, since I took part in this discussion: #1 was NOT my own preference.) (Note also: the !votes above do not sum to the total participants, since many people expressed opinions about more than one option.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's likely a proper close would show consensus for #1 (status quo) as well. That doesn't obviate the need for a proper close. shouted down by people whose option wasn't chosen - That's uncalled for, and disappointing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The close was proper and it should stand. Is there anyone who thinks that there is actually a different consensus result than that stated by the IP who closed it? - MrX 22:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not relitigate the process. The closer withdrew their close. Now we are waiting for some OTHER uninvolved person to close the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's at the top of the list at ANRFC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely surprised that you would accuse and myself of "browbeating" IP 69. This user is obviously not experienced enough to close such a complex and nuanced RfC, and their closing rationale was more of a personal essay than a proper synthesis of the actual discussion(s).
 * About the nosecount you provide: this could just as well be interpreted as "26 people want the status quo while 35 want a change", so it's not a slam-dunk for option 1, and none of the other options has attracted a strong following either. Unfortunately such a result was because of the way you framed the question. If I had to close this, I would find no consensus, but then the question would immediately arise as to whether "no consensus for any formulation" should mean "keep the status quo" or "nuke the sentence and start from scratch", in the spirit of WP:DYNAMITE. I'm glad I'm just a participant and I'm eagerly waiting to read what an experienced and uninvolved closer will say. — JFG talk 22:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For your information, 51 persons gave a vote (some gave more than 1 option, as you can see). That is, 26 out of 51 is not a sizeable majority (though it is more than any other option), but it's still a majority (yes, I should have written that but I wrote too fast and didn't proofread myself). Also, keep !vote in mind. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Adding Trump Organization leadership onto non-officeholder template?
So the previous discussion mainly evolved around whether it was appropriate to use the "officeholder" infobox template to list Trump's chairmanship at the Trump Organization as an office. Since Edge3 switched it into the current non-officeholder template however, I feel that there is now applicable to add the Trump Organization on the infobox as I have shown here. This edit, however, was removed by RedBear2040 citing "no consensus". So is it possible to get an agreement going here to implement it for good? I also am aware of the ongoing RfC on this topic, but that was in the context of the "officeholder" template that was still being used, so it has become a little irrelevant to me. Thanks. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks greats. Well done. I support that. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very neat and professionally made. I as well support this. Archer Rafferty (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * But Trump is better known as president-elect of the U.S. and from Jan. 2016 (although I do not have a crystal ball) will be better known as president of the U.S. and in all likelihood will resign his positions at the Trump Organization. TFD (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as it's not a political office. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: my understanding is that Bokmanrocks01 has created this to use for the business portion of the infobox which will be the politician's infobox with this inserted into it. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know, but I still oppose it. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's visually unappealing because of the myriad of random information crammed in, and it looks no different than a typically infobox for an office holder. It makes no difference. RedBear2040 (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I submit that adding an entire new section to the infobox makes it look a lot different from a typical infobox for an officeholder. I further submit that that is precisely the point of adding it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If coloration aka 'blending in' is a problem, one advantage to the WP:OUTBOX is that we can control how subections look. Instead of following the pale-blue style of the infobox_officeholder we can use distinct colors, if we wish.  Example using linen to the righthand side.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Even if he resigns TTO, he will have been head of it for 45 years. The infobox summarizes his entire life, and he will forever be far more businessman than politician, regardless of what he's better known for. The goal of the article is to tell readers what they don't know. It should be emphasized that the business chunk would go below the president chunk, as in this revision. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – It is clearly not a political position but it is also clearly the dominant aspect of Trump's life and career. Inclusion is a no-brainer. Format looks acceptable, although I would still prefer using standard modules (can be tweaked properly after consensus for inclusion is established). — JFG talk 06:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - As long as it doesn't use the word "office" when talking about his business dealings, I'm okay with it. It is absolutely essential that "office" not be used in the context of his business dealings or it will confuse readers who associate the word with politics. As long as that is the case, I really don't matter which template we adapt to the task. That said, so many business people go on to be politicians I'm surprised a template for such does not already exist. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - It solves the problem of being a non-office holder/businessman. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't see how this changes the consensus of not incluing his business position as a political office, since it is still presented as such in this WP:OUTBOX. Also, this infobox is very arbitrary. Why should "Occupation", "Books", "Television" and "Net worth" all be incorporated into The Trump Organization? Surely his wealth doesn't come solely from his businesses. And even if it does, this seems more like general biographical data than position-related data. Also, how is he known only for Trump Tower and Mar-a-lago? What about the Chicago and LV hotels? This is really arbitrary, and I believe things like books and notable businesses shouldn't be included in the infobox. It's best to keep it as simple and concise as possible. This just seems excessive to me. κατάστασ  η  17:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would have been more useful to omit the example. As I see it, a consensus in this RfC to include the TTO section would not represent a consensus for all of the details in the example. If we approached it as all-or-nothing, as "the section is set in stone until there is a new RfC consensus", I think it's obvious that no consensus would be possible, as there would be far too many permutations. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There's currently no consensus for the Outbox or the addition of Trump's organization. Why are these things being constantly added to the article. Ramming stuff into the article (over & over) doesn't get a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The purpose of fields in the info-box is to provide key information. So a key piece of information for Barack Obama is that he is president of the U.S.  But what is the Trump Organization?  It's the company owned by Donald Trump.  TFD (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I started this section to address the objections against adding the Trump Organization as an "office". The format used here does not use the word "office" nor imply that it is one. It describes Trump's position at his company, while at the same time giving the emphasis that was also needed to highlight the importance of Trump's business career in the infobox. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support As I previously stated, it is benefical to the article as a whole and neatly details Trump's former occupation before becoming President. Archer Rafferty (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not only is this completely uncommon to everybody but Trump, but it's also incredible unappealing visually to include in the infobox. It looks too similar to the office holder infobox, as Katastasi pointed out. This is very arbitrary, does not add any relevant information to the infobox, and just doesn't make any sense to add it. RedBear2040 (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. It looks visually appealing to me. Moreover, the subject is "known for Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago", whereas he's not so well known - at least, not to me - for his "hotels in Chicago or Las Vegas". --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unnecessary clutter. Naue7 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as per my arguments in the prior RfC on this topic. Trump is not a typical politician, so we shouldn't feel constrained by the limitations of Infobox officeholder. His business career is a significant part of his biography, and plays a large part in his rise to the presidency. His leadership of The Trump Organization must be displayed prominently on the infobox. Edge3 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, Trump's business career (wealth) and tv/book/etc exposure (fame) are not merely key events in his pre-2016 life, they explain how he became POTUS. Infobox is supposed to summarize the key points, and if template-syntax or wiki-precedent at other articles prevents that, WP:IAR demands we use a workaround-syntax (at least until the templates can be upgraded to accommodate what this article needs) to give the readership the best data that we possibly can for *this* unique article.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is all covered in the "Donald Trump series" below the infobox. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * oppose until someone here can explain what his corporate structure is. He seems to be CEO or general partner to hundreds of Trump related companies, which often own each other. It is not so straightforward as CEO of Trump Organization. Chris H of New York (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Just a bunch of random info that looks unappealing for the future POTUS.—Fundude99talk to me 02:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong support. When we first decided to use the WP:OUTBOX method, this specific part of the box was in the final draft. Trump has been the chair of this organization for nearly 45 years, and it needs to be known easily without diving into the article that he led the organization before being elected 45th President. As a comparison, see Ronald Reagan's info box, which lists him as president of the screen actors guild. If differentiation between "a political office" and "a business position" is so important, then just colorize the background to distinguish it. The info box is almost always the first thing that catches a reader's eye on a biography. If the problem is that it "takes too much space", all we need to do is trim down the information in it. Regardless, the position should stay. Presidents of the United States should have VERY detailed info boxes. In my opinion, not only does it aesthetically enhance the article, but I think adding it is a net gain to the efficiency of conveying important information to a reader.  CatcherStorm    talk   02:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Outbox, Strong support for including Trump Organization in infobox officeholder. I haven't gone through the full extent of the discussions on this matter, but my impulse is to simply use the apparatus that we know best and has worked best (officeholder) and just add this major part of the man's life to it. I don't think a casual reader is so aware that "officeholder" predominantly refers to political offices, and I think the notion that they will mistake the Trump Organization for being one simply based on his term dates being referred to as "in office" is frankly ridiculous. They are not stupid. His lack of prior public experience is woven into almost every election-related article and can be easily included in the lede prose alongside the infobox itself. It's also a link itself, should they have never heard of it and desire more information. I don't think hanging up on the word "office" requires all this bending over backwards with colors and section splitting to hand-hold a few readers in an abundance of caution. Bend the rules just a tiny bit for the incoming POUTS (like so, so many American political articles have done differently from most other nation's politicians' pages over the years, and in more extreme ways) and just add it to officeholder. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Update I just want to say that if we fail to reach a consensus on adding this section to the infobox, it would be best to use the officeholder infobox again since it would be pointless to continue to use WP:OUTBOX without the special purpose of adding this specific section. Trump's TTO chairmanship would be listed under "occupation" as it was before. I'm sure everybody here would agree? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Further comments moved to new subsection below, see 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Idea? Perhaps this is an odd idea, but what about maybe putting business as a second infobox below the office box? That includes the information, and imposes a clear visual split from the office box. Alsee (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on the condition the second infobox be put under the "business career" portion of his page. RedBear2040 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I also floated this as an alternative in a previous RfC (see further up this talkpage), before remembering the old-school WP:OUTBOX approach. I support the double-infobox approach (and do not care specifically which section they are added unto), if the combo-approach using WP:OUTBOX or the magic of template-invocations (still working on that variation) fails to achieve consensus.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unnecessary clutter. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support For the majority of his life he has been a businessman, and it is deceptive and unencyclopedic to hide this. Furthermore despite not being a political/elected office other businessmen such as Mark Fields (businessman) use this as there office is notable and significant. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep open?
moved here, from the WP:NOTVOTE area above, per WP:KEEPTHINGSTIDY policy 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Update #2 - Closing this discussion There hasn't been a whole lot of activity these past few days on this thread. So far there are 10 editors supporting this change and 8 opposing, with both sides putting out very good arguments. The last comment supporting/opposing was posted 5 days ago, and I am beginning to feel like whatever editors needed to say about this edit has been said. Because both sides supporting/opposing are a relatively close split of 10 to 8, there really isn't a wide enough consensus to implement this edit without conflict. I've decided that I should close this discussion soon, and if anyone disagrees and think that I should keep the discussion open longer, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, I will be closing this thread by tomorrow. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm all for closing the thread and moving on, but you don't say what you conclude from the discussion. Would you simply revert to statu quo ante? I'm afraid this would only beg for a prompt re-ignition of the issue. We should at least attempt to draw some conclusion from the various comments made here. — JFG talk 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it does seem that the status quo will remain, since there are too many editors opposing or supporting to draw a conclusion leaning any one way. We con't conclude that Trump's TTO leadership shouldn't be shown prominently on the infobox because so many editors supported this edit, but on the other hand, there are too many opposing to reach a tangible consensus to make this change. Both sides made good arguments about why it should or shouldn't be added; the support side made a good point in that Trump's leadership at TTO is a very important detail of his overall business/political career, and using WP:OUTBOX avoids conflicts with guidelines, while the opposing argued that the section still looked too much like an office (I also find the proposed solution of changing the coloring of the section unappealing) and that it could potentially include arbitrary information which will make the section too "cluttered". I feel that if there must be a conclusion, it would be that the Trump Organization info should remain under "occupation" in the personal details section of the infobox, and that shouldn't be changed until a new consensus is reached. It's a good compromise that both mentions Trump's career at his company in the infobox, but also doesn't make it seem like an office. Plenty of articles about CEOs use this format. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, this is the status quo ante. The status quo is close enough to that that no reverting would be needed, unless one wanted to say that the infobox should have remained static while this RfC was in progress, which seems a bit severe even to a process freak like me. Anyway I'm ok with early close or the full 30. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An Rfc has a lifespan of 1 month, which means this Rfc will expire around February 4. By that time, Trump will be US President & thus readers/inputers will possibly look at this topic differently. Best to allow the Rfc to run its course. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I wouldn't mind leaving this discussion open if that's what people think. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also happy to let the process run its course, especially as we can expect a fresh influx of participants due to the audience peak undoubtedly coming up around the inauguration event. However I would restore the standard Infobox officeholder format at this point, rather than the harder-too-maintain outbox. We can easily apply the minor changes between the pre-RfC version and the current one. What do you think? — JFG talk 03:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the RfC should remain open. We've been debating various proposals on the infobox for well over a month, and I think we've come a long way towards achieving consensus. Edge3 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely leave it open. Some of the oppose-voters are complaining about clutter, aka worried about what content to put in the proposed OUTBOX, which is a different discussion than the question of whether to use an OUTBOX.  I suspect that such content-related questions (e.g. whether to mention known-for-trump-tower and if so whether to colorize the background so people don't confuse it with a politics-related-monument) can be dealt with, after the decision on whether or not to alter the technological infrastructure is decided.  And I'm still trying to figure out whether there is a cleaner less-cluttered way to have the wiki-markup of the outbox itself, using template-invoke commands or using the WikiProject:Battleships combo-syntax, which may further improve the number of support-notvotes.  Not a nose-count here, of course.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency
I haven't checked the recent history of this article, but whoever is continuing to add extra info the infobox, would they PLEASE STOP IT. Leave the infobox relatively the same as those of the US Presidents bios from Washington to Obama & the US Vice Presidents bios from Adams to Biden & soon Pence. PS - I suspect that WP:RECENTISM is behind these attempts at original designs to this article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Non mea culpa, but forming a lasting consensus is more important to me than what happens to the infobox in the interim. I generally favor the concept of status quo ante, but it can get extremely difficult to decide what that is. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Consistency can be an albatross. Partly for the sake of 'consistency' we make no mention of FDR's 3rd and 4th election-campaigns in his lede-paragraphs (per JFG research above on this talkpage), yet perhaps the most unique and important factoid about FDR is that he was POTUS four times (FDR's decision to run in 1940 was arguably the most important single political campaign-decision of the 1900s).  Similarly, for the sake of 'consistency' we make no mention of Reagan's acting career in his infobox, though without that name-recognition and fame, it seems completely implausible that Reagan could ever have become the governor of California (let alone the head of the SAG union), and from there, POTUS.  Rather than seek consistency-of-format, aka ever infobox_officeholder being the same and looking the same for all the presidency-biographies, it is far more important to seek consistency-of-purpose.  Guideline says, "to summarize... key facts that appear in the article... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. ...wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."  What are the key facts about Trump's life?  That he became POTUS is #1 with a bullet, surely.  But his billions made in real estate are #2, because without largely self-funding his way through the primaries, #1 would not have happened.  His brand-promotion work in television/books/tabloids is #3, because without his celebrity and his knack for earned media coverage, far more than all his rivals in both major parties and all third parties, once again Trump would probably never have become POTUS.  Thus, for consistency-of-purpose, which is to say in order to summarize the key facts in shorthand, we need the infobox to say that Trump is POTUS-elect, that he is a billionaire real estate developer, and that he has done a lot of Trump-brand-promotion over the decades in tv/book/news publications which made him a celebrity.  Famous + rich = potus, those are the three key factoids that the infobox needs to cover.  For the sake of 'consistency' with our other articles, we can also say that Trump attended U.Penn, but that is a very minor aspect of his life methinks.  On that same basis, I would not support adding "small business owner and rancher and wood-salesman" to the GWB  infoxbox, because that is not why he became POTUS, he was nominated then elected mostly on his name and fundraising-network (much as Jeb was not nominated thanks to that same name and despite that same fundraising netowrk).  Bloomberg article does need to mention his billions on Wall Street, they are key factors in his success as a politician in New York, just as Hillary Clinton's success as a politician in New York was due to her political-backstory more than any other factor. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well said. +1 — JFG talk 01:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What to include/exclude
For those opposing, the inclusion of what is perceived to be arbitrary information in the proposed infobox section such as "Occupation", "Books", "Television" and "Net worth", as pointed out by Katastasi, is a major point of concern. I think that "occupation" is necessary to specify that Trump is in the real-estate business as chairman of TTO, but I am willing to leave out "Books", "Television", and "Net worth" since I do agree that it does not directly connect with Trump's post at his company. Hopefully this will ease concerns of having a "cluttered" infobox section. As Mandruss pointed out, this RfC is on whether to add this infobox section or not; the details of what info to include can be decided later. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with the trimming. Net worth should remain in the "personal" section of the box. Books are in the Donald Trump series sidebar just below, so no need to repeat them here. TV activity at The Apprentice is a large part of his life, so I feel it deserves a place in the infobox, although that is not related to his real estate business, so must be elsewhere. — JFG talk 22:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * All of this information is something that should be included in the personal section of the infobox or not at all. "Occupation," "years active," and "website" should all be in the personal section already, and "preceded by" should only be included if it's an office or something comparable. As far as "known for" goes, I believe it's safe to say that now he's most known for being the incoming President of the United States. To put that he's known for Trump Tower would be like saying Ronald Reagan is known for his role in Bedtime for Bonzo or that George W. Bush is known for owning part of the Texas Ranger. It is an important part of his life, but it will now be overshadowed permanently by his service as Commander in Chief. The issue essentially boils down to the fact that, even though his infobox technically isn't an officeholder infobox, including "Chairman and President of The Trump Organization" in the infobox under what will soon say "45th President of the United States" looks like an office position, and the fact that current proposition is not visually appealing because it is extremely cluttered with information that would be best suited for later in the actual article. His career as a businessman is an important part of his life. That goes without saying. However, history will remember him, for better or for worse, as the 45th President of the United States. RedBear2040 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * this RfC is on whether to add this infobox section or not; the details of what info to include can be decided later. - In that case, why are we discussing it in this RfC? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to let the editors opposing it know that the example I showed of the TTO infobox section isn't by any means the final result. There were concerns that it looked "cluttered" and that it included "arbitrary information", so I just wanted to let people know that the section can be improved by adding/removing certain parts. It might get more editors to support. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The way to get more editors to support is to state that they can ignore the actual contents of the example box, that that is not within the scope of the RfC. Not to open a discussion subsection about said contents. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, looks better. True, the RfC is about the section, not the details, but perhaps the details should be taken into consideration as well. Regardless, I'm still against including the section at all, but trimming it is a viable option. κατάστασ  η  03:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In drafting the 'business career' portion of the proposed outbox, I mostly followed the content of Template:Donald_Trump_series, which mentions his My goal was to concentrate on the key ideas, the examplars (art of the deal + apprentice + trump tower) in the various subgroups. I did not break out golfcourses separately from his other real estate, however, though the template does. I don't much care what exact specifics we end up with in the infobox, but I would like the infobox to reflect the lede-sentence which is currently causing so much consternation: American billionaire real estate developer, television celebrity, ('author' maybe also included though it seems unlikely), and POTUS-elect (plus optionally also 'politician' though for the infobox we can ignore that redundancy). I don't care about the exact phrasing, as much as I care about summarizing the three key points: wealth + fame + potus. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * businessCareer + CEO + realEstate*31 + otherBiz*4 + legalAffairs, for a subtotal of 38 bluelinks
 * politicalPositions + presidency*8 + campaigning*7, for a subtotal of 16 bluelinks
 * eponyms + television*3 + books*3, for a subtotal of 7 bluelinks
 * family + foundation + sexlife, for a subtotal of 3 bluelinks

Rfc ending soon
This RfC will expire in just a few days, and I've also decided to close this discussion using archivetop and archivebottom when it does. The closing statement will probably be that no consensus has been reached. Anyways, if anyone has any last thoughts to add to this thread now would be the time. Thanks. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like the case has settled itself. Current formulation with Trump's two major career jobs listed under "Occupation" seems representative enough and hasn't been challenged in a while.. — JFG talk 13:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Post-close commentary
Just a quick comment, as I've been participating in these discussions over the past several months. The main reason I haven't challenged the status quo is that I've become fatigued, quite frankly, over the long discussion. I would encourage editors to consider the "no consensus" close as such, and to not assume that there is consensus to accept the status quo. Edge3 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)