Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 57

Survey about being controversial or false
The lead currently says: "Many of the statements he made at rallies, in interviews, or on social media were controversial or false." Given that news reports say Trump made false statements in many other forums too, which of the following would be best:
 * A shorten the sentence in the lead so that it says, "Many of his public statements were controversial or false", and discuss particular forums like social media in the body of the BLP;
 * B leave the lead as-is, despite the concern that listing only some forums (like interviews and rallies) might suggest that Trump was honest accurate and uncontroversial in the many forums that we do not list;
 * C list all of the forums in the lead where Trump was reportedly controversial or false.
 * D same as A but say "Relatively many" instead of "many".
 * E same as A but say "An unusual number" instead of "many".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * F revise to "He made an extraordinary number of false or controversial statements."


 * *ahem* We can't verify that because we haven't a way of reliably sourcing anything regarding what he's said in private. The only way to state this in way that can be WP:BLP compliant is to clarify that he has been known to do this in public statements. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the change! &mdash; Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. He does it in all venues, so it's pointless to try to examine each venue separately. We just have to use what RS say, and they are mostly about public venues. Some friends, business associates, ghost writers, and interviewers have shared what's happened in more private settings. We can also use those RS. Have fun with some of the sources I have collected below. I have more. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

!Votes about being controversial or false

 * Support A as proposer. The lead ought to be concise, details about particular forums can be given in the body of the BLP, and listing only some of the forums implies that he was reportedly noncontroversial and truthful in the other forums.  I would also be okay with D or E because Trump was not the only one fibbing during that campaign.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support D A, which is more informative. (I would also be happy with F: "He made an extraordinary number of false or controversial statements.") Withdrawing support for F. “Germany’s justice minister is proposing fines of up to 50 million euros for social networking sites that fail to swiftly remove illegal content, such as hate speech or defamatory ‘fake news’… Maas cit[ed] research that he said showed Twitter deletes just 1 percent of illegal content flagged by users.” German Official Wants $53M Fines for Social Media Hate Posts. An appropriately worded sentence might be added to Hillary Clinton, so both his and her German followers will know not to assume they can legally retweet either politician's posts. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A or D. This generic statement will never need to be changed. There are abundant RS to back it up. The most official and accurate are fact checking websites. This comparison between Trump and Clinton is well-known. Fact checkers are all agreed that all people, including politicians, lie, but that they have never encountered a politician who lies as much as Trump. They place him in a category of his own. He also does it in all venues, so it's pointless to try to examine each venue. Professor Robert Prentice summarized the views of many fact checkers:


 * "Here's the problem: As fact checker Glenn Kessler noted in August, whereas Clinton lies as much as the average politician, President Donald Trump's lying is "off the charts." No prominent politician in memory bests Trump for spouting spectacular, egregious, easily disproved lies. The birther claim. The vote fraud claim. The attendance at the inauguration claim. And on and on and on. Every fact checker — Kessler, Factcheck.org, Snopes.com, PolitiFact — finds a level of mendacity unequaled by any politician ever scrutinized. For instance, 70 percent of his campaign statements checked by PolitiFact were mostly false, totally false, or "pants on fire" false."


 * BullRangifer (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support A – Clear, short and timeless. I would also support "Many of his campaign statements" instead of "Many of his public statements", but the key idea is to shorten the phrase to the essence. — JFG talk 10:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A - Now I think about it, this is the way to go. We can use the body of the article to go into specifics. If we are honest, he made false/controversial statements on every platform or venue during the campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, you're exactly right. Details go in the body. This applies to every public and private venue, both before, during, and after the campaign, so a generic, non-specific, statement serves the purpose best. In the body one can mention the situation, if necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support A or F (Dervorguilla's suggestion) – JFG is right that this clear, short and timeless is the way to go. I agree fully with BullRangifer there is no need to enumerate particular statements or sources, since every fact-checker concurs. (WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice..."). Neutralitytalk 20:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure "relatively many" is a thing. Please don't make it a thing. Also, "extraordinary" (while true) is a characterization best not made in Wikipedia's voice, in my opinion. "Many" is sufficiently vague to avoid the need for a reference and let the body of the article take care of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should try to stay in an encyclopedic tone. WP:PEACOCK and WP:WHATPLACE. I Support C, as I believe it is the best choice here. However, A is a good enough alternative for that. Ceosad (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about being controversial or false
Here's a source for false material at Facebook.


 * Here's an earlier one (during campaign) about false material at Facebook.

Here's a source for false material at Instagram.


 * Here's an earlier one (during campaign) about false material at Instagram.

Here's a source for false material at a press conference.


 * Here's an earlier one (during campaign) about false material at a press conference.

Here's a source for false material at a debate.

Here's a source for false material at his website.

Here's a source for false material in a press release.

Here's a source for false material in a speech to an interest group.

Here's a source for false material at a rally.

Here's a source for false material in an interview.

Here's a source for false material on a tweet

Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a section for the 250+ references I have collected. Many are straight factual, especially the fact checkers, so no attribution is needed. Many others are opinion, so attribution is necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This article about a remarkable Time magazine article, doesn't show any tendency to be more honest (or "presidential"). -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you mean, 'According to WaPo, it doesn't...' --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dervorguilla, thanks for catching that. Yes, that source is WaPo, one of many which commented on the remarkable interview in Time magazine. I got them mixed up. This was the fact checkers' commentary: "President Trump’s cascade of false claims in Time’s interview on his falsehoods." The original article is here: "Can President Trump Handle the Truth?" The transcript is here: "Read President Trump's Interview With TIME on Truth and Falsehoods." -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

250+ references dealing with Trump's relationship to truth -- BullRangifer




































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Discussion 4
OMG,, what an impressive job!! Were you maintaining a dossier on Trump all along his campaign? — JFG talk 10:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes, JFG, in a sense I was. I'm a news junkie. I share anywhere from 40-100 news sources on FB everyday, reading many of them, and scanning all of them. Those friends on my private profile are well-informed. I stick to mainstream RS on both sides of the left-right spectrum, using those known for fact checking. I also check some fringe sources on both sides to get an idea of what kinds of extreme spin, or even falsehoods and (real) fake news, is in circulation.
 * In the case of Trump, following extreme right wing fringe sources is important, because that's where he gets many of his ideas and content for his statements and tweets. That's why foreign leaders don't trust anything he says. He's not reliable or honest. Yesterday he tweeted from the Drudge Report, a conspiracy theory website with very poor fact checking, often none at all.
 * He wouldn't make a good editor here because he is clueless about fact checking, and eschews all RS, choosing only sources which defend him and make him look good. Russian propaganda sources are great for him, and he often parrots them. If a source writes anything negative about him, he labels it "fake news", using his own very different meaning than real fake news. There are a number of references above which deal with his concepts of "fake news" and "alternative facts". -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thankfully Mr. Trump is not editing Wikipedia! But I must admit that "real fake news" has quite a ring to it… — JFG talk 15:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It definitely exists. During the beginnings of the election it was aimed at both left and right wing voters, so supporters of Clinton and Trump were targeted. Since most fake news is about clicks and money, they quickly realized that the money was in the right wing and, according to the creators who have spoken out, they gave up and mainly targeted Trump's supporters. Unlike most left wingers, they didn't fact check, and they believed whatever they read. Once Russia got involved, the fake news was about influence, not money, and they very successfully targeted Trump voters and Bernie supporters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While I enjoy a good Trump-bashing, this is not appropriate discussion per WP:FORUM. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, let's end the speculation right here. Hatting. — JFG talk 19:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Getting ready to implement this
I plan to implement this later today unless there are further comments. I also plan to move the "wealth" subsection out of the "early life" section, because very little of its contents pertain to early life.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do it. Looks like a near unanimous approval for your suggestion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

False statements
suggested minor changes to improve the grammar on our famous sentence about Trump's "many false statements". Does the community approve this change? Please support, oppose or comment. Note this is not an RfC. — JFG talk 03:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Before: A. Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false.
 * After: B. Many of the statements he made at rallies, in interviews, or on social media were controversial or false.
 * Support – Flows better, no change in meaning. — JFG talk 03:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – The sentence is kind of peculiar either way, because it implies he was uncontroversial and truthful everywhere except at rallies, in interviews, or on social media. Is that what we mean?  I would delete "at rallies, in interviews, or on social media". Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - reads better. I think we know he makes many false statements in and out of rallies. Right? He exaggerates, or he doesn't explain in depth, like the "Obama wired tapped me." SW3 5DL (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does this BLP give any specific example. If he and his staff were surveilled, and those transcripts were used improperly by unmasking the identities of participants, then it may have been somewhat equivalent to wiretapping, AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect that this is what SW3 5DL means by "He doesn't explain in depth". --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're going to suggest he made a lot of false statements, then somewhere in this BLP one of those false statements ought to be described. Here's CNN describing what they say was Trump's biggest lie during the campaign.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Amusing. But in any case, history is written by the victors, they say. If so, this passage may eventually disappear! --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Some reader comments from 6 months ago are priceless. "The Drumpf cult will never accept losing". Says who? — JFG talk 09:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a random thought... but has anyone ever considered rewording it to say: "Many of his public statements were controversial or false."? &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Short and to the point. Until somebody comes along claiming "oh, are you saying he's more honest in private?" Or perhaps, "many of his campaign statements" so we don't lose the context of the article we are pointing to? So let's say we have two new options: I would pick D. What do people think? JFG talk 09:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Shorten: C. Many of his public statements were controversial or false.
 * Context: D. Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false.
 * I think you should sign your posts, and Coffee should address everyone here, not just a select few. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Better Yet: E. Allow editors to do copyedits without first getting permission here on the talk page. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleting so much of a very "controversial or false" sentence is more than copy-editing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet you and JFG do it all the time without opening a single thread. Dervorguilla's edit is great. It includes all of the president's favorite venues. 15:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by SW3 5DL (talk • contribs)
 * Trump is such a controversial figure, editors are always encouraged to err on the side of caution when making changes. Even minor copy edits can alter the meaning or significance of content, and this particular example deals with a very sensitive issue. Edit wars are easily averted with this kind of thread, and I applaud it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's time to Stop the Stupid. We do not need new threads of discussion. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to foolishly argue against this kind of process, please do it in a new thread so you don't disrupt the content discussion. Also, please sign your comments properly with four tildes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dervorguilla is an excellent editor and her edit was an example of her skill. She doesn't write run on sentences, in the passive voice. But when anyone wants to fix those run on sentences and passive voice, their edits are challenged. It's time to Stop the Stupid. Copyedits are not controversial. Dervorguilla's edit should be allowed to stand, and this nonsense must stop. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A and B are merely copy edits. C and D are more than copy edits.  Devorguilla should be commended for discussing copy edits to such a controversial sentence, before implementing those edits.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Notice who opened the thread. If these are 'merely copy edits' why start this thread at all? Why even question this? Like I said, Stop the Stupid. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not helpful to call your fellow editors stupid. Note that no one has reverted the copy edits.  We have a list of consensuses, and before anyone changes that phrasing, there ought to be some minimal discussion at this talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh no you don't. Show diffs of me calling anybody stupid. Or am I suggesting we stop the stupid merry go round of getting permission from the two of you for copyedits. Who died and left you both king? In case you haven't notice, you both write long winded sentences often in the passive voice that need copyediting. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm through talking here with you today. Surely you must realize that telling people to stop being stupid is the same as calling people stupid.  Have a wonderful day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

D seems like an improvement. It's more concise, and doesn't imply that he was uncontroversial and truthful in venues other than rallies, interviews, and social media.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh - Actually, I think A, B or D are fine. I'm not really sure this needs changing at all, but if it is I would not support C. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * E. Allow editors to do copyedits without first getting permission from JFG and Anythingyouwant. Stop the Stupid. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No one reverted Devirguilla's copyedits AFAIK. Right?  No one even proposed reverting them, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Her edit is best especially as it covers rallies, interviews, and social media. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Suggest we leave Dervorguilla's excellent copy edit as it is, and close this thread. The community does not need to comment on every copyedit, especially when it is an improvement and does not change the meaning. This constant opening of threads for this type of edit is OTT and borders on ownership, not to mention the sky is falling behavior. Use commonsense and Stop the Stupid .SW3 5DL (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No one objects to Devorguilla's copy edits. However, this thread has been discussing more than that: shortening the sentence in question like this: C. "Many of his public statements were controversial or false."  D. "Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false."  Do we need your permission to discuss that SW3?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do C or D exclude rallies, interviews, or social media? Obviously not.  Devorguilla improved the sentence in question. but that doesn't mean it can never be improved further.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not about C or D. It's about Stopping the Stupid and allowing Dervorguilla's edit to stand. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just thought the sentence was a bit sententious (def. 2), so I shortened it 20%, hopefully making it 20% less triggering for some people to read through... ("He made so many false statements, and I caught him so many times -- but he still beat me!") --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And I thought it was an excellent edit, and it made me sad that you felt you had to write a note in the edit saying it could be reverted. No, don't ever do that again. You have as much right as anybody else here to edit this article. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We heard you, no need to reply to every comment on this thread by calling the process "stupid" or making vague criticisms on people who supposedly write "long winded sentences often in the passive voice". And in case you haven't noticed, Dervorguilla's edit does stand, and it has prompted further suggestions, which we are now debating as part of the normal discussion process. Relax and let others participate please. — JFG talk 01:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, now you're telling an editor when they can comment on the talk page? Leave the edit as is. No, it doesn't need to change and not every sentence needs to be protected by consensus. Before long, there will nothing for anybody to edit. You are not the gate keeper here. Stop the Stupid. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are obviously free to comment as much as you want, I'm just saying that it's not very useful to repeat your point in reply to every other comment; people generally understand what you say the first or second time you say it. Then I'd encourage you to read the thread from the top: not only did I leave Derv's edit in place, I even supported it in the discussion. Not "every sentence" is protected by consensus, only those that have historically generated megabytes of comments by passionate editors, and this process has so far worked pretty well to minimize tensions, disruptions or mere waste of time on the perennial questions. This "or false" sentence has been one of the most acrimoniously debated ever, and has current consensus. Of course, WP:CCC and everybody welcomes discussion of reasonable proposals to improve the article, including items listed in the current state of consensus. You seem to confuse this with some attempt at WP:OWNing the page, which is a preposterous claim. And finally, please intend your replies properly; people have told you that a thousand times. — JFG talk 01:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

, you're right. But I'm not the only one way past AGF on the question of ownership of this page. This must be addressed. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your ping way up there... I didn't intend on leaving you out of the loop, I just missed your username when I was looking at the code for who to add to the reply template. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2017
Raybaida362 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC) ❌ Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

BLPVIO, lead, 'social media'
I'm substituting "Many of the statements he made at rallies ... or on Twitter were controversial or false", for "Many of the statements he made at rallies ... or on social media were controversial or false." See social media (plural noun), also WP:BLPSTYLE (present the material conservatively) and WP:BLPSOURCES (re unsourced material). -- Dervorguilla (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, he also communicated quite a bit on Facebook and Instagram, so "social media" is entirely correct. Besides, it seems inappropriate to "advertise" Twitter in the lead section. — JFG talk 18:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He's most famous for Twitter comments, and RS is almost all Twitter. 145,000,000 Google hits for Donald Trump Twitter. And you didn't indent properly. Fixed it for you. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Geez, SW3, my indenting was correct: I was replying to Dervorguilla's comment, not yours! Restoring. — JFG talk 10:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It does look a bit odd, and you may be right about FB and Instagram; but the cited sources don't mention them. And WP:NOTADVERTISING says that information about companies or services "must be written in an objective and unbiased style" (linking to NPOV). So if the reliable sources all say "Twitter" rather than "social media", we can say it too. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked at the sources, too. It's all about Twitter. It's fine the way you've got it now. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, spoke too late. Looks like it got reverted here. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for false material at Facebook.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's an earlier one (during campaign) about false material at Facebook.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for false material at Instagram.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's an earlier one (during campaign) about false material at Instagram.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for false material at a press conference.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's an earlier one (during campaign) about false material at a press conference.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for false material at a debate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for false material at his website.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for false material in a press release.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for false material in a speech to an interest group.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for false material at a rally.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for false material in an interview.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for false material on a tweet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Anything, Twitter is what he is known for. Not Instagram. And Facebook had live streaming during the campaign. Twitter is where he put out controversial comments. Dervorguilla is using reliable sources that show Twitter, not Instagram, not Facebook.145,000,000 Google hits for Donald Trump and Twitter can't be wrong. It's Twitter. Not Instagram. Not Facebook. That's what the sentence should say. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, it's verbose. Just say, "Many of the statements were controversial or false" or something like that.  Weren't the fact checkers on his case at the debates?  At press conferences?  At his website?  At press releases?  At speeches to interest groups?  Etc etc etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to say I disagree with the change being proposed in this thread. It is just fine as "social media". That said, I could support something like this:
 * Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that Scjessey. Why single out those formats, as if he was reportedly accurate and trustworthy in all other formats?  The sensible thing would be to simply say "Many of his statements were controversial or false".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with that as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I like it. I'd support that. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's maybe a little wordy, but it works. Anythingyouwant's version has an attractive brevity to it. I'm okay with either. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I like Dervorguilla's. Twitter is really Trump's message system of choice. Everything goes straight to Twitter. Instagram, not really, but if 'other social media' puts paid to it, I'm okay with it. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't like the version proposed. It puts too much emphasis on Twitter. Trump's false statements were spread on many platforms, not just Twitter. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What about this, since it's shorter.  SW3 5DL (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My original edit had to be made immediately per WP:BLPSOURCES. It then needed to be reverted (per CON) if and when reputable sources were found -- as they may perhaps have been, thanks to Anythingyouwant.
 * I ought to point out, though, that neither of the first two sources says or suggests that Trump made even one false statement on Facebook or Instagram during his campaign.
 * "But now the president is under fire for sharing an apparently false news story... But now, it appears the president is sharing ... fake news." (February 6, 2017, re posting of February 2.)
 * "President Trump's Instagram account commemorated Abraham Lincoln's birthday Sunday [February 12] by posting a quote wrongly attributed to the 16th president." (February 12, 2017)
 * So he may or may not have made false statements on these two social media during his campaign. Happily we don't have to start searching right away. WP:BLPSOURCES says just remove the material until we do find a source. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Twitter is the source of the majority of his comments, and the majority of RS mention it, so due weight would allow naming Twitter. I think it's fine to say, Many of the statements he made in interviews, at rallies, on Twitter and other social media were controversial or false. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If he made false statements in many forums, I don't see why we should single out Twitter or any other forum, in the lead. Doing so suggests he was honest and uncontroversial in all the forums that we don't mention, which is...uh...false per the sources.  We can discuss particular forums in the body of the BLP.  Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, User:Dervorguilla, that the sources I posted above for Facebook and Instagram were after the election. So I have added sources (above) for before the election too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to Anythingyouwant for summarily fixing the WP:BLPSOURCES problem!
 * This wording would appear to be the least contentious, the most concise -- and (I think) the most nuanced:
 * The number of platforms that Trump (or Bush, or Clinton, or Sanders) used isn't particularly interesting. Rather, it's the anomalously high number of (at least partly) false statements he made. Anythingyouwant's second Instagram citation suggests that this may indeed be the deepest issue -- the one that political scientists would most likely get funding to investigate.
 * (Some questions of interest: What was Trump's true purpose in making so many false statements? To trigger his competitors into attacking his character rather than promoting their own policies? Did he understand that it matters to the press if he's misattributed a quotation, but not to the electorate?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC) 04:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at the pertinent part of the BLP, it is not clear that the press treated Trump the same as the other candidates in this regard, or that the press treated ambiguous statements (of which Trump made many) as being ambiguous. Anyway, I support "many", which readers will understand to mean "relatively many".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (Some questions of interest: What was Trump's true purpose in making so many false statements? To trigger his competitors into attacking his character rather than promoting their own policies? Did he understand that it matters to the press if he's misattributed a quotation, but not to the electorate?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC) 04:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at the pertinent part of the BLP, it is not clear that the press treated Trump the same as the other candidates in this regard, or that the press treated ambiguous statements (of which Trump made many) as being ambiguous. Anyway, I support "many", which readers will understand to mean "relatively many".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not just use a generic statement which never needs to be tweaked?: "Many of the statements he has made are controversial or false." If you wish, I can provide over 250 very nicely formatted RS on the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I generally agree and will start a survey.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of those sources suggest that he's becoming more "presidential" in this regard. The idea is that now that he's got 4-year job security, he has no particularly pressing need to make stuff up. Time will tell. Also, he's not notable for making "many" false statements. (Other presidential candidates are known to have done so.) He's notable for making inordinately many false statements. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In the previous RFC about this, one of the options was: "Trump made many controversial statements, and a relatively large number of them compared to other candidates were evaluated by fact-checking services as false." The word "relatively" might be worth reconsidering now, but I don't like "inordinate" because I don't think we should say in wikivoice that Trump was excessively controversial or false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Relatively" does unquestionably meet WP:BLPSOURCES requirements; and it's more informative than "many". I would support it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to "relatively many". It's factual, and most importantly, it's backed by RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2017
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-is-richer-than-all-the-presidents-combined-172249313.html I think we should add this as a interesting fact in this article or in the wealth of US presidents Westeros77 (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * We probably should, but again the source itself says the number is quite uncertain... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The source is 24wallst.com. Wikipedia doesn’t appear to have an article on them and their business address is a PO Box. Sounds a bit iffy. Objective3000 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ We already say he is the wealthiest president in history and we link to the detailed List of Presidents of the United States by net worth. Saying that Trump is "richer than all presidents combined" makes little sense because that would add up wealth of various people over two centuries. Besides, it's trivia. — JFG talk 20:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No political party relations.
Some people I talk to, even Donald Trump himself said that he was only running under the Republicans and the first president not to have any political party relations when the presidents became them. Gary &#34;Roach&#34; Sanderson (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't really make sense of what you mean. Are you requesting a particular change to the text? In that case, please follow the process for edit requests. — JFG talk 20:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I almost have the things for the 30/500 around 100 or more edits. So im making the change when I get to the point, thanks for the offer though :) Gary &#34;Roach&#34; Sanderson (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Donald Trump is a Republican. Any attempt to alter that in this article will likely be reverted swiftly. "Stuff that people tell me" is not exactly solid sourcing for an assertion like this. TheValeyard (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bernie Sanders is an independent who ran in the Democratic primaries. Although it's true Trump ran for the Republicans, and I would be the first to say he's one, the lack of prior political experience and involvement means we should maybe do just a bit of research to find some sources that confirm he wasn't just running under the banner of the Republican Party. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Unprecedent negative campaign coverage?
Is it OK to make this claim in the lead?Here's some pertinent information from a related article, Presidential campaign: Media coverage. "Politico says, 'Blaming the press for the Trump surge neglects the salient fact that so much of the coverage of him has been darkly negative.'" Other pertinent material:
 * "The small number of endorsements received by Trump was unprecedented in American history for a candidate from a major party." (US presidential election: Newspaper endorsements.)
 * "This is The Atlantic’s third presidential endorsement in the magazine's 159-year history. Their two previous endorsements were for ... Lincoln in 1860 and ... Johnson in 1964... This is Vogue’s first political endorsement for any candidate in its 123-year history... 'For the first time in its 111-year history, Variety is endorsing a presidential candidate.'" (Endorsements by magazines.)
 * "USA Today, which never had endorsed any candidate in its 34-year history, broke the tradition..." (Presidential campaign: Endorsements.)

I've yet to find a WP article or a reputable mainstream source that says his campaign coverage was less negative than even one other historically significant candidate's. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim sounds fair. Indeed, you would be hard pressed to find any press or TV outlet endorsing Trump, and a cursory review of campaign coverage shows overwhelming criticism, mockery or outright hatred (see HuffPost's notice appended to all their articles during the campaign: Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.). — JFG talk 06:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It would have to be altered to specify it was mainstream media coverage, because Trump received plenty of positive media coverage from fringe sources that was magnified by the right wing media echo chamber. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Newspaper endorsements list does include endorsements by right-wing "fringe sources" -- for example, the KKK's official newspaper, The Crusader ("The Premier Voice of the White Resistance"). Yet we still say, "The small number of endorsements received by Trump was unprecedented". --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I come to think about it, I don't think Trump received more negative coverage than any other presidential nominee has in recent years. Trump's may have seemed worse because the media called him out for all his lies. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The media may well have "called him out for all his lies". But the sentence doesn't suggest that the coverage was inaccurate or unfair. It just indicates that the coverage expressed an unprecedented volume of disapproval.
 * negative. Expressing dislike or disapproval. < The reviews were mostly negative. (=unfavorable) >.
 * Your comment does appear to suggest that Trump's coverage may have "seemed worse". ("coverage. The activity of reporting about a ... subject in [the press]".) That's the point: It seemed worse. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to be careful not to conflate news coverage with endorsements. The examples relate to endorsements. There was plenty of negative news coverage for both candidates. Objective3000 (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for good reason? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That seems a stretch considering all Obama went through since 2008 all Hillary went through since 1992. p  b  p  13:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Among the United States' 100 largest newspapers ... 57 endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton ... while only 2 ... endorsed Trump... Clinton won support from not only traditionally Democratic-leaning newspapers, but also traditionally non-political and conservative newspapers." (Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016.) Her coverage, and Obama's, may indeed have been negative. But the data seem show that they were not as negative as Trump's. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting an unprecedented low number of newspaper endorsements a) isn't exactly the same thing as getting unprecedented negative campaign coverage, and b) is a much more precise statement. You would have a much better case arguing for a statement noting his lack of newspaper endorsements.  p  b  p  00:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - The placement in the lede along with this added to it, His campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his public statements were controversial or false. Reads like synthesis. Are the false statements and controversies causing the "unprecedented coverage?" Mentioning this after Mike Pence becoming his running mate doesn't flow with what came before. It would be best to simply state why the campaign received 'unprecedented coverage.' Things he said were part of it, but the media went nuts from the start. It took them two weeks to pick up on the Mexico comments. At first, the media were all about Donald Trump running. They did the same thing in 2012 when Trump hinted he might run. NBC's coverage was especially intense in 2012 and 2015. Their media star from the Apprentice was running for president and they wanted everybody to know that.  It took two weeks before they started mentioning the Mexico comment and the first negative stories were coming from Telemundo or Univision, one of which I think is owned by NBC. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree this would be read as SYNTH. Moreover the "unprecedented media coverage and attention" bit would need to be explicitly cited and verified by multiple mainstream RS for us to consider stating it in WP's voice. Otherwise it is editors' OR assessment of what we have observed. I don't think this discussion is going to be productive.  The "controversial or false" bit is stated by many RS.  What sources have stated "unprecedented volume of negative media coverage"?  Mainstream journalists by their nature tend to be biased toward verifiable fact.  Since Trump is more grounded in his personal intuition, it's not negative when the media indicate that.  Also, who needs HuffPo for Trump's BLP?  There's plenty of sources before we dip into HuffPo, Fox News, and the like.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insightful observation! Actually, all three of the original sentences seem to have been wrongly juxtaposed, per SYNTH.
 * In June 2015, he launched his campaign... In July [2016] he was formally nominated ... along with Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate. His campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his public statements were controversial or false.
 * Trump won the general election on November 8..."
 * In the first paragraph, the last three sentences are juxtaposed so as to insinuate that his campaign in the primary election received unprecedented coverage. Not so. His campaign in the primary and the general election received such coverage. (And so forth.) The last two sentences in that paragraph need to go somewhere else. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So if we do cite multiple mainstream RSs, you wouldn't oppose? --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I deal strictly C.O.D., so let's see what you have. You still have the SYNTH issue, and you would need to show not that it's the dominant opinion but rather that it was somehow quantified and demonstrated. Good luck and let's see what you can find!  SPECIFICO  talk  00:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm perfectly fine with the statement: "His campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention." or "an unprecedented level of media coverage." Because that seems accurate to me. What I have a problem with is the addition of "negative".. because had the coverage been overly negative, it's unlikely we would be in the position we are now. They certainly gave him an unprecedented amount of air time without repeatedly, continuously, and clearly pointing out his numerous falsehoods, or standing up against his repeated insults and behaviour.  Dervorguilla's quotes simply don't support the idea that the unprecedented level of media coverage was an unprecedented level of _negative_ media coverage, and I find flaws in his logic in interpreting them that way. Centerone (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s rather obvious that he received unprecedented coverage (without the word negative). The problem is that we would have to state why. We can find plenty of RS that he is unusual and a master at social media. But, there is also the fact that there is an ever-increasing impact of social media, and a ratings war between both online sites and cable news channels, possible outside interference by a foreign state, and an increasingly divided country. It would be difficult for us to avoid synthesis in stating the reasons, and not responsible to make a general statement without any inclusion of cause. And, any inclusion of cause would probably require more RfCs than most of us can stomach. Objective3000 (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Centerone. p  b  p  00:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been suggested that he won in part because the mainstream media coverage was so "darkly negative". Reportedly, some voters concluded that the "Establishment" feared Trump more than Clinton, despite his higher socioeconomic status. Had the Times, USA Today, the Atlantic, and the others not all come out against him, he might have lost. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You've put it a lot better than I could. I would accordingly have to support removing both sentences. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Dervorguilla - I'd say no the line is inappropriate for the lead of this article, although it seems kind of accurate. First, it seems WP:OFFTOPIC -- while I recall there were reports and articles during the election where media openly said they felt free or obligated to cover Trump differently, that is a topic of the campaign or the presidency articles and not significant in his life which is what the WP:BLP article is supposed to be.  (Current practice to the contrary.)  Second, even if it fit here it doesn't seem to fit the guidance of what is suitable for a lead in WP:LEAD or style and structure of WP:BLP.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox — Chairman of The Trump Organization office
Would it be appropriate to add "Chairman of The Trump Organization" to the infobox? Arguably, it would be viewed as inappropriate due to the fact that it is not a political office. Yet, on Ronald Reagan, the "President of the Screen Actors Guild" office is listed despite not being a political office (it is a union, however).

Thoughts? Frey&#39;s Fray (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not his title per The_Trump_Organization. Per news reports in January, "Trump will resign from all officer and other positions he holds in his businesses....". Anyway, it's already in this infobox under "Occupation".  You can read the pertinent talk page discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply; Yes, Donald Trump is no longer the "Chairman", but it's still worth listing it, is it not? To counter your point made, we haven't removed the fact that Barack Obama was a United States Senator from Illinois simply because he isn't a Senator anymore - and that goes for listing his Presidency as well, for that matter. And it's not quite in the infobox under "Occupation". If it was, it would be "Company chairman", not "Real estate developer". Anyway, this is what it would look like — Frey&#39;s Fray (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. (The RfC was withdrawn.) —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)