Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 64

EGG compliance in the first sentence
Current first sentence: Propose a minor amendment to consensus 17, per WP:EGG. Inauguration of Donald Trump is not remotely predictable as a target for "January 20, 2017". EGG says in effect that such a link should provide the reader more information about January 20, 2017, and Trump's inauguration is far from the only thing that happened that day. The article contains a lot of EGG-bending, but little this egregious and no other prominently displayed in the first sentence. The proposed change is to unlink that text, as that link is dispensable. That article is linked four (4) other times in this article. To achieve EGG compliance, we could also change the sentence to: but I prefer the first option. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I would prefer the first version of simply un-linking(unless people want it to link to January 20, 2017), but I feel like w/o any link is fine.  WikiVirus  C  (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support version 1 (simply removing the link, no text changes). We link to Inauguration of Donald Trump in the infobox which is probably enough. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support  with alternate wording suggestions – Gotta love WP:EGG-hunting, thx . It's true that …in office since his inauguration sounds a bit redundant. We could phrase it …in office since the January 20, 2017 inauguration. Or He was sworn into office on January 20, 2017. Or just drop it, I've got no strong preference. — JFG talk 23:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Both of those are less EGGy, but not enough so for the first sentence, imo. The most predictable target for both is Inauguration. You could say He was sworn into office on January 20, 2017., but you'd be adding a whole sentence just to keep this dispensable link. I'm pretty confident that's a bad trade-off. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support option 1 of simply removing the link. Option 2 is clunky and redundant. As the inauguration article is linked to elsewhere in the article, I don't see why it should be shoehorned into the lead sentence. Cjhard (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be generally supported; I've made the change to remove the link. We'll see if anyone objects. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that's one way to notify the community of a discussion in progress, I suppose. I would have waited more than 24 hours under the remedies (there was no hurry), but that's me. Note that this isn't your usual everyday issue, it's a proposal to modify a longstanding listed consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support #1 and good catch on that egg. ~Awilley (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 1 too obvious. Should we also mention "after winning elections"? There is no end. Lorstaking (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove term from the lead sentence altogether. We can and should link to the article on Trump's inauguration upon the first mention of that event in this article, but the event being mentioned in the lead sentence is a peculiar choice to begin with. Saying that a person has been in office since their inauguration is a bizarrely tautological statement; it surely goes without saying.  says everything that needs saying, though if the date were viewed as essential, one might consider   Shoe-horning the inauguration in so early, even though it tortures the wording of the first sentence a little, is unnecessary; it is not that significant to Trump's overall notability, nor even to his role as president; it's just one ceremony and while it's own noteworthiness as an event is substantial, whether to mention it this early has to be judged by a president's overall notability--which is presumably why I can't find another example of a president's biography on this project that mentions their inauguration in the lead.  Even considering the relative newness of Trump's presidency, this seems out of place here.  S n o w  let's rap 03:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Should "current consensus, item 7" of lede be updated - or not?
FWIW - Should "current consensus, item 7" of lede be updated - or not? (see text copied below):  Present text (present lede, "current consensus, item 7"):

"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false."

New proposed text-1:

"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements during the campaign, and later, have been controversial or false."

New proposed text-2: (added - Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)) (per User:Neutrality & User:MrX)

"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements during the campaign, and during his presidency, have been controversial or false."

New proposed text-3: (added - Drbogdan (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC))

"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements during the campaign and his presidency have been controversial or false."

New proposed text-4: (added - Drbogdan (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)) (per User:Casprings)

"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements are controversial or false."

New proposed text-5: (added - Drbogdan (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC))

"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements have been controversial or false."

New proposed text-6: (added - Casprings (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"Many of his public statements have been controversial or false."   (Move to first paragraph and break link to his campaign)

In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should update to include the language "and later" or "and during his presidency." I would not cite to David Leonhardt's column; rather; cite to non-opinion sources, e.g., NYT; Washington Post; Associated Press. Neutralitytalk 04:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not yet. He reportedly had to pay $25 million for his controversial or false public statements about Trump University before the campaign. His statements during it earned him $2 billion in media coverage. Where are sources that say his controversial or false statements after it have some financial significance (rather than journalistic "gotcha" significance) to him or the financial markets? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We should revisit the term "free." It is not clear what it means and if we use it we should explain it.  The implication is that news media normally bill candidates for the stories they write about them.  TFD (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes (6, or 3 as a close second choice) - Update per Neutrality. I slightly favor "and during his presidency" as being more precise.- MrX 13:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that the article you're linking to says "controversies". Both during and after the 2016 campaign, his false campaign statements were a logical subset of his controversial ("controversy-arousing") statements. Every false statement he made aroused controversy. No mainstream source uses language that suggests otherwise. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No – The proposed extension is POV and poor grammar. — JFG talk 13:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? It seems to be grammatical to me, although the flow is bit rough. I don't understand how its "POV". The fact that Trump makes false statements all the time continues to be widely reported. In fact, some sources have started calling them what they are: Lies. - MrX 13:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. During the campaign, Trump's litany of hyperbole, insinuations and outright lies was regularly documented and denounced by fact-checkers, media pundits, political opponents and even his own allies; it became a central theme of the election ("can we trust this guy with the nuclear button?" comes to mind). Since he is in office, we have not seen any exceptional level of coverage about his lies and exaggerations. We have seen opposition to his policies, such as The Wall™, the travel ban and AHCA, but little criticism of his lying about them, rather criticism of him attempting to do what he said. Lots of criticism of Sean Spicer, though… and the ongoing soap opera about Russia. — JFG talk 13:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's like saying "apples or red fruits" (rather than "apples or oranges"). In the current context, "false statements" is a logical subset of "controversial statements" -- statements "subject to controversy; relating to or arousing controversy". During or after his campaign, did Trump make many significant false statements that did not ultimately arouse significant controversy? More to the point: Have many mainstream sources said so? --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not exactly." Controversial statements" is also a logical subset of "false statements". There are actually three categories: (1) controversial statements that are also false; (2) controversial statements that are not false; and (3) false statements that are not controversial. No doubt the third category is very small indeed.- MrX 19:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you be good with the phrasing? "His controversial campaign statements, many of them false..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I would not.- MrX 19:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reason, please? --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's not an accurate summary of his incessant falsehoods. See the discussion below.- MrX 22:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you point to the particular statement there that in your view is the most persuasive? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I'm following you. My comment below was persuaded by reading sources. As you can see, several other editors agree that Trump's false statements have been an ongoing phenomenon. Neutrality makes a particularly strong case, with sources.- MrX 23:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 3 per Neutrality's sources and others like them. They are enough for us to include 3 words to say, in effect, that the leopard did not suddenly change his spots on November 8; we don't need a continuous daily drone on the subject. His tortured relationship with the truth before he was a candidate is well documented too, by the way, so there's no reason to assume that he did it only to get elected. Also note that we are saying "controversial or false"; is there any significant dispute that many of his statements while president have been controversial? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes it should be updated The text of the currently ties false statements to the campaign. This is not correct as his statements clearly continue to to his Presidency. We should move the sentence to the first paragraph and simply say, Many of his public statements are controversial or false. Full stop and no need to tie it to any period of his life.Casprings (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We should write from a historical perspective. Present tense tends to sound more like a news report than an encyclopedia biography. Also, we should allow for the possibility that he could start being truthful at some point.- MrX 15:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Make the sentence past tense. That said, there is no reason to tie it to the Campaign. Sentence should still be moved to first paragraph.Casprings (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. - I generally agree that the statement can stand on its own.- MrX 18:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Deja vu all over again. Five options for change plus no change virtually guarantees no consensus without multiple rounds. Plan for that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just like the election! No consensus winner there, either. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No. The current version was added after a very brief conversation between two people. It was never put to discussion or consensus, whereas the existing "consensus" statement was based on long discussion among many people with consensus reached. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC) rethinking, looking at history a little more
 * There are already more participants in this survey than the one in April. Do you object to updating this so that it is clear that Trump's false and controversial statements are ongoing?- MrX 18:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How's this for compromise language? "His controversial campaign statements, many of them false, earned him an estimated $X billion in free media coverage." --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, look.. Consensus #7 says "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." That wording was the product of several formal discussions with consensus reached. IMO it cannot be materially changed without discussion and consensus, although it could be tweaked, after discussion, with minor changes like verb tense.

The recent changes and discussions were launched after a change in how to relate that statement with his free media coverage. That issue is not part of consensus #7. It has not been discussed before so there is no prior consensus. The new sentence "His campaign received extensive free media coverage", was inserted by two people after brief discussion, but there does not appear to be significant objection to it and IMO it is not part of this discussion.

So the question is, are we going to change the agreed-upon wording in consensus #7, "Many of his public statements were controversial or false", and if so, how. Until we settle that question, that sentence should not be changed, either at consensus #7 OR IN THE ARTICLE, unless and until a new consensus is reached. The sentence in the article has an invisible comment saying not to change it, and I am disappointed in the people who took it upon themselves to ignore that comment and unilaterally change it. That needs to stop.

IMO we need a two-stage discussion. First part, a yes-or-no question: "Do we still accept the current consensus, "Many of his public statements were controversial or false"? No proposals for alternate wording, just "does this wording still have consensus, or are we in agreement that it needs to be changed?" If the answer there is yes, THEN we can start throwing around proposals to change it. Let's not waste our time with "how about this wording?" "how about that wording?" until we get agreement to change it at all. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current consensus wording should remain in effect until a new consensus is reached. I think there needs to be a discussion (this one) to narrow the options, then then we can submit it to a formal RfC to see if it has broader consensus.- MrX 19:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion, phase one: do we want to change it?
Are we in agreement that the current consensus-approved sentence, "Many of his public statements were controversial or false," needs to be changed or modified, or should we keep it as agreed upon in several previous (but months-ago) discussions? Please answer with: "keep as is", "minor modification" (e.g. verb tense), or "significant modification" such as the additions proposed above. Let's get this settled before we move on. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as is – Concise and correct, reflecting an exceptionally acrimonious campaign. While Trump may continue to make questionable statements occasionally, we are nowhere near the situation that prevailed in campaign days. — JFG talk 19:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant modification - It's outdated. The original consensus was reached nine months ago, when the scope of Trump's falsehoods was obviously limited to the campaign. Now, six months into the presidency, the falsehoods continue to flow, and major news sources are even becoming comfortable calling them what they are: lies. At this point, I think the falsehoods statement should stand independent of the campaign, and we should use a tense that conveys that it is an ongoing phenomenon.- MrX 19:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant modification - FWIW - *entirely* agree with the comments (very well presented imo) made above by User:MrX - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant modification. Only "many of his public statements were controversial.", nothing more. What do you know about right or false? What some of the contributors above have said, is visibly their POV, almost propaganda, and cannot be accepted. Consensus reached now by five users? This is simply unacceptable. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant modification per Mr.X.Casprings (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant modification to update this per MrX and my comment in the section above - this clearly needs to be updated by adding a few words to indicate that the unprecedented stream of falsehoods continued into his presidency. Neutralitytalk 21:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant modification. Example: "His controversial statements, many of them false, continue to earn [or garner] him an unprecedented volume of free media coverage." (This language is meant to incorporate Neutrality's justified concerns.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant modification though I'm not a fan of any of the proposals above. The False and Controversial Statements part needs to be updated to reflect the presidency, since the false statements have not stopped. And the free media coverage either needs to be linked to the false statements or moved to a different sentence, because the semicolon is clumsy. A couple suggestions: His campaign and later his presidency received extensive free media coverage due in part to an unprecedented number of controversial or false statements. or During his campaign and presidency he made an unprecedented number of controversial or false statements, earning him extensive media coverage. Something like Dervorguilla's suggestion above would work as well: His controversial statements, many of them false, drew extensive media coverage of his campaign and presidency. If you decide that the sourcing isn't strong enough to link controversial statements to earned media, you might consider mentioning tweets and interviews in the controversial statements sentence. ~Awilley (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant modification per MrX. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant modification We can't compete with news media and should not be trying to, however. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Conclusion It is clear that there is a consensus for a significant modification. Let's start a collection of proposed wordings. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion, phase two: How to word the "controversial or false" sentence?
We appear to be in agreement that the current consensus-approved sentence, "Many of his public statements were controversial or false," needs to be changed. Please propose alternate wordings here, labeling them "option A," "option B", etc. Proposals can be copied here to here from the section above. Please place discussion in a separate section so that the list of proposals is easy to see. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed wording

 * Option A - Text-6 as noted above (and talkquoted below) - seems worthy to me at the moment - at least for starters - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 *  Hold off  per reply by Neutrality to my comment, "Could you add some of this information to the body? Then we can go ahead with making our decision about changing the lead"; and per related reply by SusanLesch citing MOS:INTRO (about significant information that's not covered in the body). Let's add a subsection about "Suggested addition to § Presidency" and get that done first . --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 02:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 05:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * : I have now added the content to body. See below (diffs). Neutralitytalk 03:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Option B. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Option C is B trimmed down. I agree with comment on SYNTH because this source does not mention the press attention Trump tries to get (my unsourced belief perhaps). -SusanLesch (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Further trim. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Option D uses more precise language than the current text. (Also the first link label corresponds a bit more closely to the target article.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC) 15:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Option E Another edit since we seem to be at a standstill. I still think "affinity" is the best word for a biography because it gives the reader insight into the subject's character and motivation. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Option F: His campaign received extensive free media coverage and many of his public statements were controversial or false. Exactly what is currently in the article, but the semicolon has been replaced with the word "and". ~Awilley (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option G: His campaign and later his presidency received extensive free media coverage due in part to an unprecedented number of controversial or false statements. There is support in the sources that at least some of his free media came from his tendency to make outrageous/controversial/false statements, and that the number of false statements are unprecedented. ~Awilley (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option alt-F. Many of his public statements were controversial or false, and his campaign received extensive free media coverage. We're not giving away any secrets by suggesting that it's possible he made the outrageous or bogus statements for the purpose of drawing the free coverage. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposals

 * Option A is not bad, although I thought everybody was eager to make significant changes? I oppose Option B, as too long and kind of SYNTH. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Option B does sound needlessly SYNTHy. Option A has a more subtle defect. The phrase "his controversial or false statements" implies that some or all of his false statements were not controversial. According to Merriam-Webster, "controversial" = "arousing the expression of opposing views". So Option A reasonably suggests to the reader that Trump was making significant numbers of false statements that no one opposed. Per BLPSOURCES we're required to find an RS that says or implies this or in some way supports it. I've yet to see one. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Options B, C, and E would likely get removed. (1) The cited source doesn't say "affinity" or "scandal". (2) "An affinity for scandal" = "a liking for scandal", and most RS say he's outraged by what he regards as newspapers' scandalmongering. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. Thank you for your feedback. I can only find one blog to support affinity for lies. Struck out my options. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Option A; Just state the facts and move to first paragraph.Casprings (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted in an earlier discussion, option D would be WP:SYNTH: we cannot give the impression that Trump's controversial comments are the main reason for the exceptionally high level of media coverage he has "enjoyed". — JFG talk 16:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Option A above => seems to be the best available wording for the lede at the moment - and - seems to be better than the present wording - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A small sampling of sources supporting an update
To JFG: it is simply not true that Trump's falsehoods as president were limited to "questionable statements occasionally." To the contrary, the reliable sources unanimously describe Trump's public statements as unprecedented in volume and frequency. See, e.g.:
 * Linda Qiu, Fact-Checking President Trump Through His First 100 Days, New York Times (April 29, 2017): "In his first 100 days in office, President Trump has falsely boasted of attracting the largest inaugural crowd ever, cited a nonexistent terrorist attack in Sweden and leveled an unproved accusation that his predecessor spied on him. While these inaccuracies have commanded much attention, there has been a steady stream of falsehoods. The Times has logged at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days (Saturday is Day 100). On five days, Mr. Trump went golfing, and on two he made limited public statements."
 * Glenn Kessler & Michelle Ye Hee, President Trump’s first 100 days: The fact check tally, Washington Post (May 1, 2017): "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered. ... the pace and volume of the president’s misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up. The president’s speeches and interviews are so chock full of false and misleading claims that The Fact Checker often must resort to roundups that offer a brief summary of the facts that the president has gotten wrong. So here are the numbers for the president’s first 100 days....   492: The number of false or misleading claims made by the president. That’s an average of 4.9 claims a day."
 * Linda Qiu, In One Rally, 12 Inaccurate Claims From Trump, New York Times (June 22, 2017): "President Trump returned to familiar rhetorical territory during a raucous campaign-style rally in Iowa on Wednesday night, repeating exaggerations and falsehoods about health care, jobs, taxes, foreign policy and his own record."
 * Mark Landler & Maggie Haberman, Trump Says He Did Not Tape Comey Conversations, New York Times (June 22, 2017): "the tweets essentially confirmed that Mr. Trump had been leveling a baseless threat...For Mr. Trump the businessman, who used guile and misdirection in countless real estate negotiations, the episode may have been a classic case of a bluff he then had no choice but to call. But for Mr. Trump the president, it could have consequences."

--Neutralitytalk 21:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you add some of this information to the body? Then we can go ahead with making our decision about changing the lead. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone have suggested wording? Neutralitytalk 22:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My first thought is to adjust the organization of the Presidency section so that our 'expanded version' (two sentences?) would fit in logically somewhere. (On second thought, we could do both at once.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC) 22:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Apart from some facts, MOS:INTRO says under "Relative emphasis" that "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text." It goes on from there. This is a bit tricky because it isn't an obvious fact of his life like his birthday, however, it does seem to be his unique M. O. I support two sentences in the Presidency section, and a mention in the lead per Neutrality and Dervorguilla. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Text as added to body
Per and, I have added the following material to the body. It is 103 words. I welcome input as to editing, and I'm sure the text and placement can be better changed. I tried to keep it short, but accurate.

"As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office and had an average of 4.9 false or misleading claims during each of his first 100 days in office. Trump attracted attention for indicating that he had "tapes" of conversations with FBI Director James Comey, before later acknowledging that he did not in fact have such tapes. [ED: MOVED TO COMEY SECTION] Trump's false statements engendered distrust from foreign leaders, who expressed doubt about whether the U.S. would honor its international commitments under his administration."

Thoughts welcome. --Neutralitytalk 03:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * More tomorrow but, quickly, we could add New Republic to maintain a NPOV. They say that Trump's base agrees with him. (And he says they are very smart people.) -SusanLesch (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is excellent and well sourced. We needed something about this in the body of the article. Just one suggestion: instead of "indicating" he had tapes (he never said he did), I would say "hinting" he had tapes. In fact I'm not sure that example belongs in a paragraph about falsehoods at all. It was nowhere near as blatant as some of his other howlers. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To replace it, how about some quotes to put his falsehoods in context - to respond to the comment "so what? all politicians lie." From this source, "President Trump's first 100 days: the fact check tally," which you have already cited, we have "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up." --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Both very good ideas. Some idea of scale is good.
 * I think we can move the Comey tapes stuff to the Comey section. We can replace "indicated" with "hinted" or something else (the NYT says Trump "implied" and it was a "veiled threat" link; the Washington Post uses the term "suggested" and "floated the idea" link). If we mention the tapes, should we mention that Comey "effectively dared Trump to release whatever 'tapes' he may have" in his Senate testimony" (same WaPo article). Neutralitytalk 04:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * indicating that he had "tapes" of conversations - Too strong. He issued a tweet that some have interpreted to imply that he might have said "tapes". The statement was plausibly deniable several different ways. I don't find it in the NYT compendium of "lies", which includes many things that have received far less media attention. Chances are the omission there was not an oversight. IMO the tweet was blown out of proportion, I think too much was read into it, and I wonder whether it warrants any mention at all in this article. If it's included, it should read something like implying he might have "tapes". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I modified the text ("implying" rather than "indicating") and move down to the Comey section (diff). I can see it both ways, but am inclined to think that a brief mention of this does belong somewhere in the article, since the "ploy"/"ruse" was highly unusual (see, e.g., Trump taunt over Comey tape draws disbelief, CNN) and may have legal consequences (see, e.g., Could Trump’s White House tapes ruse actually get him in legal trouble?, Washington Post). This wasn't only one tweet, either; Trump made this "tease" several times over a series of weeks, and it came up in some interviews. (I do acknowledge, on the flip side, that a lot of things this administration does are highly unusual, and a lot of them have some legal consequences. Still, this is an unprecedented type of thing). Neutralitytalk 04:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I saw some support for adding the Fact Checker quotes about the scope of the problem, and no objection, I have added them to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm wary about citing accusations that something he did "may have legal consequences". Two weeks after the Post reported that he actually was under legal investigation as a consequence of whatever, ABC reported that he actually wasn't. If Trump and the Post are engaging in a vendetta, we may want to stay out of it. If instead he does come under legal investigation, we should start using the Post as a source more often! --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dervorguilla, this may be more of a semantic difference than a real contradiction. The FBI uses the term "investigation" with a very precise meaning: it's a formal investigation into an actual identified crime, where the person is a "subject" or a "target" of the investigation. Before they open a formal "investigation" they do an "inquiry", a preliminary stage which is where they are now with regard to Trump and possible obstruction of justice. And the person they are looking into is not a "subject" or "target", they are a "person of interest". Sources don't always respect this difference and they may say "investigation" when it is actually not to that stage yet as far as the FBI is concerned. As for "may have legal consequences", that's an opinion, and we should say it only if there is really solid sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the FBI uses the same legal terminology that the Supreme Court or local DC law enforcement uses. And Vitkovskaya's story unambiguously says in the headline that "Trump Is Officially under Investigation: How Did We Get Here?" Not "...Is under Investigation...". And the Post clearly knew how dramatic its allegation would be if it were true. ABC News got the story right: Trump is not officially under investigation. Maybe Vitkovskaya's sources were out to make Trump -- or the Post -- look bad. All we know is that ABC News checked its facts better than the Post did. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Post story cites as its source Trump's tweet, "I am being investigated for firing the FBI director..." I think that's what they meant by "officially confirmed", i.e., confirmed by Trump himself. The White House has since challenged the significance of that tweet, saying Trump was merely quoting the press reports, so it's not an official confirmation any more. But it was arguably accurate to say so at the time they published the story. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump's false statements have engendered distrust from foreign leaders
, I saw that you removed the following text with the edit summary, "This is an equivocal sentence." -

"Trump's false statements have engendered distrust from foreign leaders, who expressed doubt about whether the U.S. would honor its international commitments under his administration."

Can you please clarify what you mean by this? Your edit summary isn't clear to me. Thanks --Neutralitytalk 23:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * He may be thinking that the meaning of the sentence would be clearer if someone added a limiting adjective to "foreign leaders". What sort of foreign leaders? How many? Something along those lines. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The source refers to "foreign leaders" generally: "from Tokyo and Beijing to London and Berlin, foreign officials are watching the president’s false assertions with alarm, unsure of whether they can trust him and wondering whether that will undermine their dealings with Washington." They name a few specifically: the EU (Tusk), Mexico (Nieto), Germany (Merkel), Britain (May). "Foreign allies" would be fine with me, although in this case I don't think we need to get much more specific than that. Neutralitytalk 01:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No "equivocation" that I can see. Being "unsure of whether" you can trust someone isn't precisely the same as having "distrust" for them; but in the context it's a fair paraphrase. Here's the problem. Landler uses his first 23 grafs to grab the reader's attention -- and only then does he disclose his insight that Trump's falsehoods may not mean all that much. "Nixon once ordered a devastating South Vietnamese military defeat ... to be presented to the public as a victory... “The worst is when you’re lying to the public and lives are being lost... Those chickens come home to roost”... On multiple foreign policy fronts, he has done what he said he would do in the campaign... “An ambassador is an honest gentleman sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.”" Other RS also note that he did what he said he was going to do. Would it be helpful to add that information somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dervorguilla (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I'm not sure where. Neutralitytalk 03:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This sentence simply is fairly unclear and even dubious. It is portrayed as a statement and fact, whereas also taking the whole article of the NYT into account the picture is, as already described by Dervorguilla, not that tangible at all. Plus it is also an old article published just one and a half week after his inauguration.- To give one example of a foreing leader- Donald Tusk as the President of the European Council was mentioned- the the newsarticles says he "went so far as to warn that Mr. Trump was a potential threat to the European Union". That article was from 31 January. This is from 28 May in which it is also referred to Donald Tusk who says "My impression … after the G7 meetings is more optimistic than I expected, including with our new partners around the table, especially President Trump,". What a difference; as one can see the sentence as such is equivocal for the article.--Joobo (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really negate the "trust" point, though. Optimism doesn't mean trust. Put another way - are there any sources that indicate that Trump's levels of trust with foreign leaders have risen? (I see a May 2017 NYTimes article that says that foreign diplomats regard Trump as "mercurial."). See the new subsection added directly below. Neutralitytalk 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * An alt-NYTimes writer might have rewritten the story to say that foreign leaders "from Cairo to Jerusalem" and "from Riyadh to Moscow" (in)famously trust him, understanding that he's running a mercantilist operation so you have to pay him to deliver. (I doubt this information would pass WP:V, though.) ... --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed source material for "foreign policy" section to draw from
Here is what I would propose. We could moving the sentence described above from the "False and misleading statements" section and to the foreign policy section, and then add "from the outset of his term" or "at the outset of his term" to account for the time issuing.

Separately, we would add content summarizing the following points and cite the following sources (we would paraphrase, not directly quote, most of this, but I'm directly quoting the source material so you see what I'd like to draw from):

""The decision is the latest shift away from campaign positions upending traditional foreign policy as Mr. Trump spends more time in office and learns more about the trade-offs involved. He has reversed himself on declaring China a currency manipulator, backed off plans to lift sanctions against Russia, declared that NATO is not 'obsolete' after all, opted for now not to rip up President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran and ordered a punitive strike against Syria that he previously opposed in similar circumstances.""

""For foreign leaders trying to figure out the best way to approach an American president unlike any they have known, it is a time of experimentation. Embassies in Washington trade tips and ambassadors send cables to presidents and ministers back home suggesting how to handle a mercurial, strong-willed leader with no real experience on the world stage, a preference for personal diplomacy and a taste for glitz.""

""The two decisions the President made raise the intriguing question of why on foreign policy Mr. Trump has kept certain commitments and not others. He said he'd tear up the Iran deal -- "the worst deal ever" -- and he hasn't; he said he'd go after China as a currency manipulator; he hasn't; he said he'd withdraw or at least reshape an obsolete NATO; he didn't; and of course, on the promise to open an embassy in Jerusalem, he just used the waiver. Since there doesn't appear to be an ideological dimension to much of what Mr. Trump does on foreign policy, one can only assume that a combination of factors -- including advice from his foreign policy team; (James Mattis, Rex Tillerson, H.R. McMaster, Jared Kushner); conversations with foreign leaders (China's President Xi Jinping; King Abdullah of Jordan; the Saudis); reality (the immediate negative consequences that certain decisions might produce for his administration); and his own instincts combined to persuade him to change his mind. Clearly, that was the case on the Jerusalem embassy issue. And just as clearly, that was not the case on the climate change issue. ...""

These are all suitable, high-level, major points and I think we could integrate them well in some form. Tagging, , , for possible comment. Neutralitytalk 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. First, I don't think this sentence belongs in the "falsehood" paragraph. As pointed out, the sourcing is old and kind of equivocal. And while there is ongoing and near-unanimous coverage about the fact of his falsehoods, there is nowhere near that kind of agreement among sources about the effect of his falsehoods on foreign leaders. Second, we might be able to come up with a sentence for the foreign policy section, about how his foreign policy in practice has not always been as disruptive as his campaign rhetoric threatened, but that's a completely different issue unrelated to the falsehoods. In this biography we can't go into much detail. He has carried through on some of his foreign policy threats, talked about others but not done anything, dropped still others - basically this would belong in the foreign policy article IMO. And while he has backed down from some of his campaign rhetoric as all politicians do, I don't see that as related to the issue of falsehoods which is virtually unique to him. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have much of an opinion on this. I think it's a little too early to determine what Trump's foreign policy actually is. I think updating the section using some of the sources above would be good, but we should also trim some of the other material (big fan of Israel; Western wall; excessive detail about NATO).- MrX 19:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Landler ("Trump's Falsehoods") and others point out that (1) the frequency of his falsehoods is demonstrably the highest in history and (2) their magnitude is not. "Nixon once ordered a devastating ... military defeat ... to be presented to the public as a victory... “The worst is when you’re lying to the public and lives are being lost...” On multiple foreign policy fronts, he has done what he said he would do in the campaign..." And as I understand it, SCOTUS has ruled 9-0 that he wasn't lying about having Constitutional authority to discriminate against foreign nationals based on national religion. From our perspective this precedent-setting decision would seem to support Landler's point and abrogate the many statements to the contrary made by reputable mainstream RS. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the material in Baker ("Trump Won't Move", sentence 2) and Miller ("Why Trump Fulfills") would help inform the average reader about something he may not know. This looks like a very useful addition to the encyclopedia. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Text, graf 2
Added a second graf:

"Trump makes a point of avoiding euphemistic language in his statements. He was commended in a Times opinion piece for straightforwardly "exposing his thinking to the world" through his apparently unvetted Twitter stream. (He began posting in 2009. )"

Now seeking helpful rewrites. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 01:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As to why this information is important: Many RS have written that he's made unprecedented use of Twitter to send out statements false and controversial (as well as unvetted and boldly truthful ones). The column in the Times Sunday Review mentions that he may perhaps turn out to have established a precedent of some kind! ("He has made social media almost a part of our constitutional system.") His infobox lists two Twitter accounts (whereas Hillary's, Barack's, and Bernie's don't list any); I think it might be helpful to indicate why. In any case, he does reportedly use Twitter as his primary medium for making questionable statements. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Struck out first sentence; same information appears in '2016 presidential campaign'. ("Trump said that he disdained political correctness.") --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed it. It is WP:SYNTH and misleading to add this to the 'First 100 days' section under 'False and misleading statements'. The opinion piece was published well before his presidency and is WP:UNDUE. The New York Times did not write that they commended Trump and I do not see the quoted text in either article. - MrX 11:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for spotting the url error -- which I've now fixed. (No more posting after 1am, I promise!) And yes, Barbaro ("How Trump Uses") was published in 2015, so it does need to get cut. But so does Landler ("Trump's Falsehoods") which came out on day 11. Kinsley ("Upside") came out on day 100, so it can stay; it just needs rephrasing. As noted in the headline, the story is meant to point out the "upside" to Trump's making so unvetted statements: "The average citizen now has a view straight into the president’s id. You may not like what you see, but you can see it." Note that Qiu ("Fact-Checking") mentions his false and misleading tweets twenty times:
 * "The First 100 Days. Times reporters are taking a look back ... — from the biggest news stories to the most provocative tweets..." "Mr. Trump took to Twitter the next day..."; "tweeted this claim..."; "This Twitter post is false..."; "Twitter criticism of a refugee agreement..."; "delivered a misleading message on Twitter..."; [retweeted that] "Dubai’s police deputy tweeted support..."; "falsely claim[ed] media bias on Twitter..."; "Trump’s morning Twitter complaint..."; "This Tweet is false..."; "The numbers in this morning Twitter message..."; "tweeted with no evidence..."; "made one public statement on Twitter, ‘THANK YOU!’; "offered this infamous accusation ... in an early-morning Twitter post..."; "posted a screenshot..."; "posted a screenshot..."; "tweeted a misleading critique..."; "this Twitter claim is false...“; "‘My last tweet — you know, the one that you are talking about, perhaps — was ...’ Trump did use the word ‘wiretap’ ... in two Twitter posts, but he specifically accused ... in two other posts..."; "Levin ... called Mr. Trump’s tweet..."; "This tweet ... is exaggerated..."; "falsely suggested on Twitter..."
 * The story mentions his false and misleading "speeches" just three times. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not opposed to mentioning his use of social media under the first 100 days, cited to sources within that time period. What I don't understand is which of these sources contains the phrase "exposing his thinking to the world" and portrays it as a commendation? For the life of me, I can't find it.- MrX 20:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Kinsley, at grafs 6-11. (The original URL was wrong.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I see it. The writer says, we're looking for something positive to say about Trump... "With his use of Twitter as a sort of brain dump, exposing his thinking to the world at all hours of day and night, he has made social media almost a part of our constitutional system." That's not quite a broad commendation, nor did they say "straightforwardly". I can't see us including this material, even if rewritten, unless you can show either show that it represents a significant minority viewpoint, or at least that other sources have taken notice of this particular opinion piece. As far as I can tell, sources are not generally praising Trump for his use of Twitter.- MrX 21:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken that the Kinsley isn't commending Trump himself; he's just pronouncing on one of "the things Mr. Trump has said or done", not on Trump as a person. He does say that Trump's tweeting is a "positive thing Mr. Trump has ... done from the viewpoint of The New York Times". So this may represent a "significant minority viewpoint"... --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If Kinsley represents a significant minority, then it should be pretty easy to demonstrate that with additional sources.- MrX 19:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft 2: "Trump uses his apparently unvetted Twitter stream both to drive the news cycle by making unsubstantiated claims and false allegations, and to communicate his policy views, priorities, and thinking directly to the public." Some additional helpful information from Walshe ("Twitter Use"): "He admitted there’s no fact-checking in his seemingly stream of consciousness tweets." Not sure where (or whether) this should go in the text, though. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * A couple more non-opinion sources would help. I would suggest wording similar to this:
 * "Trump's apparently unvetted Twitter stream has often driven the news cycle with unsubstantiated claims and false allegations, and has provided the public with a direct glimpse into his policy views, priorities, and thinking." - MrX 20:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump lies. Why can we not simply say that and give that fact the WP:WEIGHT required?
I wanted to have a conversation about simply stating that Trump lies. I think the multiple falsehoods that Trump continues to speak warrants that simple statement. With that, I wanted to discuss a few other aspects, such as the WP:WEIGHT. As such, I propose the following for the first paragraph:

1. I am not sure why the connection with earned media is particually noteworthy. He did get a lot of earned media but I am not sure that it is that backed up that his falsehoods were the major driver (he is also a very unique public speaker) or that this was that important. It seems more important that he keeps telling falsehoods as the the President of the United States. In fact, now that he is POTUS, he will continue to get media coverage and his earned media coverage becomes less and less important as we move away from the campaign. 2. This basic fact seems relevant enough to be in the opening paragraph. At this point, this is just as noteworthy as him being a television personality. The fact that it is well document that that President of the United States continues to lie seems pretty important to me. 3. Multiple sources call these lies. These are plainly lies. Per CENSOR, we should just say that. Moreover, we should not be afraid to say that in the opening paragraph, if that is warranted. Casprings (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A different suggestion. "He made many false statements on social media during his campaign and presidency." Power~enwiki (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

When WP:RS start using the term, we should consider it. Agreed. We are considering it. So far, we are rejecting it. More importantly, we should not be scarred [sic] - I'm fairly certain there is no fear involved here. to use a word when the other explanations are unlikely and him being simply a liar is the most likely and obvious. Well all I can say is that what's likely or unlikely is a matter of opinion and highly subject to personal bias. If he believes what he's saying, he isn't lying, and you can't reasonably claim to know what he believes. Period. (I personally believe his pants are perpetually on fire, but I work hard to keep my personal bias out of my Wikipedia editing.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This topic is being discussed in the subsection above. You're welcome to suggest improvements there. Discussions about lead POV are currently on hold per "Lead follows body". --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is under discussion and the majority of editors seems favor change towards this direction.Casprings (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any majority supporting the word "lies". His pattern of falsehoods could arise from a number of things besides a deliberate intent to deceive, including certain cognitive disorders, delusional tendencies, even extreme carelessness or mental laziness. I think most of the sources using that inflammatory word are in fact doing so with political motivation, as they can't see into his mind any more than I can. As I understand it, WP:V policy requires RS for inclusion, but presence of RS does not require inclusion. (WP:CENSOR, by the way, has absolutely no bearing on this question.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. "False" is acceptable. "Lie" is not. Period. The reason, if it isn't already obvious: "lie" means deliberately saying something that they know is false, with an intent to deceive; it's a direct accusation against the person. "False" means saying something that isn't true, for whatever reason - which can include believing that what they say is true, through ignorance or being misinformed. --MelanieN (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mandruss and User:MelanieN: Intent can be assumed with evidence. More importantly for wikipedia, intent is being assumed by a number of WP:RSes in their commentary.
 * NYT: Trump's Lies
 * Quick takes on 'Gov. Junk,' Trump's odd lies and more
 * US News And World Report: 7 Takeaways From Comey's Testimony: Trump lies and is still in legal and political trouble. Sessions is, too, and the GOP is no help.
 * When WP:RS start using the term, we should consider it. More importantly, we should not be scarred to use a word when the other explanations are unlikely and him being simply a liar is the most likely and obvious.Casprings (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * RE: "Intent can be assumed": Not in a BLP. And not when ignorance or misinformation are equally plausible reasons for the falsehood. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fun Facts To Know And Tell: This does not generate a notification because the link was not created in the same edit as your signature. But let's pretend that it did.
 * Fine. We don't need to make our own judgement. We just need to look to the judgments of high quality WP:RSes, who are making decisions to use the term. The NYT: When to call a lie a lie . If you want to exclude our own subjective judgement, then let's turn to the judgement of the NYT and others.Casprings (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are looking to exclude our subjective judgement, it looks like we mostly agree that lying is not appropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article body gives "2016 Presidential Campaign" a topic weight of 0.25, "Business Career" a topic weight of 0.24, "Family & Personal Life" a topic weight of 0.13, and "Campaign Rhetoric" (false statements) a subtopic weight of 0.015. See "Donald Trump site:www.economist.com" and "Donald Trump site:www.bbc.com" ( and Donald Trump site:www.wsj.com ) for an indication of subtopic weights in the body of high-quality sources worldwide. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 06:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From David Leonhardt and Stuart Thompson, "President Trump’s Lies, the Definitive List", New York Times, June 23, 2017. "Correction: June 23, 2017. An earlier version of this graphic included an incorrect total for the number of days Donald Trump told a lie during his first two months as president. It was 20, not 25." --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We can't declare that Trump lies in Wikipedia's voice, based on a few opinion columns. I also don't think it's appropriate tone for an encyclopedia that prides itself on maintaining a neutral point of view. For example, we don't say that Pol Pot murdered his people or that Bill Clinton fornicates. It's sufficient to say that Trump frequently makes false statements, present a few noteworthy examples, and let readers reach their own conclusions.- MrX 13:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yours is also my point of view, user: MrX. Moreover, it is completely against the rules of Wikipedia that some users try here what is the notorious Trump bashing. Really, this should be stopped, and much more neutral point of view restored. To speak only of ″lies″ and to ignore some ″truths″ expressed by Donald Trump is very disturbing. It is e.g. true what he said during the election campaign, namely that the U.S. is highly indebted abroad. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Sometimes he tells the truth" seems like an odd thing to say about anyone, even a politician. 0;-D Isn't "truth" supposed to be the default for everybody? --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wanted to stress that it is simply forbidden by the rules of Wikipedia to evaluate Trump's tellings as "lies". No sources are real evidence for this. What is if the sources are in some of the cases deliberately deceiving us? We must avoid any a priori negative evaluation of his speeches and comments, especially in the lead of the article. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I find nothing in Mosaic law, ecclesiastical law, Sharia, English common law, the US Constitution, or international law (as manifested in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that says you have a duty to tell the truth. Statistically, the average person tells about one lie a day. Trump just does it in public. He's less "politic" about it. ("politic. Cunning, worldly-wise < a very politic adversary > ." Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) And though he's been fact-checked far more than all other presidents combined, he's been impeached three times fewer... --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

WEIGHT data discussion

 * The WP:PROPORTION subsection of WP:WEIGHT policy says:
 * Balancing aspects. An article ... should strive to treat each aspect [of its subject] with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
 * Here are some readable prose size data.
 * "Campaign rhetoric" section prose: 1.25 kB
 * Article body prose: 74 kB
 * Lead prose: 2.4 kB
 * "Campaign rhetoric" weight in article body = "Campaign rhetoric" prose ÷ Article body prose = 0.017.
 * Fair estimate of due weight in lead = 0.017 × 2.4 kB = 0.041 kB = 6.7 words.
 * Here are some Google results data for the body of published material found in one reliable source (the Journal).
 * Google Search, 'lied OR untrue OR untruth OR false OR falsehood OR whopper "Donald Trump" site:www.wsj.com' (time range = past 20 weeks) displays 101 results = 5 results/week (nominal).
 * Google Search, '"Donald Trump" site:www.wsj.com' (time range = past 2 weeks) displays 396 results = 198 results/week.
 * Due weight = 5/198 = 0.026 (nominal).


 * Nominal results are corrected by a factor of 0.75× to account for results not relevant to Trump's lies, untruths, falsehoods, or whoppers. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 01:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This seems like a pretty legitimate analysis to me. I appreciate the empirical approach here; we should experiment with this more. I wonder whether the results would change if we added additional outlets to our data set (e.g., what if we added the New York Times, Washington Post, and Reuters? Neutralitytalk 03:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I recall fairly strong resistance to mathematical analysis in Wikipedia editing (some of that analysis also by Dervorguilla IIRC). I see it as a potentially useful tool if not given too much weight, and bearing in mind that statistics can lie. But we reached the same conclusion without it in this case. The objective is to do what's best for the article, not to convince one editor that they are wrong. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources documenting Trump as a liar
That Trump is a liar of exceptional format has become abundantly clear to anyone who reads RS, and doesn't exclusively see Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars, WND, etc. All professional fact checking websites place him in a category for himself, he's that big a liar, and numerous exceptionally RS don't hesitate to call him a liar. We have plenty of RS which would justify doing so here. Attribution would be necessary, but that's the proper way to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)



























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































All of these appear to be newspapers, magazines, etc; primary sources, and generally all "news of the day" coverage. Are there references in books, etc. to this? Also, I would strongly recommend you reduce the list to ten or so. With a list of 300 references, reasonable editors are likely to ignore all of them. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * These are secondary and tertiary sources, all of the type we use all the time. Many are exclusively about his untrustworthiness and lying. Some quote books, but they would be of historical value, while newer sources are of the type we use most of the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I counted 37 opinion pieces in the list by doing a Ctrl-F for opinion in the edit view of this page. Those certainly don't count as secondary. It would be a good idea to remove those and any other opinion pieces that don't have the word "opinion" in the url. ~Awilley (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Awilley, that is not policy, neither as regards using opinions, or considering them primary sources, unless we were taking them from the author's own website. Even then, subject experts can be used.
 * Jimbo says we are to document the sum total of human knowledge here. That includes opinions. We just have to attribute them properly. Often, much of the determination of whether a statement is a lie/untruth/whatever is an opinion, and we document such opinions. That's nothing new. Failure to do so is a POV NPOV violation.
 * Even without the opinion pieces, we have plenty of rock solid, non-opinion, examples of blatant lies, and there are plenty of other very notable (not that that is a criteria for inclusion) non-opinion sources which can be used. There are plenty of fact checkers, famous individuals, very notable editorials and article series exclusively about the subject, books, etc. Even those writers who object to using the word "liar" admit that he tells massive untruths per reflex, and we can certainly also use some of the euphemisms, but "liar" should be used as well. His biographers and ghostwriters expound on this phenomenon and the reasons he doesn't understand, care for, or respect "truth", and why he uses lies as a tool for many reasons, some careless and some malicious and extremely dangerous.
 * I don't think we need any long exposition on the subject (there's enough for a very long article, as this is considered the most defining feature of Donald Trump in many contexts). We just need a few sentences here. When the article about his dubious relationship to truth, reality and facts is written, we can flesh out a section here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces are absolutely primary sources. Here's a quote from WP:RS: 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. I'm not objecting to the substance of your argument about Trump's disregard for the truth, but pointing out that using crappy sources weakens your argument. ~Awilley (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Awilley, we are in agreement, and firmly on the basis of policy. Such sources can be used ("are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author"), but must be attributed. That's been my POV here for at least 13 years: "When in doubt, attribute it." We present such content as their opinions, and opinions are part of the sum total of human knowledge which Jimbo says we are supposed to document. THAT is our primary job here. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is great research. I might start an RFC on this issue.Casprings (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)