Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump/Archive 2

Requested move 25 October 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Both sides have good arguments, but no consensus to move is present. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → Donald Trump's false and misleading claims – I suppose the current page name is supposed to be interpreted as ironic, but it is a misnomer. The reader looking for information on the falsehoods, fictitious claims, misleading hyperbole etc. uttered and tweeted on a daily basis by Trump, which is what the sources for this page – and many more recent ones that have not been included yet – say would not be looking for the combination "Donald Trump" + "veracity." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  ''. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.''


 * Support False and misleading statements by Donald Trump (no need for claim per MOS:CLAIM and this way is clearer) "Veractiy of statements" is too waffly/vague, and this isn't about Trump's statements that were true or whatever, this is about his propensity to make false statements. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * General opposition I chose the existing title because it is NPOV, neutral, and reduced the chance of the new article being accidentally deleted as an attack page. While I would encourage various redirects to assist readers in looking for what they want, I am unsure that putting one interpretation of the issue in the title is a good idea. Many of Trump's statements are defined as lies for example. It may be useful if I explain the scope of this article, which to examine the truthfulness of Trump' statements. Not everything Trump says is misleading and false, and my hope is that in balancing the subject for NPOV some attention is paid to things he says which are true. The article will never be NPOV if focused only on his false and misleading statements. Veracity means "conformity to facts; accuracy." I chose it above other options like; 	truthfulness, truth, accuracy, accurateness, correctness, exactness, precision, preciseness, realism, authenticity, faithfulness, fidelity. None of the other words appeared to fully convey the concept I was looking for. Statements I chose above other words such as "claims" or "comments" because the definition is "a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing." This is a broader and frankly better definition to be using than "claims" which means to "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof." A statement can be a claim, in some situations a claim cannot be a statement.  I avoided using an apostrophe because people generally don't use them in search.  The grammar of the move proposal changes the entire scope of the article. From being about the veracity of everything Trump says to being about a small number of claims which have been described as false and misleading. This is an encyclopedia and I don't subscribe to the idea that we should change titles to help with SEO on our articles. The reason you don't see this at the top of your Google search for "Donald Trump's false and misleading claims" is because the other sites covering it are longer established with more content. Making this article longer will increase its visibility. For these reasons, and possibly some others that I haven't mentioned, I cannot support the move to the proposed title. The alternative proposed as "False and misleading statements by Donald Trump" is marginally better and I am not opposed to it. I will just reiterate that the existing title is carefully considered to minimise NPOV issues and be neutral. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there are no particular sources focusing on the statements by Trump that are true (while there are entire books largely on Trump's propensity to say false things/lie), so I do dispute that The article will never be NPOV if focused only on his false and misleading statements. per WP:FALSEBALANCE. The reason this article is there is because there is a lot of sourcing focusing on Trump's habitual falsehoods, and I think we should acknowledge that in the title. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that really why this article is here? PackMecEng (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure no one would object if a true statement is included because it is notably/remarkably/exceptionally true. There are a few times where he's made clearly false statements and later been forced to admit the truth. That would certainly be allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose New title would fail NPOV for a BLP. Not that this one is perfect, but leaps and bounds better than what is purposed. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no special NPOV for a BLP. There is just NPOV. All BLP would require is such a thing be well sourced which it undoubtedly is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I mention for a BLP since those, while not necessarily written, have a higher bar than a non-BLP article. PackMecEng (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on procedural grounds. We should have a discussion first to find a better title, and only then have an RfC RM.
 * ALSO too narrow a scope. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * this isn't an RfC, this is an RM, and it is standard to start an RM without prior discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops! Still best to start with a discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose move to a PoV title. The current title merely says that the veracity of some of his statements is questioned, while the proposed title says it is a proven fact and does so in Wikipedia's voice. ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support False and misleading statements by Donald Trump per Galobtter. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Repurpose to two neutral titles: Writings of Donald Trump and Donald Trump's orations. The current title (and scope) is a POV fork and is unencyclopedic. Unencyclopedic in the sense that there is no similar article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  16:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support both the name I proposed and False and misleading statements by Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support False and misleading statements by Donald Trump R2 (bleep) 18:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support False and misleading statements by Donald Trump, with no prejudice to a new RM pending the outcome of the discussion below. "False and misleading statements..." is a much better name vs the present one; so it works for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – the article is more about falsehoods than about veracity (a misleading concept as most would agree). Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support "False and misleading statements by Donald Trump" — per false balance, and he is not known for the truthful statements that he makes. Catrìona (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * * Oppose — Not exactly conforming to a neutral point of view, is it? 'Veracity' is a more than apt word to describe the contents of this article, the proposed wording makes it sound like a fact instead of contentious as the article seems to imply. Basically, I am with on this one. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 16:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC); edited 16:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC).
 * Oppose - name and by deed plus TALK, this article seems a bit of run amok and failing the pillars or specific guidances such as WP:ATTACK, WP:POVFORK, and WP:BLP (i.e. avoid sensationalism).  Suggest first need to resolve what the scope is for a bit before trying to put a title to it.  In the meanwhile, do not move it.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:POVTITLE. Also, the proposed change would reduce scope to a mere list of false and misleading statements, whereas an analysis of Trump's communication style, rhetoric and "persuasion technique" (© Scott Adams) is a more encyclopedic way to approach the issue. To answer the OP's concern about readers "looking for information on the falsehoods, fictitious claims, misleading hyperbole", we have plenty of redirects such as, and .  — JFG talk 05:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly! JFG is so right. The proposed title would be like a straitjacket. It is far too narrow a scope, because the subject should be approached from different angles, with a broader scope. A natural SPINOFF list article for an actual list of notable falsehoods can be made, but this, the main article on the subject, should be more than a list of falsehoods. His whole relationship to truth, facts, and reality has been documented by myriad RS, and this should all be in here. The current title isn't that bad. It does allow for more than a mere list. Let's work within this framework until we are pressed to find a better title. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG is right the proposed is a WP:POVTITLE policy topic, but procedurally it's creation as a redirect while this talk was ongoing seems to have made a WP:RNEUTRAL issue. I'll file for deletion pending.  It should be consensus decision BEFORE action.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose the new title unnecessarily narrows the scope. feminist (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
How many RS have you seen that report true Trump statements because they were true? You appear to be misinterpreting NPOV and I would refer you to its section on false balance. You can't define this article's scope out of proportion to RS coverage on the subject. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Such things exist, but nearly always in the context of showing a true statement as the exception that proves the rule. It's truly remarkable when he tells the truth, except in totally banal matters. Experience teaches us that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" because he's a "habitual liar". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please use a little better sources than a contract reporter and a video of a discussion panel. It is preferred to use stronger RS for statements like that on BLP pages. Please see WP:IRS. PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I expect this to be an issue with many a !vote to come, so not directly replying to - WP:YESPOV means we certainly can state in wikivoice that Trump made false and misleading statements, because such a thing isn't seriously contested in reliable sources. And indeed the more reliable the source one uses, e.g academic sources, the more clear they are on Trump habitually saying falsehoods: Not to mention, of course, the numerous reliable media sources like PolitiFact, Politico, The New York Times, or The Washington Post among numerous, numerous others which state that he habitually makes falsehoods as fact. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He was notoriously indifferent to truth, repeating bogus claims long after they had been thoroughly debunked; fact checkers had a field day documenting a stream of falsehoods that never let up
 * the large number of manifestly false statements Donald Trump made during the campaign and has continued to make as President, statements in many cases easily refuted and almost invariably presented without supporting evidence. This penchant for falsehoods
 * Consequently, Trump can constantly state falsehoods
 * It's unnecessary, I think—when YESPOV also makes clear our duty to prefer nonjudgmental language—to insist on it as a page title, particularly when (e.g.) WP:NDESC also enjoins editors to avoid judgmental and non-neutral words in titles. I don't say you're wrong; merely that there's no over-riding necessity for a move in the face of our usual guidelines. ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, whatever the title is, the article's scope is going to be "False and misleading statements by Donald Trump", so I think we should acknowledge that, not pretend otherwise - this is one of the cases where we have to "judge" in a title because the article "judges" Trump. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's obviously the main and notable focus of RS, but we must avoid limiting it to only that. See my comment below.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * To clarify the issue, it is not an extraordinary claim that Trump does occasionally tell the truth. Politifact has a tracker of his "True" statements and he makes one every other month or so, some months he makes more than one true statement. I don't think this needs to be explained in the article to achieve NPOV but it does matter when choosing a title. The NPOV or lack of NPOV of the title is not completely tied to what content is in the article. Regardless of that. I created this article to cover the subject of Trump's overall truthfulness, the efforts made to verify his statements, and the consequence of his statements often being false and misleading. I did not create the the article to be a list of every time he lied. If I was creating such a list, it would not be called List of false and misleading statements by Donald Trump. It would be called List of statements by Donald Trump and maybe include one or two truthful statements. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody has suggested a list to my knowledge. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as well, imagine how long it would be! &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the tracker. Two true statements in May, and he was all tuckered out for the next 5 months :). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's avoid too narrow a scope. This isn't a list article, and it should examine the subject from all sides. My preference is covered here: Trump's dubious relationship to truth, facts, and reality. Actually, the current title is pretty damn good. We need a good discussion about this, because a controversial title will get this AfDed. Everyone on both sides of the aisle should agree on the title, and I mean EVERYONE.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Name the article however you want and as neutral as you want, but that doesn't make the article's scope any more encyclopedic. w umbolo   ^^^  17:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is arguably the most powerful person on the planet and this article is based on analysis of the truthfulness of what he says in multiple reliable sources, including almost every newspaper in the United States and internationally, and even entire books and academic articles by noted experts in their fields. The consequences of Trump's statements affect the livelihoods of millions of people. Coverage and debate on this issue has lasted years already. Why do you think the subject is not encyclopedic? &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A lot of people were powerful, but we have articles about their speeches, writings, views, philosophies, campaigns, strategies, tropes, rhetorics (Campaign rhetoric of Barack Obama), famous quotes, quotes from speeches, even specific lies. But is almost empty.  w umbolo   ^^^  18:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are not policy-based reasons for ignoring a very notable subject. Our job is to document it, without tendentious obstruction. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The proposed title change ... seems just evidence towards it being WP:ATTACK and WP:POVFORK.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks for the attack part, and nope. Existing primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced - it just seems more to-the-point to call false statements just that instead of the opposite of veracity. As for POVFORK, this page – whatever it's named – doesn't contradict the "False statements" section in "Donald Trump." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Explaining the context of wrong claims
I added a few clarifications to certain entries in the list of false statements, in order to help readers understand what Trump was talking about, when, and how his words actually diverge from reality. There's been a bit of back-and-forth with whereby we both tried to improve the text, with supporting edit summaries, until s/he deleted the whole thing, stating "that's not what he said". Better discuss here, taking this particular entry as an example: I believe we must mention this fact, so that readers may understand how Trump went wrong (he mixed up the level of crime with the increase in crime). I also believe that for most entries we should make an effort to explain the context and the mistake, rather than merely stating the false claim (explanations to be backed by RS, obviously). However, I'm not going to work on this further if editors feel strongly that we should only report Trump's error or exaggeration without explaining the context. Opinions welcome. — JFG talk 03:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump clearly was wrong when stating that "the murder rate in our country is the highest it's been in 47 years".
 * On the other hand, the fact-checking article notes that the murder rate had been increasing in 2015 and 2016, and contrasted that recent change with a decades-old steadily decreasing trend.
 * I support removal of the entire section. This article is not should not be about individual falsehoods but about the overall phenomenon and the aggregate numbers. We are not FactCheck.org. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can sympathize with your argument, however now that we have an article dealing exclusively with Trump's false claims, illustrating it with salient examples should help clarify what exactly everybody is so outraged about. If we keep only general statements about how Trump is the worst lying president ever, article quality will remain poor and pass for an opinionated rant. We need to see exactly how he is lying or misleading or exaggerating or confused or out of his depth or persuading or cheerleading or joking or "dog-whistling". — JFG talk 03:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And you can do all that without a list of falsehoods, assuming you have enough RS to avoid SYNTH or other OR (if you don't, you're already in violation of policy). You start with the concept and then provide an illustrative example or two. Not the other way round. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. There are several ways to skin this cat. Time for a survey. Hope I can articulate your position correctly. — JFG talk 09:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * None of us are mindreaders. We must not attempt to infer his meaning. We know only what he said. What he said is flatly false. Attempting to infer his meaning is spin. Numerous factcheckers said the statement is false. soibangla (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Contrary to your assertion, "Trump was supportive of the war until shortly after it began" is consistent with the source, and other sources. soibangla (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey
How should we treat the inclusion of specific examples of false claims? What do y'all think? — JFG talk 09:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Option A: just make a list of false claims without further comment (current approach)
 * Option B: add context to each false claim listed, mostly gleaned from fact-checker's detailed analyses (JFG proposal)
 * Option C: do not make a list, but incorporate a few examples of false claims into the general narrative (Mandruss proposal – I would assume we would in that case also explain the context around each example)
 * I lean toward Option C for the time being. I suggest that false claims be added to a separate list page at List of false and misleading statements by Donald Trump. Whether context is added there or not shouldn't bog down development of this article, which should focus primarily on the broader issue of Trump's dishonesty--at least, that's the scope I had in mind when I proposed this spinoff. I'm not opposed to including a short list here of the very most noteworthy statements, but I think we shouldn't focus too much on that for now, for fear that it would be very contentious and distracting. R2 (bleep) 16:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Option C, because the article will be better with a coherent narrative and less jumping between individual soundbites. A spinoff list of his statements is a consideration, the essential issue is that this article is not that list. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Option A: but the current approach is not "without further comment," it is or should be without efforts to create alternate realities soibangla (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Option C per me above, presuming that "the general narrative" conveys whatever nuance is adequately supported by reliable sources, and it cites said sources. I wouldn't consider one isolated article to be adequate sourcing for such interpretive content. Two in essential agreement, maybe. Must take care to avoid SYNTH. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC) REVISION: I guess I would accept content based on one isolated article if the source is high quality and the content is attributed. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  05:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The list
I have cut the list section from the article and placed it below. I would suggest that most of these facts can be used throughout the main article and that the list or any list of any type should not be recreated in this article. Because it will either be unmanageably long, or have an unsatisfactory and arbitrary inclusion criteria.&mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 01:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I endorse this approach. — JFG talk 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Notable false claims
Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact-checkers have rated false:


 * that Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States;  In 2011, Trump took credit for pushing the White House to release Obama's "long-form" birth certificate, while raising doubt about its legitimacy, and in 2016 admitted that Obama was a natural born citizen from Hawaii.
 * that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement;
 * that Obama was the "founder of ISIS" (with Clinton as co-founder) because of their withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011. Experts assert that the growth of the "Islamic State" can not be pinned on U.S. retreat alone, which itself was a decision of the Bush administration.
 * that the Obama administration was "actively supporting" Al-Qaeda in Iraq;
 * that Trump was "totally against the war in Iraq"
 * that Trump's electoral college victory was a "landslide";
 * that three states he did not win in the 2016 election had "serious voter fraud";
 * that Clinton received 3 to 5 million illegal votes;
 * that "the murder rate in our country is the highest it's been in 47 years"
 * that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower
 * that polar ice caps are "at a record level"  (see global warming, climate change in the Arctic, Arctic sea ice decline)
 * that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is the biggest tax cut in history, whereas Treasury Department reports show that tax legislation enacted by Reagan, Kennedy and Obama (making Bush cuts permanent) had deeper negative effects on revenue as percentage of GDP.
 * that wages are rising for the first time in many years
 * that he never said Russia did not meddle in the election
 * that he raised military pay for the "first time in 10 years"
 * that Nancy Pelosi supported MS-13
 * that the economy on his watch is the best in American history
 * that Paul Manafort has "nothing to do with our campaign"  (see Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections)
 * that U.S. Steel is opening several new mills. Actually, U.S. Steel did not open any new mill, but  re-opened several facilities where thousands of workers had previously been laid off, and the steel industry as a whole did open several mills.
 * that he enacted unprecedented defense budgets
 * that he and Republicans "will protect patients with pre-existing conditions" while "some of the Democrats have been talking about ending (coverage for) pre-existing conditions."
 * that USMCA is the biggest trade deal in American history
 * that his 2017 arms deal with Saudi Arabia would create up to one million American jobs
 * that Democrats want to give free cars to undocumented immigrants
 * that California residents are "rioting now" because of sanctuary cities

Submission as ATTACK page ...
I'm thinking this needs to be submitted as WP:ATTACK page and WP:POVFORK. (Being a bit at odds over the WP:BLP, WP:YESPOV, WP:SYNTH or weak sourcing possibly too ?) Seems further aggravated by it is running a bit amok -- rapidly -- in TALK and content it's using personal essays as a driver, media 'hesitancy' (portrayal phrasing), Did You Known nomination, spinoffs and about changing scope (include conspiracy theory and his family lies) and title and use of 'lies'/'lying' contrary to article consensus #7/#22/#29 and other discussions were this came from, category:Lying ...   It seems to me that this just was not focused or conduct stated in advance enough to be ready to go to an article and is running amok where restraint was the prior criticism discussion.

So -- I'm feeling that this should be submitted as ATTACK page. Short of WP:BLOWITUP, I cannot imagine a plausible way to address the concerns, and the WP policy at WP:ATTACK seems fairly clear: replace the article here with a neutral stub. Any plausible alternative paths in policy for evaluation and resolution of concerns ? (Ping esp. to User:PackMecEng, User:MelanieN, User:power~enwiki, User:JFG). Markbassett (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * While there certainly are valid concerns I still think the article may be salvageable through normal editing. However, I'm generally refraining from contributing from this article. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:power~enwiki. Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If you feel the article should be deleted, then nominate it for deletion. Oh, and no canvassing please? R2 (bleep) 04:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Ahrtoodeetoo Not a RFC here, so canvas is not applicable - that was a shoutout to a few experienced editors that came to mind over the policy seems to have only one path of WP:TNT. Kind of glad you're open to deletion, may see where that goes.  Markbassett (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The letters "rfc" do not occur anywhere at Canvassing. The rule applies to discussions of any type. I'm neutral (and not particularly interested) on whether that was canvassing, but your statement lacks merit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Mandruss The shoutout to experienced editors asking for alternative paths in policy is not canvasing.  "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way".   Will strikeout "rfc" there to remove the confusor.  Thanks, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how you label it, please don't "shoutout to a few experienced editors" of your choosing again, especially when those editors have all taken one side on a closely related issue. Do that again and you're likely to be reported. R2 (bleep) 15:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Ahrtoodeetoo - sorry, but you're talking contrary to policy there. Read Canvas about calling in others and also AGF.  AAnyway, rest  easy -- those editors are not involved here, are experienced editors, and take various positions.  If anything, I occasionally tell MelanieN she watches too much MSNBC and should mix in at least some BBC for wider perspective.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Ahrtoodeetoo - p.s. I will take your suggestion to file AfD though ... another also recommended that as the way to go. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, there is a big difference between seeing AfD as an option that can be used, and whether it should be used. Note, and listen carefully, that YOU are the only one who seriously interprets matters this way. Policies can be interpreted, and the broad consensus here does not interpret it the way you do.
 * Just because the content of an article is seen by a minority of American society (and the unreliable sources they use) as negative (while the majority of society and RS see it as documentation of factual events), does not make it an "attack" page by our definitions. The very wording of ATTACK does not describe this article, even though you claim it does. That is your SOLO interpretation (although you can find, and have canvassed, editors who will consistently back your defenses of Trump, RS be damned). The consensus here is that your interpretation is wrong.
 * An AfD is very disruptive and should only be used when there is a consensus to do so. I would strongly advise against it. Seek to improve the article by following an actual policy, WP:PRESERVE. Be constructive instead of destructive. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:BullRangifer to be more accurate, my interpretation was ATTACK and that had a prescriptive course even if it seemed a bit overkill -- it is a couple others that said AfD, perhaos not too seriously.  One of my big concerns towards that was the apparent inability to hear concerns accurately, in some cases refusal to admit a concern could exist, in others to not AGF and to voice assertions of bad motives or corrupt practice.   Look, I understand you and others did a lot here and are defensive about that, but where it is a lot of inserting positions long-rejected from Donald Trump and explicit in some numbered consensus -- that makes this a POVFORK.   You don't seem to be even trying to find sections of policy of concern here.  This article was generated while discussion about it was still fairly mixed at [Donald Trump]] and ... without a clear scope or governance it seems to have run a bit amok since then and TALK is proposing more and worse.   I will proceed to do what policy says is the AfD process and we'll see where that goes.  If it says that BR put in 17 things that need to go out, so be it, if it says add 17 more so be it -- but I'll suggest you take it as an actual, serious concern ... one that does not need permission to feel that way.   Anyway, you'll get to have your say too but I suggest you relook for parts of POVFORK that would be negative about this page and maybe we'll be talking about the same sections.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ummm....no, it's your interpretation of ATTACK that is the problem. No one else here agrees with you. A spurious AfD will be evidence to use against you, IOW notches in a boomerang, notches carved there by you. You don't need self-inflicted wounds. An AfD will clearly place you in the fringe category of editors who are disruptive. Not good. Please listen to the consensus here. It's against you and your interpretation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with starting an AfD without consensus. One of the benefits of doing an AfD now is that hopefully it will either bear out MarkBassett's theory, or it will put it to bed. Either way, it takes this silly nonsense off this talk page so we can focus on article development. R2 (bleep) 15:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An AfD does not require consensus to be filed - that would be illogically requiring consensus to pursue consensus ? And an ATTACK tagging very definitely is NOT told to wait for discussion. 'Upon finding such a page, identify it for speedy deletion by prepending the template, and warn the user'.  Tag it immediately is the way that reads.  The only option stated is the next line of perhaps immediately delete it as a 'courtesy'. "Attack pages may also be blanked as courtesy."  On the other hand, a WP:POVFORK issue directs discussing merger back or deletion, and implies that edits to adjust balance or remove negativity would also serve.  Look, these are serious concerns, the editor who did it saying he doesn't see it or assertions of evil motive just aren't relevant.  Maybe you might look at the policy for ways the article perhaps is gang aft aglay, or look at the material with it in mind that at least some people of not-unusual mindset thought it badly astray.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is indeed a spinoff, but the subject of Trump's "false and misleading statements" is quite clearly notable on its face. The appropriate remedy is to improve this article and avoid partisan assertions, be they too favorable or too critical of Trump. For example, the list of "notable false claims" is currently one-sided against Trump, and could be considered an attack, because it only shows the falsehoods in various assertions by Trump, whereas several of these statements are proven by fact-checkers to be exaggerations of real events, in typical Trump hyperbole fashion. Just spot-checking a few issues reported:
 * U.S. Steel did not open 6 steel mills, but per Politifact, the steel industry as a whole did open several mills, and U.S. Steel re-opened several facilities where thousands of workers had previously been laid off.
 * The murder rate is not "the highest in 47 years", but the increase in murder rate is the highest in 47 years, with sudden increases in 2015 and 2016 that reversed a decades-old trend of steadily decreasing crime rate. A break in trend is certainly cause for alarm, but Trump misrepresented the stats for effect.
 * We should also include analyses of Trump's communication style, and distinguish his rally rhetoric from his sit-down interviews and his deviations from prepared statements. Ultimately, I see good potential for this article to be quite informative, provided that it does not become a dumping ground for every controversy of the day. — JFG talk 04:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 2016 data was not available when Trump spoke. The 2015 increase was the largest in 25 years. 2014 was the lowest since reliable FBI records began in 1960. soibangla (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Soibangla - a SPINOFF is when a large section is separated by consensus -- this was not. It was a tiny area done while discussions had just begun, and fired off without a solid scope or governance stated.  It's since run straight fo jamming in things contrary to prior BLP discussions, e.g. the word 'lie' or 'lying', so seems to have run amok.   Seems ignoring things procedurally and policy and content here.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This article clearly does not fit what is described at WP:ATTACK. It just doesn't. It is a true WP:SPINOFF article, because the section in the main article is too limited. Here we can do the subject justice.
 * This is a notable subject and it is meticulously sourced. That it documents a particularly notable aspect of Trump which RS see as a net negative is just the reality of the situation, and we document it.
 * An article about Trump's true statements would hardly be notable (not many sources find it worth documenting when he mentions that the grass is green, and the WH is white. Those are indeed true statements, but really....?
 * His constant, and rapidly increasing, barrage of blatant falsehoods (Fox News and Sinclair do not report them), on the other hand, are so outside the norm that it is noticed every single day by journalists, authors, world leaders, psychologists, mental health experts, and sociologists around the world, and is constantly reported by them. Our documenting that is not wrong. It's what we do.
 * Ignoring it would be very unwikipedian, as would opposing the creation and development of this article. Let's improve it. That's the way forward. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:BullRangifer I suggest you read WP:ATTACK and note where the description fits this article and events. And a SPINOFF is described as a large section done by consensus, which still observes the BLP and strictures of the source page.  This was not a prior consensus nor a significant part of the BLP nor is it a neutral section.  Splitting off the first 100 days from the Presidency article would be a more reasonable SPINOFF.   That "the section in the main article is too limited. Here we can do the subject justice."  is not describing a SPINOFF intent to manage an overly large article, it is describing a POVFORK desire to.  And the apparent presumption or effect that old limits and policy are no longer applied, for example the consensus to use 'false' not 'lies'/'lying' versus pretty much immediately seeing 'lie' used.
 * Finally, I'll point out that in general the NPOV expansion of is not    , it is  .  If MSNBC runs   that is a valid market decision for their audience.  If Fox runs   that is a valid market decision for their audience.  But WP runs by NPOV - "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".  Making a criticism-only or criticism-almostonly article is not NPOV and also is not the most informative presentation for the topics.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder of how we are supposed to write NPOV articles: I fully agree. However I don't feel there is any point in calling for deletion, because the very subject matter (the truthiness of Trump's statements) is eminently notable, has been commented on by umpteen RS, and a lengthy treatment would be undue in his main biography. Let's make sure to improve this article by actually reflecting the breadth of coverage, not only parroting all the criticism. — JFG talk 09:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course it is not an attack page, the initial content was copied directly from the existing Donald Trump article and then expanded by a number of editors using reliable sources. Obviously the article is still very new and far from a finished item, you are welcome to suggest improvements. There is no policy based reason to seek deletion. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Frayae - it fits the description WP:ATTACK so ... yes it is. Whether WP:G10 lines match as neatly is a good point.  I suggest also considering WP:POVFORK as well, and the aggravating circumstances of (a) this is from a BLP politics article Donald Trump already under sanctions, (b) procedurally this was done while consensus discussion about the Trump section was still fairly negative so this lacked consensus, (c) the wandering of scope and title and just about everything  and that such is not being resolved, and (d) the effect and appearance and in some cases arguably announced TALK intent of circumventing prior consensus and other restrictions leading it into saying many flavors of negative thing...  I have gotten one shout-out back that suggested fix by edits, but I doubt my ability to tackle all that while the train is still running so ... seems time to template this and submit it to the process and whatever results.  Markbassett (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Label put on - It didn't seem as horrible as all that, but between POVFORK and fit the description WP:ATTACK, I felt it should be tagged. Also was not seeing any way to do 'hold' for fixes (or fixes underway) or other choice, and this one was running away so that seemed the best available choice. Will see what results -- maybe it goes to sandbox for working on, maybe the tag simply gets rejected ... now will see. Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You tagged the article against consensus, that's disruptive. If you wish to pursue this matter further I suggest an AfD. Otherwise I suggest this discussion be closed. R2 (bleep) 15:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Ahrtoodeetoo - No discussion is required, and ATTACK does not allowconsensus. I put in notice here as public explanation and a shout out to several others to check that.  As I read ATTACK, it is prescriptive for immediate deletion under the WP:DEL-PROCESSES "Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion.  Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion.  Speedy deletion should not be used except in the most obvious cases."  Again, having what seems POVFORK somewhat clear ATTACK plus numerous aggravating circumstances ... I tagged.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Frayae - never mind, Mandruss (a third editor) removed the label and directed to AFD, thanks to him and ok will do. Markbassett (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes don't worry about it too much, I am sure that the article will evolve naturally and end up perfectly good. You are still welcome to make or suggest improvements. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
The excessive use of quotations adds up to an overall neutrality problem. Many of the quotation marks in this article have a scarequote effect. For example you don't have to say that Trump called the election a "landslide." Just say he called the election a landslide (no quotes). Everyone knows what the word "landslide" means and what Trump meant by it. Then we have excessive negative quotation by his detractors. For instance, instead of saying, so-and-so said, "Oh, he lies a great deal," just say so-and-so says he often lied. Paraphrasing is encyclopedic, and we should be doing it as we go. I see these problems throughout the article. There are other neutrality problems with specific paragraphs, and I'll try to fix or tag those. R2 (bleep) 16:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * By all means do so, the addition of prose is a good way for the article to develop. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * : Whose neutrality are you disputing with this edit? Trump's? Barrett's? Or do you object to the wording of the sentence? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your question. My objection is with the repeated use of the word "lie" in that paragraph. Most of the cited sources don't say Trump lied, they say he made false statements. On top of that, the paragraph used the word "lie" 3 times, which seemed like gross overkill to me, even if we agree we can call it a lie. In addition the first paragraph calls this the "Trump family 'whopper', maintained for two generations" which implies that Trump's whole family has been lying for two generations, which isn't supported by the source cited by that sentence, and is only partially supported by the sources cited elsewhere in the paragraph. The whole paragraph could be re-written to more closely reflect the sources, rather than to paint Trump and his family as negatively as possible. R2 (bleep) 19:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, we definitely shouldn't use the world lie like that; I've amended the article per that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you had placed the "neutrality" tag behind the last sentence, I assumed that that's what it was referring to. If a tag is meant to apply to the entire section, it's placed beneath the title, AFAIK. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * R2: It's not an improvement when you turn a direct quote from the reference into Wikipedia voice as you did here, and then the next editor removes the source of the quote. : Anything important about Wayne Barrett? Where to start? Village Voice (includes a reprint of Barrett’s 1979 cover story), Politico,Vox, New Yorker,WaPo, MotherJones. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Importance in relation to this specific incident? Telling that Wayne Barrett said something doesn't give the reader more information unless his importance to this incident (e.g, was he the first person to reveal that Fred Trump was from Sweden rather than Germany?) is explained. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He may have been but I don't know. I didn't find any earlier mention than Barrett's book. When Fred Trump died in 1999 (the same year Trump "outed" his German descent by appearing in the Steuben Parade), the eulogy in the NY Daily News said he was the son of Swedish immigrants but I'm told that newsmedia prepare eulogies of the rich & famous years in advance. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That Trump was born in the Bronx to German parents is a verifiable fact and is not in dispute among the reliable sources. Adding in-text attribution (to Barrett or anyone else) creates neutrality problems. R2 (bleep) 00:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In The Art of the Deal
RE sticking to the sources: The same sources sometimes say "of Swedish" or "German descent" or heritage and sometimes "we’re Swedish when in fact they were German" or something along those lines. It seems pretty clear to me that even when they do not add "descent/heritage" that’s what they mean because both Fred and Donald Trump were American and American-born. It’s a matter of opinion who is cherry-picking sources and why. I wasn’t the editor who wrote the original text or added Haaretz, BTW, but I could argue just as well that you're removing RS to sanitize reliable reporting on Trump from the page because you find it too negative. CNN lists three sources for their reporting on the Trump family history (Trump’s uncle + the WH declined to talk to CNN): NY Times, Boston Globe, and Gwenda Blair’s book "The Trumps". The Boston Globe article covers the family’s German heritage in detail; CNN uses a short, very colloquial direct quote. The context of the quote (I bolded some text): Fred Trump’s business success masked a lie it was partly built on. The family hid its German heritage, in large part because Fred Trump was trying to sell apartments, often to Jewish tenants, in the aftermath of World War II. “He said, ‘You don’t sell apartments after the war if you’re German,’ ” John Walter, a family historian and one of Donald Trump’s cousins, said in an interview. "So he’s Swedish, no problem." As late as 1987, in his bestselling book “The Art of the Deal,” Donald Trump was continuing with the ruse, writing that his grandfather “came here from Sweden as a child.” But around this time, Walter said, he got a letter from a Swedish organization wanting to do a section on Trump in one of its museums. “Oh, boy, are we in trouble now,” he recalled thinking. Walter said that he told Fred and Donald to knock it off and own up to their German heritage. Blair, p. 159 (after writing that Fred Trump & family had temporarily relocated to Norfolk, VA, in 1941 to build housing for Navy personnel: As the children searched the skies for Messerschmidt planes, Fred Trump was silent about his own German background. Although he had spoken German when he had visited Kallstadt just before the Depression, in America only his parents’ generation spoke the language in public. He began to deny that he knew German and did not teach it to his children. Eventually he started telling people that he was of Swedish ancestry. NY Times: Fred Trump grew up in a country suspicious of Germans, especially young German men, with fears of sabotage leading to laws barring them from boarding boats and even from entering some cities. Some sauerkraut sellers tried rebranding it “liberty cabbage.” And so the Trumps became, quietly, Swedish.  In a 1950 Brooklyn Daily Eagle profile about Fred, Friedrich was identified only as a “former Klondike restaurant operator.” A 1984 cover story in The New York Times Magazine, a blown-up cardboard copy of which Mr. Trump keeps in his office, asserted that “the family is of Swedish descent.” “The Art of the Deal” kept that story alive. Mr. Trump was soon confronted with the truth, but as late as 1999, Fred Trump’s obituary in The Daily News overlooked the fact that the story had been debunked, calling him the son of “a Swedish immigrant father.” Mr. Walter, the family historian, said he had often discussed Friedrich’s life story with his cousin and how, at least in one crucial way, their grandfather was indeed not German at all. “I told Donald,” Mr. Walter said, that “if Friedrich got his citizenship back, we wouldn’t be here.” Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC) PS: Both the Boston Globe and the NY Times article are available online, and the quote from Blair's biography is short enough to not be a copyright infringement, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of quotes. What exactly would you suggest putting in the article? — JFG talk 18:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Space4Time3Continuum2x, but their concern seems warranted: "...you're removing RS to sanitize reliable reporting on Trump from the page because you find it too negative." This type of unnecessary sanitizing/censorship shouldn't happen. Simplifying is one thing, but this went a bit too far. The quotes above show a different story than the one we're telling.
 * We've reduced it to a few sentences, with none of the flavor from the sources which show it was problematic and deliberate deception. Taken all by itself, it may not seem like such a big deal, but it's part of the family's pattern of playing loose with the truth in every single aspect of life, business, and politics. It's that dubious relationship to truth which is the subject of this article.
 * If one oversimplifies each detail (like this one about the family lie), then the whole story ends up seeming like a molehill, when the sources actually did describe a mountain. That's a clear violation of NPOV, in which editors are to remain neutral in their documentation of often biased and negative sources. We must preserve the flavor and biases found in the sources, not neuter it. We don't document only neutral facts or opinions, we write about all facts and opinions, with their biases, neutrally.
 * We should also use all the RS we can find, and then include the relevant details from each one that is not found in the others. (That means we don't duplicate stuff, but we do add the refs for the sources where that material is found, at least a few of the best ones.) Together, all the RS, paint the fullest picture. We are not the creators of the story; we are the collators of the various details told by all available RS. We put the puzzle pieces together into a narrative that is faithful to the sources. The end result is a reasonably complete documentation of what all RS say. Editors need to stop getting in the way of the sources.
 * When I say "NPOV violation", I mean any editorial neutralizing and neutering of sources. Keep in mind that the NPOV policy makes it clear that neither sources nor content must be neutral. It is editors who must be neutral in how they handle sources. Make sure that RS are allowed to speak. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Current treatment of this Sweden story in the article looks neutral enough to me. Keep in mind that the intense focus on Trump's history of "playing loose with the truth" only was exacerbated after he entered the 2016 campaign, so that this story was artificially amplified. As encyclopedists, it's neither our role to hide it nor to elevate it. — JFG talk 09:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I objected to the Trumps being called "Swedish" and "German" as unencyclopedic. Trump's uncle and journalists sometimes colloquially say/write "he's Swedish" or "born to German parents" and "Swedish descent" or "German heritage" at other times, in both cases meaning Swedish-American or German-American. I added the quotes as proof so I wouldn't get hit with the SYNTH stick. There are many more—uh—falsehoods in the "Art of the Deal" – the pig underneath the lipstick is mostly a big gas bag, to stay with Tony Schwartz's metaphore – but that's for the book's page if I ever find the energy to tackle it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As the original tagger of the paragraph - I'm satisfied with its current state in terms of neutrality. I do think it could benefit from having an introductory sentence. "Over the years Trump and his father have repeatedly made false statements about their family origins," or something like that. R2 (bleep) 16:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. How about this: "Over the years, Trump and his father repeatedly made false statements about their family origins, and Donald embellished the story." That's actually why this topic is relevant in THIS article; Donald added to the story, long after it was "necessary" to hide their German origins. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Surprised to see such an article
Doesn't BLP apply? Isn't there a better article to put this into? Is a separate article desirable with such a title? --Jaydayal (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the issue? Some concerns about the existence of the article were raised and addressed in a previous discussion. R2 (bleep) 07:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. No. Yes. - MrX 🖋 12:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah it is kind of a crap article started by a POV pushing sock puppet but I doubt it is going anywhere. Plus it is probably better the people really into this article stay at this article. PackMecEng (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be hard pressed to find a viewpoint more widely espoused in reliable sources, the viewpoint that Trump is a distinct departure from the normand that that's a problem. If there are reliable sources saying that his statements are nothing more than politics as usual, or nothing to get all worked up about, you can present some links here and that viewpoint will be included in proportion to its overall presence in reliable sources (ie a very small proportion). That's Wikipedia policy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * See what I mean? PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't forget, guys. Anti-Trump cabal meeting Friday at 8pm UTC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll bring the left over turkey! Going to make some cranberry sauce for tomorrow soon as well. Just saying PackMecEng (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Mueller Exposes the Culture of Lying That Surrounds Trump
BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump created the need for a new fact checker category, the "Bottomless Pinocchio"
Meet the Bottomless Pinocchio, a new rating for a false claim repeated over and over again BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit: I believe it's lead-worthy. Does anyone agree? R2 (bleep) 19:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. PackMecEng (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't go in the lead because it's hot off the presses. It should go in the lead if it's a significant point. In my opinion, that means we would have a least a couple of paragraphs about it in the body of the article first.- MrX 🖋 19:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't wait for the presses to cool down before including something in a lead section, and we also don't demand content in the body as a prerequisite. If a famous person dies, for instance, no one would question the death going straight into the lead section as soon as it was verifiable. Requiring content to be in the body before the going into the lead inhibits article development. R2 (bleep) 19:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LEAD. Specifically "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." so yes, it needs to be in the body first. PackMecEng (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading that statement incorrectly to imply its inverse, but no matter, the content is in the body so it's a non-issue here. R2 (bleep) 20:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The source is mentioned in the body, the content you added to the lead is not. Also that is not how the lead works, the lead summaries what is in the body. Content cannot stand on it's own there. PackMecEng (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead by summarizing the article. I see no reason why "Bottomless Pinocchio", "King of Whoppers", or any other terms of that sort need be mentioned explicitly in the lead. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree on that point, but your additions don't adequately reflect the body or the source. The point of the source isn't that Trump has repeated many false statements--that's been reported on by Kessler and others many times before. The point is that he has repeated some of his false statements so many times, even after he's been publicly called out on them, that there's no way to interpret his behavior as anything other than systematic lying. R2 (bleep) 20:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Lede Section
I attempted to expand the lede, but felt I was "sugar coat"-ing and  felt it was redundant. The goal of the lede section is to summarize the article, so of course it will be redundant; the current version is clearly insufficient. I don't see how explaining that he's been lying for 30 years is sugar-coating; the article doesn't really mention anything before the 1980s, simply describing him as "brash" in the 70s. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Trump has had a reputation for stretching the truth since the 1980s, calling it 'truthful hyperbole' in his book The Art of the Deal. His claims about his wealth and charitable donations were often found to be exaggerated. As a presidential candidate, many of his statements were misleading or false.  This continued after he was elected president, with fact-checking sites noting many false statements that he made repeatedly as president."


 * True. "stretching the truth" is a WP:EUPHEMISM. "truthful hyperbole" is just another word for exaggeration (a form of deceit). There no need to date limit his lying. It's implausible that it started in the 1980s. I am OK with the rest of the material.- MrX 🖋 01:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with MrX on the first new paragraph. It gave too much weight to Trump's own self-description ("truthful hyperbole" and "exaggerations") and not enough to what the reliable sources say ("false"). The second new paragraph seemed almost wholly redundant with what we already had. If the point of that was to say that he continued to make false statements during his campaign and presidency, then we should just say that, and we don't need a whole paragraph for it. R2 (bleep) 01:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump's falsehoods on hush-money payments are 'coming home to roost'
The blurb on the WaPo website:


 * "Trump shifts as denials of payoffs prove to be untrue. The evolving strategy on the hush-money allegations is textbook Donald Trump: Tell one version of events until it falls apart, then tell a new version and so on — until the danger passes."

The article likely has something similar, but I hit the paywall. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump routinely says things that aren't true. Few Americans believe him
Trump routinely says things that aren't true. Few Americans believe him, according to a Washington Post Fact Checker poll.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion notice
Talk:Donald Trump &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Amanda Carpenter's book from 'further reading'
She's not an expert. The book is not a RS. It does not belong here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to including it. It is an RS, as it was published by a reputable publisher, but I don't think that even matters as I don't believe reliability is a prerequisite for further reading links. The book was pretty positively reviewed by mainstream publications such as WaPo and WSJ. R2 (bleep) 19:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * added it, perhaps they'd like to weigh in. R2 (bleep) 19:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support all the items in the WaPo article for inclusion, along with the reference too. Some of those books, such as Truth Decay have wp articles.  On Bullshit might to useful for clarifying lying versus bullshit, etc.  The Republican War on Science gives useful background also.  X1\ (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Potential additions to Further Reading (via WaPo article, WSJ has paywall), comments?:
 * Post-Truth by Lee C. McIntyre
 * Truth Decay by Jennifer Kavanagh and Michael D. Rich
 * Gaslighting America: Why We Love It When Trump Lies to Us by Amanda Carpenter
 * The Death of Truth: Notes on Falsehood in the Age of Trump by Michiko Kakutani
 * On Truth by Simon Blackburn
 * On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt, for separation of definitions
 * The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, for background
 * X1\ (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good choices. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Without more discussion, I'll assume to add them all. X1\ (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done X1\ (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

refs for (more) US-Mexico barrier
refs for (more) US-Mexico barrier:
 * ‘The story keeps changing’: Trump falsely asserts he never promised Mexico would directly pay for the border wall
 * The Many Ways Trump Has Said Mexico Will Pay for the Wall

X1\ (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose making this article about specific falsehoods or political issues. Keep it "meta" please. If your intent was to use specific RS to support general content, that's unnecessary as there is ample RS at the "meta" level. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a heads-up on your approach; appreciated. X1\ (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is room for both. I agree that the meta issues should dominate, with examinations of how professionals and prominent people view his untruthfulness and personality. That would be fact checkers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social scientists, biographers, colleagues, etc. Then we should have a list of some of his more notable falsehoods. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Two things, we need to be careful with psychologist and psychiatrist comments giving the impression of a medical diagnosis without actually examining him. Also if we are going to add specific instances I think we need to start with this. Some hard hitting fact checks there. PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * LMAO! Yes, that's a VERY important one to start with... (It does illustrate that there is literally nothing, no matter how small, he will not lie about. He must be the focus of attention, at all times. Even with burgers, he has to exaggerate and make it sound bigger. These two articles make the point very well: -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I more meant it as commentary of the state of fact-checking these days. Fact-checking jokes and statements like "It was piled up a mile high". Obviously he did not have a mile high stack of burgers and to call that a lie is rather odd and alarming. PackMecEng (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Was the tongue-in-cheek nature of the "fact check" not apparent to you? R2 (bleep) 22:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly was and I found it most amusing as well. While yes this one was clearly joking it still is interesting overall when it gets taken seriously on both sides. PackMecEng (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Then we should have a list of some of his more notable falsehoods. Ok, with three conditions. That it's a small number, like <10. That sources, not editors, decide what are the most notable. That means at least several high-quality sources citing the same falsehood. And that I'm not the one who has to do that legwork. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ! That makes sense. I'll start working on something. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You make the rules ? Limit of 10 just because it may support your pro trump sympathies ? You won`t do the legwork when the shoe is on the other foot no pun intended ?107.217.84.95 (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)