Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump/Archive 3

"Landslide Victory"
I have a very strong feeling that this article is not serious at all. It is simply supposed to bash Trump as I see it. There can't be a serious article with that name.

Some things have been completely unduely put in the article to make it seem bigger. For example, somewhere you imply that Trump lied when he said his electoral victory was a landslide. Obviously it was a very convincing electoral victory indeed, and whether you want to call it a landslide or not, you can't claim it is an objectively false statement and put it in an article of a respectful encyclopedia. This sounds like a joke. Trump's victory actually was a landslide in the Electoral College, and even if you disagree you can't call it more than an opinion. It is not falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es157 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You're free to believe that, but reliable sources from PoltiFact, FactCheck.org, and NPR all disagree with you. We go by the reliable sources, not by editors' beliefs. R2 (bleep) 05:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The preceding is correct. I encourage you to read some Wikipedia content policy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Agree the article seems a WP:POVFORK verging on WP:ATTACK page, with DUE issues and the title seems sarcasm or at least not followed. But for the vague term “landslide” it should be self-evident that coverage seldom used that term, and individuals used that term seldom and use was in hyperbole and framing.  The results were shocking to coverage (described as “media meltdown”), and met the Landslide victory ‘landslide’ sense of broad Republican bandwagon producing an unexpected supermajority of seats and the sense of turning point in political views or behaviour.  But it just did not meet the usual sense of an overwhelming electoral college margin and most WEIGHT of characterization of his victory went to it being one of the greatest upsets and a surprise win, and by individual framing mentions of popular vote numbers starting the next day.  For Trump to call it landslide is fine, but WP should not portray that as a majority view.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Any EC win can be considered "convincing" simply because it was won rather than lost, but Trump's EC margin was by no means anywhere close to a "landslide" as he characterizes it. It ranks among the lowest of EC margins. His EC win was enabled by a mere 77,744 total popular vote margin across Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. soibangla (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC) The "apparently unconsidered use" part of your argument has no basis in Wikipedia policy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC) There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says we can make judgments about significance, notwithstanding the fact that editors do that a lot. The reason there is nothing in policy is that that leaves things wide open to personal biasthe perceived significance of any Trump-related content will naturally be greatly influenced by one's feelings about Trump. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All irrelevant. We're not here to debate whether Trump's victory was a landslide or not based on media reaction or margin or statistics. That's original research. Reliable sources say it wasn't a landslide and that Trump's assertion was false. End of story. R2 (bleep) 21:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing to add OR to the article, but I'll strike it anyway. soibangla (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah but who cares? We do have discretion to decide in that area. Is that something that actually matters? Keep in mind WP:VNOTSUFF. PackMecEng (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The decision of which falsehoods to include or not include in this article is a separate discussion. The OP's central argument was that Trump's victory was in fact a landslide, regardless of the cited sources. All experienced editors should be swatting down those sorts of "I know better than the sources" arguments. R2 (bleep) 18:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah but I am making a weight argument. That yeah its reported and yeah its verifiable. But it is insignificant over all. What was the effect of him exaggerating like that? PackMecEng (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ahrtoodeetoo The objection seems that this article failed NPOV in that a vague loose figure of speech “landslide” (Trump, Pence,Priebus) or “mandate” (Ryan) is a word choice. That the victory of Trump was more often called “surprise” or “shock” or “major” or “epic” victory and that landslide is a term that a few used does not make it “false”, it makes it a minority opinion or a different POV or another framing “spin”.  I don’t think the article actually implies it is a lie, but it does seem to posture that it *is* false rather than that it is *said* to be false, and the article description of Veracity does not differentiate between an undefined term with apparently unconsidered use and some formal term carefully calculated.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a straw man. You are using the word "false" despite the fact that the phrase "false or misleading" occurs in the very first sentence of the article. Three respected sources fact-checked the word and fact-checking is considerably more weighty than unsubstantiated opinion. Can you counter with fact-checking from three respected sources that contradict those three? How about two? If not, sources support a wiki voice implication that the word was at least misleading.
 * "Apparently unconsidered".... LMAO! Whether it was a "considered" false statement or an "unconsidered" false statement, it was still wildly false, by a long shot. It's just one more example of how Trump doesn't even TRY to tell the truth. The concept is only useful when it makes him look good, and totally irrelevant when it doesn't. He just throws out exaggerations and falsehoods in attempts to spin everything to make him look better. RS are pretty clear on this. The statement is false. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ??? User:Mandruss The article line does not portray it (or much of anything) as “or misleading”, nor would that be better. It would have the same NPOV concern of saying a word choice *is* misleading rather than as *said* misleading, and lacks as prominent sources saying that.  Again, OP objected that the figure of speech word choice that cannot objectively be said false.   Which seems a NPOV issue of the article posturing it *is* false instead of as *said* false.  And the word choice/meaning issue is clear enough within the same sources too ... Politifact noted others in the Trump transition team said “landslide” prior to the Trump interview of 11 December 2016.  Priebus was quoted as saying it re being a shift to new political vision, Pence as taking the most counties since Reagan in 1984 and a mandate for leadership.  These are clearly examples of the mentioned different POV or framing spin, and seem valid uses of the word for aspects unrelated to the electoral percentage POV.  (Conway had a tweet that night mentioning the count in “306.  Landslide.  Blowout.  Historic.” but I read that as just a giddy stringing of superlatives.)  Again, by WP:NPOV, that few said it or used it does not make it “false” (or “misleading”), that makes it a minority opinion or different POV or framing.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * cannot objectively be said false - Our opinions about that are completely irrelevant and without weight in this discussion. What matters is that three respected reliable sources have fact-checked the word and say it's false, while none have fact-checked it and say it's true (I asked you to produce some and you have not done so). I won't have anything more to say to you on this issue. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Mandruss That it is Opinion is kind of the whole point here. The OP objection is that the article title isn’t serious, broadly just bashing, and for this specific item the word choice is an opinion and not objective fact.  This objection to opinions as facts seems to me an NPOV issue.  WP:NPOV requires “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views” with the aim to “describe disputes, but not engage in them”.  The explanation has further bullets including “Avoid stating opinions as facts” and “Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts” and “Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views”.  To say fact-check declared him King of the whoppers is fine by “describe the dispute” but to declare that his presidency began with a series of falsehoods originated by Trump is sloppy and no longer portraying things as *said* false, and to go on and say “Trump went on to claim that his electoral college victory was a landslide”  was objected to as improperly presenting opinion of appropriate word choice as if it were an objective fact.   (I note it is also unclearly/incorrectly portraying the actual events or describing the dispute at a jamming of three topics at two lines there, yet vague phrases by Kessler are given four lines below including quotes which NPOV is also against.).  So yes, that word choice is opinion here does matter. “Decisive victory” or “stunning victory” or “shocking upset” or “devastating” or even “earthshaking” may be other descriptive of the election results, but that does not make less common POVs false, it just makes them something to be described as less common and here as something that has been *said* inaccurate and/or false.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bingo! You correctly identify why we write it as we do, because "that has been *said* inaccurate and/or false" by RS, and we base our content on RS. "“Decisive victory” or “stunning victory” or “shocking upset” or “devastating” or even “earthshaking”" are all opinions, and in this case would mean "surprising" and counter to the votes cast by citizens, since he lost the popular vote. They are opinions with a lot of leeway, unlike a "landslide victory", which has a more precise meaning in English. That is a comparative term without meaning, except as how it relates to other victories, and this one was far from a "landslide", as several other presidents won by far more decisive margins and impressive numbers. That it was "shocking" is obvious, since he won while losing the popular vote and with the help of Russian interference. That is indeed shocking, as he was quite literally elected against the will of the American people, and according to the will and help of the Russians. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh just remove it as undue weight. The purpose of this article is to give information on the most important things Trump has been wrong about, it is not a list of everything that comes along. Also quit with the personal opinions on Russia and his victory it is off topic and not relevant to the discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WEIGHT has nothing to do with our opinions of importance or significance. It's about amount and nature of RS coverage, nothing else. We (even you) routinely include one sentence with no more RS than we have here, so that pretty much kills any UNDUE argument. We're not talking about a whole article, a whole section or even a paragraph, just a sentence. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so much, as I explained above this is not a full list of everything and this item is not significant. Which is shown by the relatively small amount reporting on the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, this is not a full list of everything, and no one is saying that it should be, so I'm not sure what your point is with that. We're discussing one sentence, not a full list of everything.

Generally that would be WP:WEIGHT where editors make judgments if something should be include. I referenced list because because that is what it is starting to look like. Find every instance and dump it in here regardless of significance. You keep saying it is only one sentence, but that does not actually matter in this situation. PackMecEng (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly point out where in WP:WEIGHT it says anything about our opinions of significance. I've just read it again and I don't see that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will counter that with what is the defined rule for the number of RS for fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources? If it is not spelled out and defined it is editor discretion how many are required to fit that bill. Make sense? PackMecEng (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I repeat: We (even you) routinely include one sentence with no more RS than we have here. Do you dispute that? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 100% irrelevant. In this situation it is not worth mention, period full stop. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Clearly reasoning doesn't enter into this for you, making this entire "discussion" a waste of my time. Lots of Wikipedia "discussions" are like that, regrettably. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh if you don't like policy you are welcome to try and change it. WP:ILIKEIT is not is not a reasonable excuse. Thanks for the discussion though, take care. { PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just showed that there is no such policy, so there is nothing to change. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And I showed where it was policy, mind if I hat this whole mess as a waste of time? PackMecEng (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I mind. It may have been a waste, but it wasn't off topic or forum. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Would you guys mind taking this to user talk? R2 (bleep) 21:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been over for several hours. Should be fine PackMecEng (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ^^ True, and anyway this kind of thing is what article talk is for. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

USA TODAY has published 88 fact checks on Donald Trump. Read them all here.
USA TODAY has published 88 fact checks on Donald Trump. Read them all here.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And? are you proposing anything? &#91;Username Needed&#93; 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ??? It's obviously potential RS material. It's this type of stuff we use to create articles. It's sort of what we do here. You may not want to use it, but someone else might. You got a problem with that? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion
Just to note there was another AfD to delete this article as being an ATTACK page. Sorry I didn’t get to mention POVFORK there as well ... many folks just never have a chance to see it when it’s removed in less than a day, let alone time for there to be discussion or gathering of facts.

Thought I’d post the few suggested areas or approaches for improvement.

It would have been nice if the !votes had actually addressed the topic ATTACK, but most seemed casual remarks about GNG instead. POVFORK was mentioned with suggested a cleanup tag to address, and there was suggestion of attention to BLP, NOR, NPOV, and V.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to this AFD. Thanks. soibangla (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (permalink). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, they did address the claim of this being an attack page, they just did not agree with it. You are free to challenge the close at WP:DRV but this talk page should not become a repeat of the AFD. Regards So  Why  08:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Should this page be moved to 'False and misleading statements by Donald Trump' ?
Per title. starship.paint ~  KO   04:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Bump for those looking at their watchlists. Essentially I feel this should be changed because this article is more about the false statements than how many of his statements are true versus false. starship.paint ~  KO   06:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I tentatively agree, but would be open to considering arguments from the other side. R2 (bleep) 16:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:NPOVNAME. "Veracity" is the opposite of the subject of the article, and appears to be an attempt to sugar coat an inconvenient truth.- MrX 🖋 18:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How about formalizing this with a requested move? R2 (bleep) 19:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel this article should address both sides of the falsehoods issue, proportional to RS on each side. I think NPOV requires that. In my opinion there is considerably more RS on the Trump-negative side than the Trump-positive side, and most editors appear to agree (I'm not familiar with everything out there, or even close to everything). But that does not justify this proposed title, which would imply that we are ignoring the Trump-positive side. If the article currently ignores the Trump-positive side, that needs to be corrected. I think it's highly unlikely the Trump-positive side doesn't exist anywhere in RS, and I also doubt that it falls to the level of WP:FRINGE. Fox News still has a check mark in the second column at WP:RSP, and there are no doubt others that say this whole falsehood thing is overblown. Am I willing to do the legwork/heavy lifting? Um, not really. Mostly I just sit around, spout opinions, and do cite cleanup. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noting the previous RM on this topic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about that. Dunno if it's too soon to try again. R2 (bleep) 16:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, four months is too soon. Consensus can change doesn't mean try again and see if a different mix of participants yields a different outcome. It would be different if the first attempt had low participation or consisted mostly of I just don't like it comments, but neither was the case. The question has received adequate due process to suffice for a year or so. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CCC is about something different; that's when there's consensus and someone is later trying to overturn it. In this case there was no consensus. It's not disruptive to take steps to try to achieve consensus where there is none, as long as it's done fairly (e.g., by alerting the participants in the previous move request). That being said, it might be unrealistic to expect a different result this time around. R2 (bleep) 18:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I interpret "Consensus can change" as "Consensus or non-consensus can change", and the considerations are the same. There are no "previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances" as far as we know, quoting CCC, and certainly none given in this thread. Your last sentence is key when it comes to effective use of editor time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Mandruss mmm think in the general vicinity of Trump topics that repeated asks do happen and sometimes succeed ... But here I wonder if the article (whatever title) would allow for a section about the ‘Questioned or false accusations of Trump’ ? (Or should that be ‘Some falsehoods among claims of falsehood’?  I get lost after double negatives.)   Or does the title by definition mean any flaws or weaknesses of cases in this are automatically OFFTOPIC ?  Because the article does not LEAD by defining its scope, it begins with a declaration, and if title is changed that seems perhaps a scope limit too.  There are sources out there mentioning flaws and caveats in this topic, wonder what would happen with application of DUE here.  Is a ‘caveats to claims of falsehood’ seem feasible as a subtopic or what ?  Would it go into comparisons for context such as 77% polled say major news outlets DO report ‘fake news’, or mentioning that asks re ANY source whether they ‘trust that source to give unbiased and truthful information’ the numbers are going to be ‘no’.   RSVP thoughts  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I confess to serious difficulty understanding your writing. Let me see if this is responsive to your comments.
 * Is there a Fox News source saying the whole falsehood thing is overblown? R2 (bleep) 15:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I don't follow Fox News. Being as they and Trump are pretty much joined at the hip, it seems more likely than not. In any case, their viewpoint is likely to be quite different from, say, WaPo's and NYT's, but it isn't represented in this article AFAICT. And Fox surely isn't the only one. Consistent with the Doctrine (and with my general laziness), I think pro-Trump editors should go find that RS and perform these edits. That would be far more useful than filing spurious AfDs. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  22:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Editors with varying backgrounds and POV tend to access different sources of information. As long as they are RS, not Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc, they should bring them to the table.
 * The closest to a BullRangifer Doctrine I can think of that applies here is below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Warsaw Negotiation Round Senate of Poland 2014 01.JPG negotiation table''' "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." — BullRangifer ]]
 * As long as they are RS, not Fox News... As I said previously, per WP:RSP, Fox News (news and website, not talk shows) is considered a "generally reliable" source by Wikipedia. There are caveats given at RSP, including "exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics", but I see nothing suggesting we should completely ignore Fox. I think it would be highly improper for a local group of editors to override that judgment based on our personal views about Fox; the venue for that is WP:RSN and the question has no doubt been thoroughly flogged there already. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Mandruss Yes there is coverage of Trump-positive of telling truths. I was wondering more if coverage of caveats to these Trump-negatives seem within the article scope.  The assortment of remarks and instances on fake news, media bias, misreporting, loss of perspective, etcetera seems sizeable.  (Could have either, both, or neither I suppose.)   But at the moment I'm not seeing a perspective of 'criticisms and caveats/responses', nor 'Trump true and false',  I'm just seeing criticisms and some DUE issues here.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As others have observed, you are often difficult to understand, so please correct me if I got this wrong. Did you just assert that the numerous reliable sources that have documented thousands of Trump's false/misleading statements constitute "fake news?" soibangla (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I am responding to Mandruss input about Trump-positives (not presented in article) by saying  yes such exist but I was really asking if the diverse and sizeable body of caveats and responses for the Trump-negatives are out of scope.  The responses and evaluations of the current article content seemed missing — all the remarks and noted instances of criticism being false claims of falsehood, or said overblown, or tagged as fake news, media bias, misreporting, etcetera.  They may be OFFTOPIC with this title, and in topic with another title.  The article does not clearly define scope as being criticisms (in which case responses should be given too) or if it is about Trump (in which case praises of truth would appear in DUE weight), or if both flavours can appear, or if neither approach of counter views fit, or what.  Hence I am asking for TALK on what is in scope.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The current scope is anything talking about the truth or falsehood of any of Trump's statements. It's really not that complicated. If a source doesn't touch on the truth or falsehood of any of Trump's statements, then it might be useful in talk page discussions--e.g., to challenge another source's reliability--but it probably shouldn't be cited in the article, as doing so would likely be off-topic and/or coatracking. Remember, the purpose of this article is neither to attack nor defend Trump's statements, but to summarize what reliable sources have said about their veracity. That's it. R2 (bleep) 16:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than make vague allusions to "all the remarks and noted instances of criticism being false claims of falsehood, or said overblown, or tagged as fake news, media bias, misreporting, etcetera," perhaps you should add content from reliable sources that confirms those things. Otherwise, it might appear that you are making a baseless assertion of those things, which might cause some to wonder about your adherence to WP policy regarding reliable sources and take you less seriously. soibangla (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Donald Trump and truth"
This is what the article appears to be about. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Awkward, overly broad, and it sounds loaded. I'm having trouble thinking of any page titles structured that way. R2 (bleep) 16:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

1. "Trump's relationship to truth, facts, and reality"

2. "Trump's relationship to truth" BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

3. "Donald Trump's mistruths" or "Mistruths of Donald Trump".
 * "Relationship" is vague and stylistically awkward. "Donald Trump and truth" is similarly awkward. If the article is about the noteworthy history of Trump's habitually lying, then we should articulate that as plainly and directly as possible. We don't need to euphemize it just because he's prez.- MrX 🖋 12:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If the current title taken in isolation appears to give Trump a pass, I prefer that to the alternative, which would make the same error in the opposite direction. As I've said elsewhere, the Trump-positive RS viewpoint on this issue is greater than WP:FRINGE; the fact that nobody has yet addressed that viewpoint in this article is not a reason to propagate that failure to the title. I have no problem with balancing the article's strongly Trump-negative content with something less Trump-negative in the titlethat violates no sacred principle in my book. I simply read the title as a short form of Veracity or lack of veracity of statements by Donald Trump. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Merriam-Webster lists the following antonyms for "veracity": deceit, deceitfulness, dishonesty, lying, mendaciousness, mendacity, untruthfulness. Despite the widespread use of the word "lie" in the press, I think Donald Trump's lying is unencyclopedic in tone and a step too far. Not to mention that the article does not currently use the word in wiki voicethat would have to change in a big way before we could even consider the use of the word "lie" in the title. I could almost live with Untruthfulness of statements by Donald Trump, but none of the other antonyms seem workable. On the other hand I don't see how Donald Trump and truth is awkwardactually it seems succinct and to the pointand it seems less awkward than anything incorporating a "-ness" noun. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lies and misstatements of President / Donald Trump. Does exactly what it says on the tin. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate agonizing over article titles, but I'll agonize briefly anyway. First, the 100% accurate, 100% NPOV-compliant title is something like: Widespread news media allegations of an unprecedented pattern of false and misleading statements by Donald Trump. So we can start by accepting that the title can't be 100% accurate and 100% NPOV-compliant, and we will have to substantially compromise one or both. That's just how titles are.
 * The NPOV compliant version would be one that faithfully reflects what reliable sources have consistently reported and would not include any such attribution. If there is a RS version of reality that says Donald Trump does not frequently lie, I am not aware of its existence. Like the belief that the earth is flat, I would most definitely consider such a view to be fringe.- MrX 🖋 12:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've now spent about half an hour looking. I tired far short of a complete survey, but I'm prepared to retract the above comments and dump the burden of defending that position on pro-Trump editors. Per the BullRangifer Doctrine, they are more familiar with the RS supporting their views, if their views are supported by RS. It's telling that the editor who filed the SNOW-failed AfD has never commented on this page or edited the article's content. It's time for those folks to put up or shut up.

My suggestion of "Trump's relationship to truth, facts, and reality" is because we need to avoid any title that leads one to think this is to be a list. That would be a list article. Myriad RS, experts on lying, psychologists and psychiatrist, and notable people discuss Trump's relationship to, and war against, the very concept of truth. It's not just a matter of him making false statements, he's literally trying to destroy the idea of truth being important. That is content worth including here. We should avoid just a list here. A list article can exist as a subpage, spinoff, list article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A list article title would begin with "List of" or something similar, by almost universal convention. Let's not make this any more complicated than it already is. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're going to call me out, at least do so by name. Why would I even bother to try and fix an article as biased as this? Even if the argument can be made this is a legit topic, it still is a candidate for WP:TNT. I'll be happy to provide some sources on how biased some of this "fact checking" in the media is. However, I fully expect the reaction to this to be that these are biased sources and need to be ignored. Meanwhile, this article is full of sources that are nothing more than opinion pieces. Regardless, here are some sources  --Rusf10 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tuning out the less constructive aspects of your comment, thanks for the links. None of those are reliable fact sources supporting the position Mandruss was calling for. However, they do reveal that there are some noteworthy conservative voices objecting to how the fact checkers have been treating Trump. I think these deserve mention in the article...along with due weight given to the many more noteworthy voices supporting the fact checkers. R2 (bleep) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your response is the exactly the reaction I expected. Define "reliable fact sources", Is it something different than WP:RS? Because I made sure before I posted this that none of the sources were blacklisted.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Throw me a bone please. I thanked you and suggested policy-compliant changes to the article based the helpful parts of your input. You can't ask for more than that. If you don't understand why what you're asking for doesn't fit with our verifiability policy, then the Teahouse is thataway. R2 (bleep) 18:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't patronize me. And you didn't address my question. What is the difference between these opinion pieces and the other ones that are already used as sources in the article? What makes one opinion more "verifiable" than an other? Is anyone's opinion even verifiable? I believe our policy says opinions can be added if they are properly attributed.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll have to be more specific. Which opinion pieces already used in the article are you referring to? R2 (bleep) 21:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * R2, you have a point. To the degree that Trump-defensive individuals are cited in RS, there may be room to mention them. It's just a matter of giving them the due weight they deserve. When they defend Trump's proven lies, there might be a place for mentioning that so-and-so notable person defended his lying. When it's just a matter of differing opinions (hopefully we don't include much of that here), notable sides of the issue should be mentioned, but only if they are found in RS, not fringe sources. If they are only found in fringe sources, they get zero weight here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent falsehoods
I'm not a fan of where has been taking this article recently with a cataloguing of Trump's recent falsehoods, including direct quotations. It's putting too much emphasis on recent events, and I believe we agreed that this article shouldn't be turned into a list of every single truth or falsehood. If we're going to highlight specific falsehoods, they should be the few that stand out from the others for an articulable reason. R2 (bleep) 17:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - those were specific falsehoods I felt stood out from the rest. starship.paint ~  KO   00:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? R2 (bleep) 00:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Mueller investigation is very important to his Presidency. Trump himself was being investigated for a crime. He told a falsehood about his own exoneration. He told a falsehood about the investigation being illegal. Surely that is significant. starship.paint ~  KO   00:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this one is so clearly false and notable that it deserves mention. Trump was trained by Joseph McCarthy's dirty tricks lawyer Roy Cohn (whom Trump hired) to immediately, without hesitation, attack those who attacked him, and do it in a very specific manner: accuse them of that which they accuse you. Truth is irrelevant in this tactic.
 * This is not the first time he's done it, but now Trump is using this tactic with key words like "exoneration". Barr specifically said Trump was NOT exonerated, so Trump immediately, without hesitation, made a blatant lie using THAT word. I'm not a psychiatrist or expert on lying, but that says something about his disregard for the truth. He literally attacks it and uses the Big Lie propaganda technique all the time: repeat a lie strongly and often enough and people will begin to believe it. It works with his supporters. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging  , all of whom were involved in a related discussion in January. R2 (bleep) 22:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that this was sure to happen when "we" allowed in any quotes at all. Everybody has their personal opinions about what quotes are most importantfor varying reasons that all fit conveniently under the umbrella of "editorial judgment". I'm not going to wade into that, thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a matter of editorial judgment, but we can deal with it. Certain statements are so clearly false and notable that they deserve to be mentioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about the March 2019 additions? R2 (bleep) 23:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, we're talking about TWO additions, right? That's a pretty conservative number considering the number of falsehoods uttered every day, but that's what we must do. We can't document everything. Fact checkers are doing that. We just pick some of the most notable. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * are you referring to 'further reading' and/or (more) US-Mexico ? X1\ (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to the discussion titled "refs for (more) US-Mexico barrier". R2 (bleep) 18:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * how does this section related to (more) US-Mexico ? X1\ (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion about whether the article should be about specific falsehoods or political issues. Mandruss pushed for us only to include the most notable falsehoods, and said that "sources, not editors" should make the notability determination. Bull Rangifer agreed. There was no disagreement at the time. R2 (bleep) 18:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Classification and analysis
I wonder if there are there sufficient reliable sources attempting to analyze or classify misstatements to support a Classification and analysis section in the article? Is there any attempt in reliable sources to classify or categorize his misstatements, or to analyze what their underlying reason or purpose might be? (The current #Commentary and analysis section seems to be all about about frequency of occurrence.)

Philosophers (like Sissela Bok) and academics in other fields have looked at lying in general from a theoretical and analytical viewpoint, and I'm wondering if anyone has attempted to tie in the theory with the individual, or perhaps with a group to which he belongs (politicians, CEOs, candidates for public office, candidates for President, Presidents, etc.).

One thing that prompted this question was a recent interview in which President Trump repeats a claim that his father was born in Germany. This is false; Fred Trump was born in New York.

My assumption is that the main motivation for politicans to lie is in order to influence public or private opinion in order to gain a specific desired goal or avoid an undesired one. For example, during a political campaign it would be to gain political advantage and win public office, or after election to pass laws, align the public in support of future elections, or avoid censure. I also assume this would account for the vast majority of misstatements among politicians; but that's just my assumption&mdash;are there analyses of this from an academic viewpoint (rather than a purely partisan one) that we could use to inform a section about this? And in particular, does the comment about Fred Trump fall into this category, or is it something else?

Scholarly analysis and presidential biography lags behind news and opinion, so it's hard to find sources now, and we might have to wait some years to find really good ones. This Financial Times article is not a scholarly analysis but goes somewhat in that direction, and probably counts as reliable. Are there sufficient articles of this nature to support a new analysis section? Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the idea at least. In a quick search I didn't find any scholarly articles that quite fit what you're looking for, but here are a couple non-scholarly ones that might be useful: Vice, Vox. R2 (bleep) 18:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed move
recently changed the article title from "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump" to "False statements by Donald Trump", stating "article title should reflect what the article is about, not try to HIDE what the article is about." This rationale has merit, but given the controversial nature of the subject matter, I believe it would be worth discussing in a formal WP:move request instead. Opinions? — JFG talk 09:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In the previous discussion four editors (not including Volunteer Marek) supported a very similar title. No one explicitly objected and the discussion drifted from there. If someone does post a RM, it should have one proposal and editors should not be able to add third, forth and fifth options that make consensus impossible to determine. - MrX 🖋 12:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I support this move. It's a biased one-sided article and the new title accurately reflects this.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RM and WP:Process is important, I oppose this move (and virtually any other move of this article) without an RM consensus. I also think it should be moved back pending said consensus, but I'm not in the mood to do that unilaterally. I concur with MrX's last sentence. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no tyranny of the status quo on Wikipedia. There is WP:BOLD and as MrX points out, the consensus for the move already existed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was inconsistent with two of the three bullet points at WP:RM:
 * "There has been any past debate about the best title for the page." Check, as previously noted.
 * "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move." Trump is so controversial that someone could reasonably disagree with virtually any move of any article about him. I wouldn't need an RM consensus for Viracity of statements by Donald Trump --> Veracity of statements by Donald Trump.
 * Obviously those bullets wouldn't exist if they were superseded by WP:BOLD, as BOLD could be asserted every time an editor wanted to ignore them. Lastly, any consensus actually present would be easy to reach in an RM, RMs generally run for about one week, and we can wait that long for this move. The only reason to oppose an RM is if a supporter of the move thinks their supposed consensus might evaporate if there were more participation and a more organized structure. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * do you object to the move based on the content of the title, because process wasn't strictly followed, or both?- MrX 🖋 18:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Process only, at this juncture. I haven't allowed my thinking to go any further, yet, since I don't believe in setting aside process when it would serve my position on a content issue to do so. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Deny, deny, deny
has been shown to be a consistent strategy by Trump and others in his orbit, such as Roger Stone ("Attack, attack, attack – never defend" and "Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack") as a means of obfuscating the truth. It's straight from the playbook of Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn.

So this edit should be restored. In fact, it should be expounded upon here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump&diff=894397620&oldid=894385291 soibangla (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's one of the areas in which Trump is like any other politician. At least I don't recall a case of a politician who didn't continue to deny until there was absolutely airtight proof. "And besides, I don't have a dog." It's what politicians do, it's how the game is played. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you weren't aware that content was already under discussion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Here's my 2 cents worth. This one is quite different as it is Trump admitting a strategy based on deliberate deception, one modeled on the Big Lie propaganda technique. Myriad RS discuss how Trump uses it and gaslighting all the time. That's quite a notable admission from him and should be kept.
 * It's also an area in which Trump is different than other politicians. When a lie is exposed, most, with some exceptions, will usually stop repeating it, but Trump will repeat a lie, regardless of solid proof of the falsity of his statement. It can be debunked by everyone, and he'll continue to repeat it on Fox and in campaign rallies month after month. He really applies this technique relentlessly.
 * Fact checkers even created a new category of lies because of him, the Bottomless Pinocchio, for lies that get repeated again and again. He's the only one who populates the category, and that's because he is different than other politicians. He's in a class of his own. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're genuinely "sorry about that", you'll self-revert pending a consensus to include this content. So Trump admitted that he plays the game the same as all politicians (if we take Jack O'Donnell's word for it, whose name has somehow morphed into "John O'Connell" in the content). Big deal. We already cover the Bottomless Pinocchio concept elsewhere in the article, and the disputed content says nothing specifically about that. "Deny, deny, deny" by itself has been around at least since Nixon, and probably many centuries. It's old news. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I just self-reverted after getting home, just to keep the peace, but against all my instincts as a Wikipedian. It still belongs here as very appropriate content, and I'm about as unconvinced by the arguments against inclusion here as ever. They seem contrary to policy on several levels. This is exactly the type of well-sourced content we normally include. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove as undue and nothing special. As Mandruss mentions it is not unique or different from other politicians. PackMecEng (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read what I wrote above. It is very unusual, even proven by the creation of a special category of lies inspired by Trump. It's also an admission from his own mouth. That too is a gem to keep. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup I did read what you wrote and my point stands. Though I am starting to doubt you have read what others wrote on the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed I agree with that self-admissions are even more notable. This was one of them,   didn't agree. There's also another one out there where he admits he made something up while talking to Justin Trudeau on U.S./Canada trade. starship.paint ~   KO   05:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

At least I don't recall a case of a politician who didn't continue to deny until there was absolutely airtight proof + As Mandruss mentions it is not unique or different from other politicians. - Trump denies stuff even after they are debunked. That's not the same as what you're saying. See Trump disputes the "grab them by the pussy tape" after he already admitted: "I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize." Another example - May 31, Trump wrote on Twitter: "I never fired James Comey because of Russia!" versus May 11, Trump interview: "I was going to fire Comey ... in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story." starship.paint ~  KO   05:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mueller report (not a direct quote) Trump told McGahn to fire Mueller. Trump after Mueller report is released: "As has been incorrectly reported by the Fake News Media, I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so." Come on guys. Not every politician is this kind of liar. starship.paint ~  KO   05:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump denies stuff even after they are debunked. That's not the same as what you're saying. I completely understand thatwhy do you suppose I support the existence of this article? (A better argument than "Trump is a different kind of liar" is "Most reliable sources say Trump is a different kind of liar"; it would be great if we could keep our eyes on that critical distinction.) That doesn't mean it's WP:DUE to include some hearsay about Trump saying something that was not specifically about "denying stuff even after they are debunked". To make that connection on our own, without a source making it, feels very SYNTHy to me. It's making our own judgment that those words have different meaning coming from Trump's mouth, and that's bad Wikipedia editing. This article needs to be kept above that levelI much prefer to let reliable sources make the case and then summarize their findings and analysis, while providing links to the juicy details for anybody who wants them. That's encyclopedic. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Are there any concrete suggestions to edit the article, or is this just a forum thread? — JFG talk 09:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This content. I support its inclusion. R2 (bleep) 10:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks undue to me: anecdotal hearsay from one person decades ago. — JFG talk 14:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - is it "hearsay" when Jack O’Donnell (, you wrote "John O'Connell" wrongly - I'd recommend CTRL-C, CTRL-V) recounts Trump telling that phrase to him? I thought hearsay would be Jack O’Donnell recounting hearing someone else tell him that Trump said that phrase. starship.paint ~  KO   12:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. This person apparently worked for Trump decades ago, is not otherwise notable, and today gets quoted by a journalist as recalling some conversation where Trump said that denying is a good defense strategy. Hearsay, and that's a rather unremarkable saying too, which probably happens twice a day at any pub where people talk about their view of life. — JFG talk 12:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not gonna quibble over that one word, as my argument doesn't rely on it. Ignore it if you like. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why the snark? soibangla (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be snarky, it was a genuine suggestion for improvement. starship.paint ~  KO   01:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"Lie No. 10,000 is really a whopper"
Hmmmm. We're interested in only documenting whoppers (or something like that)? Well, here's a piece of historical revisionism that's blatantly false:


 * Lie No. 10,000 is really a whopper

To top it off, Trump "seems to regret" having rescinded his cruel family separation policy: "...seems to regret. During the interview Sunday, he called the policy’s revocation a “disaster”..." -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like clickbait. PackMecEng (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinion source. Also, it's unclear whether this statement was written up in the Post because it was No. 10,000 in Kessler's count, or whether it was because it really was a whopper. We should see how other media outlets handle it. R2 (bleep) 16:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Executing babies
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/us/politics/trump-abortion-fact-check.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”] soibangla (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Anybody can see he didn't mean that literally. Nobody fact-checks ridiculous hyperbolic metaphor designed to energize support from the far right (let me know if Kessler does, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't waste his time on that sort of thing). In my opinion we should hold ourselves above the level of political noise like that, and stop bringing the latest asinine thing Trump said to article talk pages. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Anybody can see he didn't mean that literally. Uh, no. How exactly do you know "he doesn't mean that literally"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * R2 (bleep) 00:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not just another asinine comment by Trump - part of a concerted push by Republicans. R2 (bleep) 00:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For every asinine comment by Trump there is a reason why it's not just another asinine comment by Trump. The use of Wikipedia as a political battleground is getting tiresome. Anyway it clearly has nothing to do with this article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What in your view makes it so clearly off-topic? Is your position that we should exclude all asinine comments? R2 (bleep) 00:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Anybody can see he didn't mean that literally. Nobody fact-checks ridiculous hyperbolic metaphor designed to energize support from the far right. The title of this article is not Asinine comments by Donald Trump. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A comment can be BOTH asinine and false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And that's not "a metaphor". A metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable". Saying "the clouds were sad today" is a metaphor. This is just a false statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t really answer my question. R2 (bleep) 01:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And I don’t understand this: Nobody fact-checks ridiculous hyperbolic metaphor designed to energize support from the far right. The New York Times fact checked it, so... are you saying it wasn’t a ridiculous hyperbolic metaphor designed to energize support from the far right? R2 (bleep) 02:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I jumped to a conclusion about the meaning of the words, thinking that he was using weird Trumpian hyperbolic language to call successful abortion an execution. My grievous error. I repeat my strong feeling that this article should be at summary level and not include a list of the most noteworthy false statements with no real objective way to determine noteworthiness. Most of his false statements are connected to one very hot political issue or another. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Struck "successful", a bad word to associate with abortion, which represents a failure regardless of one's position on abortion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - thank you for admitting your error. Can you at least strike the erroneous comments? To avoid misleading others. starship.paint ~  KO   12:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this talk page a cherry-pick fest or what? Enough. Trump talks in a way that a President is not supposed to talk. We know that much, no need to pile on with every example you heard today. — JFG talk 12:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - what is cherry picking and what is not cherry picking? By your argument Trump talks in a way that a President is not supposed to talk. We know that much, nothing Trump says deserves to be included in this article. starship.paint ~  KO   12:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The distinction is very simple, per our usual WP:NOR and WP:Due weight policies. If multiple sources have picked up this "executing babies" comment in outrage, then it's worth mentioning. If an editor decides that this phrase should be excerpted from a rally by Trump because s/he is personally shocked, then it's not worth mentioning. — JFG talk 12:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mandruss and JFG that this article shouldn't mention every non-trivial false statement. Readers would be better served by a cohesive article that talks about Trump's truthfulness more broadly, and if editors want to list every false statement then a separate list would be more useful and encyclopedic. However, if we are going to list every non-trivial false statement here as we're currently doing, then this one should be included. Trump is actively trying to mislead the voting public both about what happens in doctors' offices, and about what his political opponents are advocating for. That seems pretty significant. R2 (bleep) 16:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe "non-trivial" is a lower bar than what has been previously discussed, which was something more like "most noteworthy". And your argument is exactly the kind of OR-subjectivity that concerns me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Here's the most recent relevant discussion. We don't seem to have any consensus on inclusion criteria, which I find frustrating. R2 (bleep) 17:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I find that frustrating, too. Often the more aggressive win, regrettably, an unintended result of how the system works. I'm not very aggressive, generally. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How does one define the most noteworthy, ? starship.paint ~  KO   01:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not by "editorial judgment", certainly, since that would leave it wide open to the effects of personal bias. For example an editor's view of the relative noteworthiness of the executing babies comment will depend very heavily on how they feel about the abortion issue in general. had the right idea here, although I'd set the bar a bit higher than "multiple" (two or more) sources. I think I said many moons ago that about ten of the "most noteworthy" would be about my limit for an article that I feel should be kept at a higher level (I may have said ten or maybe twenty, I don't recall). You're not going to get 10,000 down to 10 (or maybe 20) without extremely selective criteria. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  15:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Deja vu! Mandruss and I have been here before. I used RS criteria for most noteworthy lies and created a list. Mandruss objected. Maybe we should all return to that discussion. Here's my subpage: User:BullRangifer/sandbox8. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a very useful list. No dead babies in there, so I hope we can move on from this thread. — JFG talk 06:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can use (the # of times Trump repeated the false statement) as our sole inclusion criterion. It would be useful for a sublist or subsection on most-repeated false statements, which I think would be worthy of inclusion, but there may be other false statements that have been covered more by the sources, or are somehow more significant than those. Perhaps they reveal something about Trump's thought process, or they were more impactful. Those shouldn't be excluded from this article just because they were repeated 29 or fewer times. R2 (bleep) 15:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the number alone isn't a good enough criteria on its own, but even my experiment with using that as an objective, non-editorial opinion-based criteria was rejected by Mandruss. I tried, but even that didn't succeed, only meeting rejection. I pretty much gave up on that project because of that rebuff.
 * I really think that the idea of looking at "repetitions of lies" has some merit as part of the selection criteria we should use. Can we make a short list of such objective criteria we can use? We need to get some movement on this process, otherwise all the wikilawyering and arguments above appear to be stonewalling. Even if inadvertently so, the effect is the same: we're left without a small section containing a good list of notable whoppers. Instead of taking months, this should take 30 minutes. WTF is going on? Why so difficult? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Stonewalling accusations aside, the we have a recurring issue about the scope/contours of the article that will keep coming up over and over again until we resolve it comprehensively, so I support doing so, probably in a dedicated thread that's about no one specific false statement inclusion criteria broadly rather than about any one particular statement. R2 (bleep) 16:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. BTW, is there a typo in your last five words? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No typo, but I hope this edit clarifies what I meant. R2 (bleep) 20:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah! Much better, and I fully agree. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The (redacted) Mueller report: A catalog of 77 Trump team lies and falsehoods
new item: X1\ (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

How about true statements?
Shouldn't there be a couple of examples where what he said turned out to be the truth, contrary to expectations? The topic of the article, after all, is "Veracity", not restricted to "falsehoods". TomS TDotO (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Any examples to suggest? — JFG talk 03:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

CNN town hall with James Comey
Comey was the guest, and Anderson Cooper (plus questions from the audience) was the host. There is some interesting discussion about Trump's constant lying and how he corrupts those around him:


 * Town Hall Meeting with Former FBI Director James Comey. Aired May 9, 2019

BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The Mueller report: A catalog of 77 Trump team lies and falsehoods


What should be used from this source? Here's our our current language: The Mueller Report asserted Trump's campaign staff, administration officials, and family members, Republican backers, and his associates lied or made false assertions, with the plurality of lies from Trump himself (mostly while he was president), whether unintentional, or not to the public, Congress, or authorities, per a CNN analysis. This really says next to nothing about the subject of this article. This article is about Trump's false statements, not the statements of the people around him. In light of this, the "plurality of lies" bit is totally meaningless. So the Mueller says that of the 77 false statements cataloged in the Mueller Report, a "plurality" of them were uttered by Trump himself. So what? That could be 5 false statements, or it could be 38 false statements. It seems to me it really doesn't matter how many false statements Mueller cataloged were made by Trump vs. made by his subordinates. That says more about the focus of the Mueller Report than it does about Trump. R2 (bleep) 17:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, this sister source is more helpful in this regard because it can be used to identify and count the falsehoods made by Trump himself.



By my count, Trump is listed in this source as having made 24 false statements in the Mueller Report. I think this is more informative and noteworthy than the weird "plurality" bit. R2 (bleep) 17:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

10,000 false or misleading statements
Re: &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why we'd need in-text attribution for Glenn Kessler's conclusion that Trump has made more than 10,000 false or misleading statements while in office. The source's reliability is untouchable, and I'm not aware of any other reliable sources that contradict Kessler or dispute his methodology. R2 (bleep) 21:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Attribution is not required unless the fact is disputed by other reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 22:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. For a highly controversial claim, wiki voice requires multiple highly reliable sources agreeing on it, not just not disagreeing on it. We're wisely not using wiki voice for that number at Donald Trump. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Who in the world of reliable sources says it's highly controversial? If other sources dispute it, that's worth consideration, but if not, we should treat it as a reported fact from an impeccable source.- MrX 🖋 15:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Not because of controversy or that there are sources that dispute it per se, but that different fact checkers give different numbers, e.g the Toronto Star has a different number ("The Washington Post counts over 7,500, and The Toronto Star over 3,900") - much as you have to specify that the numbers are "By April 2019", one simply cannot say "Trump had made 10,000 false or misleading statements while in office" without specifying who's doing the counting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct. Also if we are saying well this one fact checker think he has made over 10k but others are all over the place it becomes an undue issue. PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any DUE issues since the numbers are widely accepted and reported on (most used number), and the the only "dispute" really is if it is 5000 or 10000 - hardly meaningful IMO - all I think is that somewhere we need to specify that the number is WaPo's count. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX is correct. A strong statement of fact, for our purposes, is not the same as a controversial statement. When it is only controversial with the most extreme fringe and not with RS IN ANY SENSE, attribution serves to undermine the factual nature of the reporting. It gives way too much weight to the extreme fringe of those who care not about truth and defend a flood of dishonesty.

A parallel situation exists with the claims of anti-vaxers. They say there is controversy over the safety of vaccines, when in fact there is no controversy among scientists. It is only among the fringe that such controversy exists, and we do not honor that controversy by making it sound like there is a real controversy. So it is here. We should not present this as if it's just a controversial statement by one man.

Presenting facts as merely Kessler's opinion poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. It allows readers to feel they can just ignore him, when in fact they should not because he's presenting very solid facts. Facts should not be presented as opinions. Any attribution, if used at all, should be very short. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Attribution can be worded in many ways; "Washington Post claims" would be very bad attribution, but the attribution there is "The Washington Post has identified" which I think makes it clear enough that the WaPo's identifications of falsehoods are not really disputed in RS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. That sounds acceptable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If the concern is that we're focusing on Kesslers' analysis at the expense of the Toronto Star's analysis or other falsehood counts, then I suggest we say in the lead, without attribution, that Trump has made thousands of falsehoods. Then in the body we can detail, with in-text attribution, the Kessler count, the Star count, and any other noteworthy counts. R2 (bleep) 17:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * R2, bingo. That's a Solomonic solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, "thousands" solves the question elegantly. Until Trump reaches "tens of thousands". — JFG talk 00:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. With a fairly split voting, considering the almost balanced weight in numbers and arguments, there is no consensus for this requested move. (closed by non-admin page mover) qedk (t 桜 c) 13:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → False statements by Donald Trump – This move was done without RM here, but the guidelines at WP:RM require an RM in this case. No editor can reasonably claim that this move is not "controversial [or] potentially controversial". "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." My starting this RM does not constitute support for the move, and I may !vote later. Per MrX here, please !vote only Support or Oppose for the new title, and propose any other alternatives in separate RMs, bearing in mind that only one RM can be open at a time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. B dash (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Ok, my !vote required less thought than I expected, so here it is.I've previously argued that this article should address both sides of the issue per WP:NPOV, and that its title should reflect that neutrality. I've challenged editors to edit the article to include the pro-Trump side, proportionally to the amount of coverage in reliable sources. They have not done so, so I conclude that that side of the issue is insignificant or non-existent in RS, and that the proposed title is a fair reflection of RS and therefore NPOV-compliant. Editors claiming widespread media ⁮bias should find a different project to work on. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. I understand there's a neutrality concern here, but it just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. The veracity of Trump's statements is notable precisely because of the falsehoods. The overwhelming number of reliable sources on either of these subjects are about Trump's false statements, not about his true and false statements. Even calling the article "False statements by Donald Trump," I fully support including content about Trump's true statements when warranted by applicable community standards. The bigger concern I have here is, frankly, that "veracity" doesn't read naturally and may not be understood by some portion of our readership. Article titles should be accessible. R2 (bleep) 17:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It is more accurate and more natural than the current title. It is recognizable, commonly used, and concise. Trump has publicly made close to 10,000 documented false statements during his presidency, and many even before his presidency, so it is also the title that best reflects a neutral point on view based on what virtually all reliable source have been reporting for years.- MrX 🖋 17:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support due to the utter volume of coverage, obviously passes WP:COMMONNAME much better than the previous title. It may not look neutral, but neither are the sources. — JFG talk 18:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:V and WP:NPOV. Statements are rarely a binary true-false determination, which is why many fact checking services grade on a scale, and since those are used as sources here, we cannot artificially WP:CHERRYPICK and limit this article. The proposed title implies deliberate false statements, rather than merely incorrect or incomplete statements... and also means we would not be able to cover his true, accurate, mixed, or intentionally hyperbolic statements. --Netoholic @ 20:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposed title implies deliberate false statements I don't know where this comes from. False statements does not mean lies. R2 (bleep) 20:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * False can mean intentional lies. When you hear someone "gave false testimony under oath", do you think that merely means "incorrect" or "mistaken"? This is a dog whistle title which on its face is made to seem impartial, but which in practice implies intentional deceit. -- Netoholic @ 21:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This limits the topic to a list of his false statements. We use list articles for such things, and this article is much more, and should be even broader. It should cover what RS widely document, which is Trump's unique relationship to truth, facts, and basic knowledge. They analyze that relationship, and professionals have done so in depth. We should be going in that direction, not in a direction which severely limits our coverage. We would have to delete quite a bit of current content because it would be off-topic under the proposed title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is proposing changing the scope of the article, let alone turning it into a list. We can ask for clarification, but I'm pretty sure they're not envisioning that any content changes would flow from their proposal. R2 (bleep) 21:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not my proposal, as I indicated in the opening statement. I started the RM purely for procedural reasons and to save Volunteer Marek the effort. Regardless, the proposer's intent wouldn't preclude editors' opinions about the implications of the title change. (FFR, I'm out as a male per my UP. Feel free to call me one if you like, or not if you find it hard to keep everybody's pref straight. I personally avoid using the singular they whenever I can get away with it.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * R2, I'm aware of that, but scope and title are intimately related. A narrow scope article has a very specific title, and a broader scope article has a looser title, so to speak. To stay on-topic with the proposed title, one can only list "false statements" by Trump. That's far too limited. The title must allow for full coverage of the subject of how Trump relates to truth, facts, etc.
 * When I create an article, I start by spending a whole lot of time searching for what RS say about it. Then I collect all those sources according to the specific aspects of the topic they mentions, and some sources can be used for many aspects. The process gets quite involved, and in the end it is the sources and the way they deal with the topic that determines what the article ends up looking like. In the process may rudimentary understandings of the subject go through the grinder, mashed up, and radically changed, since I allow what RS say to determine what I believe about a subject.
 * Try that process with this subject and you'll find a huge repository of very serious data, research, investigation, and commentary from primo sources and very notable people and researchers. We barely touch the surface of this subject, and it's a shame, but we're lucky to have this article at all. Its very existence has faced a lot of opposition, and we still see attempts to undermine and delete it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - I disagree with your position. I don't see how in an article about Trump's false statements, that we would remove analysis of them (Trump's history and relationship to truth, facts, and common knowledge.). It would be unreasonable to remove that information from this article if it were renamed. starship.paint ~  KO   08:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article is about the veracity of his statements - their truth or falsity or something in between. A lot of the article is devoted to making those distinctions, in the form of fact checking. To limit the article only to a list of statements that are definitively false, ignoring the evaluation process and the whole cottage industry of deciding where to classify them, would lose any encyclopedic value in my opinion. It's is true that we don't devote much of the article to saying "Trump said xyz and that was true", for obvious reasons: the issue wouldn't even come up if there wasn't some kind of doubt or challenge to be evaluated. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is proposing changing to scope of the article to exclude any of its current content. R2 (bleep) 23:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support- The title of the article should reflect what it is. As per Melanie N, "It's is true that we don't devote much of the article to saying "Trump said xyz and that was true", for obvious reasons: the issue wouldn't even come up if there wasn't some kind of doubt or challenge to be evaluated." She's right, the article is one-sided and going to remain that way. Since everyone here wants to continue to have this biased WP:ATTACKPAGE], we shouldn't use the article's title to disguise what it actually is.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (Just in case someone missed it, the above editor put this article up for AFD per WP:ATTACK and the result was a SNOW keep.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And???--Rusf10 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Experienced editors need no further information. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, this article should be more than just a list of false statements, as would be required with the suggested title. Right now it is more than that, but it should be even more than that. It should document Trump's history and relationship to truth, facts, and common knowledge. That would, per NPOV, include any positive relationships he has to those subjects.
 * Anyone who has read RS on the subject has discovered that they document nearly everything he says and does, which is as he would have it, and they have documented that he has a rather dubious and antagonistic relationship to truth. It doesn't seem to interest him. That is not the fault of RS or editors, but Trump himself (and maybe the way his parents raised him).
 * Documenting those facts is not an attack on Trump, or anything even slightly resembling what we mean by an "attack page". Rather than editors attacking Trump, RS are holding up a mirror to him, and we are required to put what they write in the article. The article should merely reflect what Trump's mirror tells RS. If we want a more positive article, then "the man in the mirror" must change.
 * It is our duty to follow policy, and therefore we are required to document what RS say about the subject. The subject happens to be very notable, ergo any attempts to delete the article are against our policies for the creation of articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The proposed title implies deliberate false statements but it includes controversial ,disputed ,contestable and inaccurate statements not all the statements are false and fail WP:WEIGHT and has no lasting impact and includes Cherrypicking Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Its no secret about Trump and well documented via RS.Resnjari (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per per WP:V ,WP:NPOV and even WP:WEIGHT .Now Trump may have made controversial ,disputed ,contestable, inaccurate ,misleading or false statements but none of them have had a substantial or lasting impact like
 * George Bush's Read my lips: no new taxes
 * Clinton's statement that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky".Which was Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false ".Which led to Impeachment of Bill Clinton
 * Bush and Blair stating that Iraq has weapons of Mass destruction which led to 2003 invasion of Iraq . According to Blair, "the trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of alleged nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace."Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about your comments, since they seem to be more about the existence of the article and its content than about its title. Am I mistaken? Perhaps you can clarify how your comments relate to the title? R2 (bleep) 20:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - it's his false statements which are notable. This does not mean that his relationship to truth is not going to be covered. That would be further analysis and still appropriate for this article. starship.paint ~  KO   08:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I concur with the reasoning of soibangla (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - a list of truths would be unencyclopedic, as would a list comparing truths with lies, or just a flat list of all statements. It's expected that people say things and generally don't actively mislead, and that there are many matters in which there are differences of opinions. What's notable about Trump (per the commentary and investigation of reliable publications) is how frequently he says things which are demonstrably false. Like, not a difference of opinion, but something where there are objective truths but Trump says something different, whether deliberately or ignorantly. That's the encyclopedic content, and the title of the list should reflect that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments at Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump/Archive 2. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC).It
 * Comment It is a WP:POVTITLE and further the proposed title change clearly reduces or narrows the scope to a mere list of false statements, whereas an analysis of Trump's communication style, rhetoric and "persuasion technique" would more encyclopedic way to approach the issue.Note no single statement is significant like the ones of the Bushes or Clinton. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So, what you are trying to say is that under the current title "Veracity of statements" an analysis of Trump's communication style, rhetoric and "persuasion technique" would be included, but it wouldn't under "False statements"? I think they would be included under both titles anyway if Trump's communication style is about false statements, if Trump's rhetoric is about using false statements, and if Trump's persuasion technique is about using false statements. starship.paint ~  KO   01:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It narrows the scope and implies the article has only False statements as a WP:POVTITLE will do and further as MelanieN aptly states above "The article is about the veracity of his statements - their truth or falsity or something in between. A lot of the article is devoted to making those distinctions, in the form of fact checking. To limit the article only to a list of statements that are definitively false, ignoring the evaluation process and the whole cottage industry of deciding where to classify them, would lose any encyclopedic value in my opinion".Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bullrangifer. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 11:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia is not a place for "alternative facts", but actual facts. "False" is not a POV adjective when the falsehood has been confirmed by reliable sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Natural sounding title that reflects the contents of the article and RS coverage. Reywas92Talk 07:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose My impression is the same as BullRangifer's. Also, the current "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump" title suits the current article's topic and content.  Similarly, the Adam and Eve subtitle is not "Myth" or "Mythology", the subsection is concerned with the historicity (even if the result is that it's not historical).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the proposed move-to title implies a list article, which this isn't and because "veracity" captures the notion that statements may be true but misleading. Also, I think "veracity" invites a deeper discussion than just "false statements". For example, if a public discussion develops over a false statement by Trump, and Trump attempts to explain away the discrepancy between his statement and the facts, but his explanation itself is misleading, this whole scenario can be a section in the article, but "false statements" seems to be more about individual statements than discussions about how statements about other statements group together. Others may disagree but that's how I see it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but I would support Inaccurate statements by Donald Trump. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Statements can have various degrees of truthfulness. PolitiFact's scorecard on Donald Trump gives 5% True, 11% Mostly True, 14% Half True, 21% Mostly False, 34% False, and 15% Pants on Fire, out of 670 fact-checked statements as of now. Article's current title is more neutral. - Manifestation (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Time for bed?
The RM has now been open for 13 days, almost double the usual duration. The RM is currently listed at Requested moves and it's difficult to predict when an uninvolved closer will arrive to close it. There has been one comment, a !vote, in the past 8 days. There have been 15 !votes and the current count is 60% Support, a 3:2 ratio.AFAIK the closing rules are the same for RMs as for most discussions: There is no firm requirement for uninvolved close. I propose closing as weak support for the move. Comments please, and perhaps we can avoid simply supporting or opposing that close depending on whether we supported or opposed the move. If we do that in significant numbers, we might as well declare 60% support for that close, which is enough.(BTW, I hope it hasn't escaped editors' notice that the fairly close !voting shows that the RM was in fact needed and appropriate per the RM instructionseven if the outcome turns out to be the same. Forty percent opposition easily passes "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." Let's learn from that.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion deserves an uninvolved close since it's a particularly contentious issue. There have also been concerns raised about article scope. The last thing we want is for a close to be challenged after the fact. R2 (bleep) 21:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As nominator, you should really leave this to an experienced and uninvolved closer. From my experience with the RM closing backlog, s/he will come soon enough. — JFG talk 03:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As involved I should refrain from unilaterally closing it myself. Not from putting a proposal up for discussion. Fine, so we wait. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And an RM boffin just decided to give it one more week. Damn deadlines! — JFG talk 13:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate statements by Donald Trump
Can we please have a quick, informal poll on this proposal? R2 (bleep) 02:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They aren't notable enough for their own article, but some of them fit in perfectly well here. Everyone makes inaccurate statements, but Trump makes a remarkable number of false statements, as well as inaccurate statements designed to mislead. We should lay most weight on those that receive RS attention, and that is usually the outright false ones. Fact checkers keep track of them, but also provide analysis of misleading statements because of their huge impact. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2019 (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.

List of all Trump’s falsehoods and lies
I was looking for an article that would keep track all the falsehoods and lies that Trump has made and could not find one. Could this article be transformed into a list of all the false claims and lies that Trump has publicly said and not corrected later? Fact checkers could add facts that show how Trump has lied. This article cannot be slanderous because Trump has self said all those things, and this article only keeps track on what he has said. This article could become a record for everyone to remember what Trump has said and what kind of a man Trump was after he passes away. KMspecialist (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the only place to get reliable information on the web. The information you seek is available at the fact-checkers' websites (see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump and scroll down), and it would be unencyclopedic to simply copy their information into a Wikipedia article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Mandruss is correct. This article is intended to be about Trump's falsehoods (and truths) in general and not an exhaustive list. However, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so if you'd like to make that list as a separate page yourself, please do! In fact, I'll bet that if you started that list, other editors would come and join you to fill it out. You can plant the seed that changes the world. R2 (bleep) 15:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You agree that such a list would be unencyclopedic, but you're inviting someone to start it? I don't get it. Besides, visualize a page containing thousands of falsehoods, which would be useless to readers without some explanation of how each is false. Oops, suddenly we need a separate page for each month of the presidency. I'd be a Deleter in that AfD, and I don't participate much in AfDs. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have clarified. I think a list like KMspecialist was referring to would be inappropriate for this article, but not necessarily for a standalone list page. I'm not very familiar with the guidelines on standalone lists myself, but list length doesn't seem to be a basis for deletion. WP:CSC suggests that selection criteria should be used to keep lists to 32k or less. Explanations of how each item is false could be included, but in fact I don't think they'd be strictly necessary if there are links to the underlying sources. But this is all hypothetical. It would be interesting to see how an AfD on such a list were to shake out. I'm sure there would be a number of editors who would support keeping it. It would certainly satisfy WP:LISTN. R2 (bleep) 16:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unencyclopedic anywhere in the encyclopedia in my strong opinion. Actually that's what "unencyclopedic" means. We don't need to be duplicating the fact-checker sites in an effort to make Wikipedia the one-stop shopping for all information. When we have list articles, it's because that information is not easily available elsewhere, or it should be. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok then I respectfully disagree with you on that particular point. R2 (bleep) 17:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with KMspecialist. If editors want to go through the efforts to document, WP should host the list.  WP might not be the only source of information on the web, but we are the number one source of information on the web.  We are the ideal aggregator of sources, particularly a multiple source concept like this.  We then also list our sources which allow more investigative users to find where the information came from.  Most users are not that curious, they will not click on links and follow the information.  They might not get off the first page and below the horizon.  Our presentation of information, summarized in the lede then detailed below suits those needs exactly.  If you want to know about any subject, google it, what comes up first or second (after the self source and advertising crap)?  Wikipedia.  We should take our position as the world leader in information seriously.  Our omissions are just as complicit in censorship and propaganda as if we were to post incorrect or unverified information. Trackinfo (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Another point: There are many sources discussing Trump-lying in general but only a few in the specific. That means a significant WP:WEIGHT problem at detail level. Many of the specific falsehoods have only one source stating they are false. Especially for controversial or contentious content, passing WP:V is often not enough. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are a lonely voice in your (commendably consistent) position on that particular issue. In any case, I'm not interested in arguing over hypotheticals. R2 (bleep) 05:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

- let me tell you that .... that would be too much work.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - see above.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Documenting the statement, sourcing the proof to the contrary, multiplied by over 10,000 and some 30+ additions every day day, yeah it would be a lot of work. I qualified that if some group of editors were so motivated to go through the legwork, we should not prevent them from assembling that information.  I think it is a valid subject to address, but a lot of work.  My fear is that there are far too many who would gang up to prevent the list from existing.  It would come under attack from a POV crowd of deletionists that it will be squashed before it can have a chance to be developed. Trackinfo (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - what happens when fact checkers disagree? fact-checkers performed fairly well on outright falsehoods or obvious truths; however, the agreement rate was much lower for statements in the more ambiguous scoring range (that is, “Half True” or “Mostly False”). The results suggest that fact-checking is difficult, and that validation is challenging. Fact-checkers rarely evaluate statements that are exactly the same, and disagree more often than one might suppose, particularly when politicians craft language to be ambiguous.  starship  .paint  (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh boy. Check please. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)